Today it was announced that Justin Verlander is the American League MVP. Many people that aren't in the sabermetric community pegged Verlander as their MVP based on statistics that don't tell us as much as sabermetrics. His 24 wins and 2.40 ERA are nice but he might not have even been the best pitcher in the American League. More on that later though. The other two main competitors for the award were Boston Red Sox center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury and Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Jose Bautista.
Both Bautista and Ellsbury had great years. Bautista continued right where he left off from last seasona and Ellsbury was out to prove that he wasn't an injury prone outfielder.
Offensively Ellsbury had his best season to date. His WAR was 9.4 but there are other factors that should be taken into account besides WAR. He was never regarded as someone with a lot of power, his previous career highs in home runs and ISO were 9 and .114 which was in 2008. He did have a .155 ISO in 2007 but that was in 33 games. This year, out of nowhere, he had a .230 ISO to go along with 32 home runs. There a few statistics that could be a contributing factor to the increasing power. First is his GB%. In 2008 his GB% was 51.7%, then in 2009 it was 50.1%. This year it dropped by roughly 7%, dropping to 43%. He also saw an increase in his LD%. In 2008 he had a 20.3% and in 2009 it was 17.7%. Fast forward to this year and it was 22.9%. His BB% and K% didn't change much but his OBP was 14 points better than his career average. For the year he had a .376 OBP compared to a .362 for his career. His wOBA was also a career high, .402, .033 better than career average. One thing that really sets Ellsbury apart from everyone else is his defense. This past season Ellsbury had a 15.6 UZR, only behind his 2008 season where he had a 21.2 UZR. The point is Ellsbury is a really good defender.
The other player who had a great season was Jose Bautista. Check out my article I did earlier in the season about why I believe he's the best player in baseball. It may not seem possible but Jose Bautista had an even better season then 2010. He posted an 8.3 WAR and developed into a well rounded offensive player. He saw a sharp spike in his BB% percentage, something to be expected after his crazy power outburst the year before. His BB% jumped from 14.6% to 20.2%. Due to the spike in his walks he saw a sharp increase in his OBP, going from .378 to .447. His ISO went from .357 to .306 but that doesn't take away anything, .306 is ridiculous in it's own right. An observation on why he saw a power drop could be contributed to the increase in GB% that he saw. His GB% went from 31.1% to 36.9%. Despite all of that he actually created runs 15% better then last year. In 2010 his wRC+ was 166 and this past season it was 181. Unlike Ellsbury, Bautista isn't known as a defender. He played the majority of the year in RF where his UZR was -8.6.
Based on the information I have provided Ellsbury is the better MVP candidate, a big advantage Ellsbury that Ellsbury has is his defense.
We're not done though, we still have to look at Justin Verlander. Verlander had an amazing season, I won't take that away from him but he still didn't deserve the MVP. Some would argue that he wasn't even the best pitcher in the American League. At seasons end Verlander had compiled a 7 WAR and 2.99 FIP. One pitcher who was arguably better was Yankee pitcher C.C. Sabathia. Besides ERA C.C. Sabathia had a better FIP- as well as xFIP-. Sabathia's FIP - was 69 and his xFIP- was 75. Verlander on the other hand had a FIP- of 73 and an xFIP- of 77. Besides the FIP and xFIP differentials Sabathia and Verlander were close in a bunch of other stats. Verlander struck out batters 2.4% more of the time. 25.8% to 23.4%. Their walk rates as well as HR/9 were similar as well. One thing that Verlander did have was an extremely low BABIP. Verlander's was .236 compared to Sabathia's .318 BABIP. Verlander was defientely more luck then Sabathia this season. Verlander also has the luxury of pitching in the must easier division.
The AL Central is much, much more easier to pitch in than the AL East. The AL East had three teams that would have been in the playoffs in any other division and a fourth team that could've won a division like the AL Central. Out of 24 of Verlander's wins only 4 came against teams with above .500 records. Verlander also only played in roughly 22% of his teams games, not nearly enough to be considered the MVP. Based on how good the AL East is it should be even more impressive what Sabathia did during the course of the season. If that weren't enough Sabathia had .1 more WAR than Verlander. Sabathia was at 7.1 and Verlander had 7. WAR shouldn't be the only stat you use but it shows how good Sabathia was.
Based on all the information I presented you I would have to say Jacoby Ellsbury should have been MVP. He had an amazing offensive season as well as an amazing defensive season. The most valuable player is the player who gave his team the most value, and this year that was Boston Red Sox center fielder, Jacoby Ellsbury
Showing posts with label WAR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WAR. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Was Barry Bonds Better Then Babe Ruth?
Now I know you must be thinking that Barry Bonds shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as The Babe due to his supposed steroid use. The fact of the matter is though Bonds was never found to have used steroids, some of you might remember how people speculated that he used items like the cream and other things to hide the use but we still don't know. I did some research and even if he did use steroids, they haven't been proven to help hit home runs, only hit them farther. I also discovered that steroids typically help upper body strength and home runs usually come from ones lower body strength. Even if Bonds did take steroids starting in 1998 he was still putting up numbers that were ridiculous. If he did take them I don't believe they helped his power, honestly I'm not sure they did anything at all. Babe Ruth wasn't a goody two shoes either. In 2008 baseball historians found 53 bats belonging to Babe Ruth. Every single bat was corked. A corked bat shifts the center of a bats mass to the handle and makes the bat lighter, thus increasing the distance a ball is hit.
Besides the controversy that surrounds both players you also have to factor in the era that both players played in. Do we know if Babe Ruth would have faired better during the time Barry Bonds played? What about Barry Bonds, maybe he would have done better during Ruth's era. If you really wanted to you could break down all of the statistical data and find out for yourself.
You also need to weigh other factors. Ruth struck out during a period where strikeouts weren't something that were tolerated and he struckout a good portion of the time. Did he make up for that with his defense and power? Maybe.
One more thing, besides their overall career stats you also want to compare their peak years. Those years are generally last between the age 27 and 32 season.
Babe Ruth is quite possibly the greatest player to ever play the game. He would hit monster home runs and has put up some of the best seasons of all time. He also was a pretty good pitcher too. Was he the greatest player of all time though?
Barry Bonds, was equally impressive. He was an incredible 5 tool player who could hit the ball, play exceptional defense and possessed solid speed.
Babe's career WAR is 177.7, which is the greatest all time. Who's in second you may ask? Barry Bonds at 168.2. 10 times in Ruth's famed career he had a WAR over 10. Ruth's career ISO was .340 which is ridiculous, a testiment to his power. Two stats that really jumped out to me were his career .474 OBP and .510 wOBA. Over a career you just don't see those numbers. It's no secret pitchers feared Ruth, he walked 19.4% of the time and struck out only 12.5% of the time. During his career Ruth averaged a 197 wRC+, that number is staggering. To put in perspective Jose Bautista has a 193 wRC+. Ruth averaged more then that for his career! Ruth did have a pretty high career BABIP, .340 to be exact. I'm not sure exactly what caused that but if I had to guess I would assume playing at the Polo Grounds had something to do with it.
His best season was easily in 1923 when he totaled a 15.4 WAR, one of the best single season WARs. During 1923 Ruth posted the best OBP and wRC+ of his career. His OBP was a staggering .545 and his wOBA was .566. His ISO was a robust .372 and he also had the highest BABIP of his career, .423.
During his time period no one would hit home runs, much less as much as Ruth did. Who knows though how much can be contributed to corked bats. Less then 100 years later the closest thing to a modern day Ruth arrived.
And his name was Barry Bonds. Barry wouldn't just hit home runs. He would crush them. No one would hit home runs into McCovey Cove unless your name was Barry Bonds. Unlike Ruth, Bonds did it all. He hit, was an exceptional fielder, had a great arm, speed. The whole package.
His career numbers were fantastic, amassing a 168.2 career WAR. He went over 10 WAR 6 times, his best was 12.9 in 2001. Bonds' career numbers were nothing to laugh at either. He had a .309 career ISO, not exactly Ruthian but pretty darn good. His .444 OBP and .439 wOBA weren't too far off Ruth's. Like Ruth, pitchers feared Bonds as evidence of his 20.3 carrer BB%. He also had a good eye at the plate, striking out only 12.2% of the time. His 175 career wRC+ isn't as good as Ruth's but still pretty darn good. His .285 career BABIP was much more reasonable then Ruth's.
If you compare their peak years Ruth has the advantage even though his WAR when he was 30 was low. You can see how Ruth dominated those 5 years then slowly started to fall of the table. Bonds was good too but that spike when he was 35 is ridiculous. Still, Ruth had the way better peak.
Without question Bonds' best season was in 2001 when he had a .536 ISO. That is insane. His .515 OBP and .539 wOBA were also incredibly high as well. His wRC+ really jumped out at me though. It was 236! Not even Ruth had that good of a wRC+ although he was close, coming in at 235 in 1920. The scary thing is that wasn't even his career high. His career high came in 2002 when he had a 245 wRC+. He walked in over 25% of his at-bats, 26.7% to be exact and only struck out in 14% of them. He was hit with a low BABIP of .266 so one wonders if he could have had an even better year, which is scary to think about.
Let's see how they match up now.
BB%: Bonds
K%: Bonds
BABIP: Bonds
ISO: Ruth
OBP: Ruth
wOBA: Ruth
wRC+: Ruth
WAR: Ruth
I wasn't sure what to do with the BABIP but I gave it to Bonds because it was a more sustainable number but that interpretation can be left to you. Overall Ruth was the better player, his BB and K% weren't to far off Bonds and he was superior in career ISO, OBP, WAR, wOBA and wRC+. While both may have cheated the game both were still amazing players. Based on WAR Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are the two best players in baseball and both should be in the hall, not just Ruth. Bonds was hall of fame bound before people believe he started juicing in 1998. Whether he did or not we may never know but if Ruth and his corked bats are allowed in the hall then so should Barry Bonds.
Besides the controversy that surrounds both players you also have to factor in the era that both players played in. Do we know if Babe Ruth would have faired better during the time Barry Bonds played? What about Barry Bonds, maybe he would have done better during Ruth's era. If you really wanted to you could break down all of the statistical data and find out for yourself.
You also need to weigh other factors. Ruth struck out during a period where strikeouts weren't something that were tolerated and he struckout a good portion of the time. Did he make up for that with his defense and power? Maybe.
One more thing, besides their overall career stats you also want to compare their peak years. Those years are generally last between the age 27 and 32 season.
Babe Ruth is quite possibly the greatest player to ever play the game. He would hit monster home runs and has put up some of the best seasons of all time. He also was a pretty good pitcher too. Was he the greatest player of all time though?
Barry Bonds, was equally impressive. He was an incredible 5 tool player who could hit the ball, play exceptional defense and possessed solid speed.
Babe's career WAR is 177.7, which is the greatest all time. Who's in second you may ask? Barry Bonds at 168.2. 10 times in Ruth's famed career he had a WAR over 10. Ruth's career ISO was .340 which is ridiculous, a testiment to his power. Two stats that really jumped out to me were his career .474 OBP and .510 wOBA. Over a career you just don't see those numbers. It's no secret pitchers feared Ruth, he walked 19.4% of the time and struck out only 12.5% of the time. During his career Ruth averaged a 197 wRC+, that number is staggering. To put in perspective Jose Bautista has a 193 wRC+. Ruth averaged more then that for his career! Ruth did have a pretty high career BABIP, .340 to be exact. I'm not sure exactly what caused that but if I had to guess I would assume playing at the Polo Grounds had something to do with it.
His best season was easily in 1923 when he totaled a 15.4 WAR, one of the best single season WARs. During 1923 Ruth posted the best OBP and wRC+ of his career. His OBP was a staggering .545 and his wOBA was .566. His ISO was a robust .372 and he also had the highest BABIP of his career, .423.
During his time period no one would hit home runs, much less as much as Ruth did. Who knows though how much can be contributed to corked bats. Less then 100 years later the closest thing to a modern day Ruth arrived.
And his name was Barry Bonds. Barry wouldn't just hit home runs. He would crush them. No one would hit home runs into McCovey Cove unless your name was Barry Bonds. Unlike Ruth, Bonds did it all. He hit, was an exceptional fielder, had a great arm, speed. The whole package.
His career numbers were fantastic, amassing a 168.2 career WAR. He went over 10 WAR 6 times, his best was 12.9 in 2001. Bonds' career numbers were nothing to laugh at either. He had a .309 career ISO, not exactly Ruthian but pretty darn good. His .444 OBP and .439 wOBA weren't too far off Ruth's. Like Ruth, pitchers feared Bonds as evidence of his 20.3 carrer BB%. He also had a good eye at the plate, striking out only 12.2% of the time. His 175 career wRC+ isn't as good as Ruth's but still pretty darn good. His .285 career BABIP was much more reasonable then Ruth's.
If you compare their peak years Ruth has the advantage even though his WAR when he was 30 was low. You can see how Ruth dominated those 5 years then slowly started to fall of the table. Bonds was good too but that spike when he was 35 is ridiculous. Still, Ruth had the way better peak.
Without question Bonds' best season was in 2001 when he had a .536 ISO. That is insane. His .515 OBP and .539 wOBA were also incredibly high as well. His wRC+ really jumped out at me though. It was 236! Not even Ruth had that good of a wRC+ although he was close, coming in at 235 in 1920. The scary thing is that wasn't even his career high. His career high came in 2002 when he had a 245 wRC+. He walked in over 25% of his at-bats, 26.7% to be exact and only struck out in 14% of them. He was hit with a low BABIP of .266 so one wonders if he could have had an even better year, which is scary to think about.
Let's see how they match up now.
BB%: Bonds
K%: Bonds
BABIP: Bonds
ISO: Ruth
OBP: Ruth
wOBA: Ruth
wRC+: Ruth
WAR: Ruth
I wasn't sure what to do with the BABIP but I gave it to Bonds because it was a more sustainable number but that interpretation can be left to you. Overall Ruth was the better player, his BB and K% weren't to far off Bonds and he was superior in career ISO, OBP, WAR, wOBA and wRC+. While both may have cheated the game both were still amazing players. Based on WAR Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are the two best players in baseball and both should be in the hall, not just Ruth. Bonds was hall of fame bound before people believe he started juicing in 1998. Whether he did or not we may never know but if Ruth and his corked bats are allowed in the hall then so should Barry Bonds.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Appreciating Jim Thome's Career.
Last night in the 7th inning Jim Thome hit his 600th career home run off Detroit Tigers relief pitcher Daniel Schlereth. That should all but make it a lock on Thome's hall of fame career. Let's take a look at just how good his career was.
Thome's first 3 seasons can be ignored due to injuries, he only played 114 games and had 1 WAR overall. In '95 he really started to take off, posting a .243 ISO, .438 OBP, .431 wOBA, 159 wRC+ and a 6.3 WAR. Thome had a pretty ridiculous prime, posting absurd numbers from 1996 to 2002. In that tme frame he posted 38.1 of his 71 career WAR. That averages out to 5.4 WAR per season. His ISO in that span was .302, another ridiculous number. His BB% during that time was generally between 15% and 20%, it's understandable that pitchers feared him due to his crazy power. His K% was a little high, floating between 22% and 28% but he more then made up with it due to his power. He also had some high BABIP numbers throughout his career, his highest being .369 in '95 but during his career his BABIP has tended to be higher, his career BABIP is .321.
Thome's best season is without a doubt his '96 season when he posted a career best 7.9 WAR. That season he put up a .301 ISO, .450 OBP, .449 wOBA, 61.6 wRAA and a 163 wRC+. Like always he had an extremely high BB% that season, walking 19.3% of the time. His K% was a respectable 22.2%.
While he had a excellent prime, his career stats are just as good. He has a .281 ISO, which is good for 9th all-time. To put that in perspective he's ahead of the likes of Micky Mantle (20), Willie Mays (21) and Joe DiMaggio (22). Not bad if you ask me. He also has a career .403 OBP to go along with a career .406 wOBA. His career wRC+ is 145, another solid number. Like I mentioned before his career BABIP is .321, at this point in his career that shouldn't change at all. Thome is also walking 17.1% of the time and striking out 24.5% of the time, both great numbers, all things considering. We know he wasn't much of a defender so most of his value comes offensively, the majority from his power.
To me this says hall of famer right off the bat. There's one guy who had a similar career to Thome who isn't in the hall of fame who should be. His name is Jeff Bagwell. Let's check out this graph and since all three had similar careers and career WAR I put in Frank Thomas too.
As you can see, all have had very similar careers. It's a crime that bagwell isn't in but that may be a post for another day. The bottom line is Jim Thome is a Hall of Famer and the other two are as well.
Again, congrats on number 600 Jim Thome. I will always remember watching you reach history in a Minnesota Twins uniform.
Thome's first 3 seasons can be ignored due to injuries, he only played 114 games and had 1 WAR overall. In '95 he really started to take off, posting a .243 ISO, .438 OBP, .431 wOBA, 159 wRC+ and a 6.3 WAR. Thome had a pretty ridiculous prime, posting absurd numbers from 1996 to 2002. In that tme frame he posted 38.1 of his 71 career WAR. That averages out to 5.4 WAR per season. His ISO in that span was .302, another ridiculous number. His BB% during that time was generally between 15% and 20%, it's understandable that pitchers feared him due to his crazy power. His K% was a little high, floating between 22% and 28% but he more then made up with it due to his power. He also had some high BABIP numbers throughout his career, his highest being .369 in '95 but during his career his BABIP has tended to be higher, his career BABIP is .321.
Thome's best season is without a doubt his '96 season when he posted a career best 7.9 WAR. That season he put up a .301 ISO, .450 OBP, .449 wOBA, 61.6 wRAA and a 163 wRC+. Like always he had an extremely high BB% that season, walking 19.3% of the time. His K% was a respectable 22.2%.
While he had a excellent prime, his career stats are just as good. He has a .281 ISO, which is good for 9th all-time. To put that in perspective he's ahead of the likes of Micky Mantle (20), Willie Mays (21) and Joe DiMaggio (22). Not bad if you ask me. He also has a career .403 OBP to go along with a career .406 wOBA. His career wRC+ is 145, another solid number. Like I mentioned before his career BABIP is .321, at this point in his career that shouldn't change at all. Thome is also walking 17.1% of the time and striking out 24.5% of the time, both great numbers, all things considering. We know he wasn't much of a defender so most of his value comes offensively, the majority from his power.
To me this says hall of famer right off the bat. There's one guy who had a similar career to Thome who isn't in the hall of fame who should be. His name is Jeff Bagwell. Let's check out this graph and since all three had similar careers and career WAR I put in Frank Thomas too.
As you can see, all have had very similar careers. It's a crime that bagwell isn't in but that may be a post for another day. The bottom line is Jim Thome is a Hall of Famer and the other two are as well.
Again, congrats on number 600 Jim Thome. I will always remember watching you reach history in a Minnesota Twins uniform.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Joe Torre = Mark McGwire.
In terms of career WAR at least. Both of have career WARs of 70.8 and I can't say I wasn't surprised. I'm only a teenager and not the greatest baseball history buff so when I looked at their career WARs I couldn't believe what I was seeing. We all know McGwire was good, he may have had some extra help but that's besides the point.
In 17 years Torre put together some pretty impressive numbers. He had a career .155 ISO which is slightly above league average, he finished with 252 career home runs. He also had an above league average .365 OBP and a .363 wOBA. Torre also had a good eye at the plate, walking 8.9% of the time and striking out only 12.4% of the time. He did a good job at creating runs, posting a 129 wRC+. Since wRAA can fluctuate year to year there isn't an average calculated for players but over his career Torre had 344.9 total wRAA. His BABIP was .318, a number that can be stable depending on park factors. From 1963 to 1971 Torre had the best years of his career posting 51.3 WAR. That averages out to 5.7 WAR per season. Not too bad if you ask me. Fangraphs doesn't have UZR data for that time so based on fielding percentage he was .990 as a catcher, not bad.
Mark McGwire was a power hitter in every sense of the word. His ISO was .325 for his career, an absurd number. He had a crazy .394 OBP to go with a .415 wOBA. Every pitcher and their mothers feared Big Mac, he walked in 17.2% of his at bats. He struck out in only 20.8% of them. His career .255 BABIP shows he may have been pretty unlucky in his career but he still had monster numbers. His career wRC+ was 158 and he acclimated 562.5 wRAA. Both ridiculous numbers. On defense he was an exceptional first basemen posting a .993 fielding percentage. The jury is still out about his drug use but it's pretty obvious what he did if you just look at his career numbers and his body during the tail end of his career.
Still, I would have never guessed that Joe Torre and Mark McGwire would have been identical in WAR. For the visual reader here's a WAR graph.
In 17 years Torre put together some pretty impressive numbers. He had a career .155 ISO which is slightly above league average, he finished with 252 career home runs. He also had an above league average .365 OBP and a .363 wOBA. Torre also had a good eye at the plate, walking 8.9% of the time and striking out only 12.4% of the time. He did a good job at creating runs, posting a 129 wRC+. Since wRAA can fluctuate year to year there isn't an average calculated for players but over his career Torre had 344.9 total wRAA. His BABIP was .318, a number that can be stable depending on park factors. From 1963 to 1971 Torre had the best years of his career posting 51.3 WAR. That averages out to 5.7 WAR per season. Not too bad if you ask me. Fangraphs doesn't have UZR data for that time so based on fielding percentage he was .990 as a catcher, not bad.
Mark McGwire was a power hitter in every sense of the word. His ISO was .325 for his career, an absurd number. He had a crazy .394 OBP to go with a .415 wOBA. Every pitcher and their mothers feared Big Mac, he walked in 17.2% of his at bats. He struck out in only 20.8% of them. His career .255 BABIP shows he may have been pretty unlucky in his career but he still had monster numbers. His career wRC+ was 158 and he acclimated 562.5 wRAA. Both ridiculous numbers. On defense he was an exceptional first basemen posting a .993 fielding percentage. The jury is still out about his drug use but it's pretty obvious what he did if you just look at his career numbers and his body during the tail end of his career.
Still, I would have never guessed that Joe Torre and Mark McGwire would have been identical in WAR. For the visual reader here's a WAR graph.
Monday, August 8, 2011
What's Wrong With Carlos Gonzalez?
Last year Carlos Gonzalez had a monster season for the Colorado Rockies, posting a 6.6 WAR, .416 wOBA, 151 wRC+, 48.4 wRAA and a .241 ISO. One number that really stuck out though was his .384 BABIP which is extremely unsustainable. Now it's no secret that Coors Field is a hitters dream so let's look closer at some home and away splits and see how Gonzalez faired at Coors and away from home last year.
Coors:
BABIP: .391
HR/FB: 27.7%
ISO: .357
wRAA: 44.1
wOBA: .487
wRC+: 199
As you can see Gonzalez simply dominated Coors last year, posting a robust .487 wOBA, a .357 ISO among other numbers. At Coors, everytime Gonzalez is hitting a flyball it ends up in the seats over 25% of the time, to put it in perspective Albert Pujols had a HR/FB rate of 15% at home last year and 21.4% on the road and he's one of the best power hitters in the game. Those numbers just don't happen. I want you to take a look at his BABIP though. It's .391 which is absolutely ridiculous, no way is that sustainable through a whole season. Let's take a look at what Gonzalez did last year when he was on the road.
Away:
BABIP: .375
HR/FB: 11%
ISO: .164
wRAA: 4.5
wOBA: .339
wRC+: 100
All I can say is wow. His BABIP was still high but his other numbers were awful. His wRC+ is right at league average, his wOBA is in roughly the 65th percentile, his wRAA is slightly above average and his ISO is slightly above average as well. That HR/FB is what really surprised me though. Only 11%, last year league average was 10.6%. To simply put it, Carlos Gonzalez was average on the road last season. That just shows you how much Colorado hitters gain from playing in the mile high city. Let's take a look at Carlos Gonzalez this year.
So far he has a 2.2 WAR, .365 wOBA, 122 wRC+, 15.5 wRAA, .196 ISO and a .325 BABIP. Right off the bat his BABIP tells me he finally regressed closer to his true playing level but let's take a look at his splits and see what we can come up with.
Coors:
BABIP: .352
HR/FB: 15.9%
ISO: .234
wRAA: 17.8
wOBA: .414
wRC+: 155
Like I mentioned before it looks like Gonzalez is experiencing natural regression this year, last year's .391 BABIP has come down to .351 and has brought all of his other stats down with it. One thing I didn't post earlier is his IFFB% which is infield fly ball percentage or popouts as we call them. Last year his IFFB% at Coors was a crazy 5.3% and this year it's increased roughly 10% as it sits at 15.9% right now so that definitely hurts. On the road it's decreased about 1%, going from 13.7 to 12.9 so not much can be taken from that. I do realize Gonzalez was hurt a little this year but to me, it just seems like Gonzalez is going through natural regression at Coors. Let's see what we can get out of his away splits.
AWAY:
BABIP: .282
ISO: .143
HR/FB: 16.1
wRAA: -2.1
wOBA: .299
wRC+: 77
Wow. Gonzalez has been flat out bad on the road this year. His wOBA is about as bad as it gets. He's cost the Rockies 2.1 runs and has created 23 runs below league average. His BABIP isn't even that far below league average so that is kind of worrisome. Like I said he's been just flat out bad.
Gonzalez has been a huge disappointment this year even though he's in a very hitters friendly park in Coors Field. Will he rebound to last years' success or is this the Gonzalez we will contiue to see. I guess we'll find out next year, in the mean time he hasn't been living up to the expectations.
Coors:
BABIP: .391
HR/FB: 27.7%
ISO: .357
wRAA: 44.1
wOBA: .487
wRC+: 199
As you can see Gonzalez simply dominated Coors last year, posting a robust .487 wOBA, a .357 ISO among other numbers. At Coors, everytime Gonzalez is hitting a flyball it ends up in the seats over 25% of the time, to put it in perspective Albert Pujols had a HR/FB rate of 15% at home last year and 21.4% on the road and he's one of the best power hitters in the game. Those numbers just don't happen. I want you to take a look at his BABIP though. It's .391 which is absolutely ridiculous, no way is that sustainable through a whole season. Let's take a look at what Gonzalez did last year when he was on the road.
Away:
BABIP: .375
HR/FB: 11%
ISO: .164
wRAA: 4.5
wOBA: .339
wRC+: 100
All I can say is wow. His BABIP was still high but his other numbers were awful. His wRC+ is right at league average, his wOBA is in roughly the 65th percentile, his wRAA is slightly above average and his ISO is slightly above average as well. That HR/FB is what really surprised me though. Only 11%, last year league average was 10.6%. To simply put it, Carlos Gonzalez was average on the road last season. That just shows you how much Colorado hitters gain from playing in the mile high city. Let's take a look at Carlos Gonzalez this year.
So far he has a 2.2 WAR, .365 wOBA, 122 wRC+, 15.5 wRAA, .196 ISO and a .325 BABIP. Right off the bat his BABIP tells me he finally regressed closer to his true playing level but let's take a look at his splits and see what we can come up with.
Coors:
BABIP: .352
HR/FB: 15.9%
ISO: .234
wRAA: 17.8
wOBA: .414
wRC+: 155
Like I mentioned before it looks like Gonzalez is experiencing natural regression this year, last year's .391 BABIP has come down to .351 and has brought all of his other stats down with it. One thing I didn't post earlier is his IFFB% which is infield fly ball percentage or popouts as we call them. Last year his IFFB% at Coors was a crazy 5.3% and this year it's increased roughly 10% as it sits at 15.9% right now so that definitely hurts. On the road it's decreased about 1%, going from 13.7 to 12.9 so not much can be taken from that. I do realize Gonzalez was hurt a little this year but to me, it just seems like Gonzalez is going through natural regression at Coors. Let's see what we can get out of his away splits.
AWAY:
BABIP: .282
ISO: .143
HR/FB: 16.1
wRAA: -2.1
wOBA: .299
wRC+: 77
Wow. Gonzalez has been flat out bad on the road this year. His wOBA is about as bad as it gets. He's cost the Rockies 2.1 runs and has created 23 runs below league average. His BABIP isn't even that far below league average so that is kind of worrisome. Like I said he's been just flat out bad.
Gonzalez has been a huge disappointment this year even though he's in a very hitters friendly park in Coors Field. Will he rebound to last years' success or is this the Gonzalez we will contiue to see. I guess we'll find out next year, in the mean time he hasn't been living up to the expectations.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
It's Time to Extend Mike Stanton
Marlins OFer Mike Stanton is putting up a solid year and just might be in line for a nice new contract. He has a 3 WAR, .1 more then all of last year but the thing that really stands out about Mike Stanton is his massive power. Last year in 100 games Stanton hit 22 home runs to go along with a .248 ISO. His wOBA of .355 was solid for a rookie and this year he's brought that up to a .370 wOBA which is typically in the seventy fifth percentile. His strikeout rate was a little concerning last year, striking out 31.1% but if he can bring that down and still supply good power numbers, a good ISO and wOBA then it shouldn't be too concerning.
This year he's doing much better. He has 25 home runs in 106 games, his ISO is twenty three points higher, currently at .271 which is good for fifth in baseball and second in the National League. Stanton's wOBA is fifteen points higher then last year, sitting at .370 like I mentioned before. He's brought his strikeout percentage down to 27.3%, if he can bring it down to around 25% that would be ideal but again other factos make up for it. His wRC+ of 133 is fifteen points higher then last year putting him in around the seventy fifth percentile. Offensively about the only thing Stanton won't give you is stolen bases but that isn't a big deal.
So far he's posted solid UZR numbers, posting a 8.7 UZR this year and a 2 UZR last year. That's only from one and a half seasons though so the sample size is still small and not much should be taken from those numbers yet.
Based on dollar values Stanton has been worth $13.3 million this year and $11.4 last year giving the Marlins over $24.7 million dollars of value.
Based on all this information the Marlins need to give Stanton a contract similar to Longoria's 5 year $16 million dollar deal that he signed in 2008. The contract can be worth up to 44 million dollars as it has a few uption years but it's easily the most friendly contract in all of baseball. If the Marlins want to sign Stanton cheap they'll need to do it before he hits superstardom.
This year he's doing much better. He has 25 home runs in 106 games, his ISO is twenty three points higher, currently at .271 which is good for fifth in baseball and second in the National League. Stanton's wOBA is fifteen points higher then last year, sitting at .370 like I mentioned before. He's brought his strikeout percentage down to 27.3%, if he can bring it down to around 25% that would be ideal but again other factos make up for it. His wRC+ of 133 is fifteen points higher then last year putting him in around the seventy fifth percentile. Offensively about the only thing Stanton won't give you is stolen bases but that isn't a big deal.
So far he's posted solid UZR numbers, posting a 8.7 UZR this year and a 2 UZR last year. That's only from one and a half seasons though so the sample size is still small and not much should be taken from those numbers yet.
Based on dollar values Stanton has been worth $13.3 million this year and $11.4 last year giving the Marlins over $24.7 million dollars of value.
Based on all this information the Marlins need to give Stanton a contract similar to Longoria's 5 year $16 million dollar deal that he signed in 2008. The contract can be worth up to 44 million dollars as it has a few uption years but it's easily the most friendly contract in all of baseball. If the Marlins want to sign Stanton cheap they'll need to do it before he hits superstardom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)