Baseball Instinct’s powers-that-be have coerced me into writing an article discussing the fantasy prospects of various players who’ll be suiting up for new MLB teams this spring. They thought I would be intimidated, daunted, cowed. The fools.
What follows is an analysis of some high-profile movers, abiding by the principle of doing one max per MLB team. It will include my best efforts to approximate where owners should draft, or what they should bid, on that player. I’m pretty big on debunking conventional wisdom whenever I can, so expect to see mostly commentary questioning what you’ve read elsewhere. I won’t bother telling you that Mark Teixeira will be really good with the Yankees, both because it’s obvious enough, and because I’m a Red Sox fan and that’s depressing to think about. I’ll also toss in some random real-life commentary on the wisdom/stupidity of various signings as I see fit.
One more note: I’m basing my commentary on the scoring system for Baseball Instinct’s flagship league, “Baseball Tonight”. I, as well as the league’s creators, believe it more accurately reflects reality than roto scoring. If you play in a league with a different scoring system, carefully observe my comments and adjust your reactions accordingly.
I’ll start with the aforementioned Yankees, and the one player they’ve got coming on board that I don’t expect to be as good as standard opinion anticipates:
A.J. Burnett-New York Yankees:
Bill James projects A.J. Burnett will set a new career high in innings pitched in 2009(?).
I’ve also read arguments that Burnett won’t put forth the same effort when he’s not pitching for a big contract, essentially too soft to go 200 innings again. I think people are overlooking Burnett’s 2002 numbers. Burnett threw seven complete games (five of them shutouts) that year, and if he was ever on a pitch count, the pitch-counter must have taken frequent catnaps. 68% of his starts exceeded 100 pitches that year, which, given that the Marlins didn’t dump him for years afterward, suggests that they were just short-sighted. I’m not sure Burnett is a selfish wimp, so much as slightly, yet irrevocably, damaged goods.
In fact, I’ll go ahead and base my predictions around a very flawed premise, which I still find intriguing. Let’s pretend A.J. pitched a career high (by far) 221 innings in 2008, because his team needed him. Let’s say we American-based TV viewers missed the dozens of occasions in which Burnett glared John Gibbons and Cito Gaston back to the bench, and that he was unaware of the contract year.
That doesn’t matter. The odds are decidedly against Burnett throwing 200 innings again. Which is roughly the amount that he’d need to throw in order for him to approach the top 40 starting pitchers in fantasy ball, which is typically where I’ve seen him ranked (often even higher). Consider that all of the following would have to occur:
1. He’d have to stay healthy enough to pitch a full season (duh). Historically, he has yet to even do that every other year. It’s been a triannual proposition.
2. The Yankees would have to keep him in for an average of six innings or so a start, assuming he’s doing well in each. If the offense in New York proves to be as good as it’s shaping up to be, that might not be a wise managerial strategy. This connects to…
3. The Yankees may well opt for him not to throw that many innings (IE: They may not give him that many starts). They certainly look like a playoff team, and they’ve got a prospect they wouldn’t give up in order to get Johan Santana a little while back in Phil Hughes, along with Ian Kennedy, a number of other touted prospects, and potential spot starters like Chase Wright. If they clinch in early September. Burnett’s starts could definitely be curbed.
4. Finally, he’d have to be good enough to not be pulled during his starts. Reason 2 above supposes that he’d be taken out occasionally in good starts, according to the modern dynamics of baseball. Certainly, however, he also can’t stink. There’s no reason to think that he will, either; 2008 was actually an underrated campaign for him, given the (by far) highest number of K’s in his career, and that he allowed the highest BABIP of his career (suggesting that his qualitatives could’ve been lower). However, considering the problematics of #’s 1-3, the slight odds of a flukishly bad season are enough to convince me that the 200 inning season probably won’t happen.
I recommend drafting/buying Burnett after you’ve got your foundation nice and solid. He shouldn’t be one of your top two starting pitchers, at the very least.
Notice, I don’t include that stupid “New York media glare” thing in my comments. I’m willing to offer cash incentives to a mercenary willing to gun down the first on-air “talent” to go on about that for an hour after Teixeira goes homerless in the first two games of the season.
John Smoltz-Boston Red Sox:
I’ve lived in North Carolina, within the massive grasp of Ted Turner (WTBS) my entire adult life, and I have therefore heard enough about the brilliance of John Smoltz (and Maddux and Chipper, for that matter) to last me a lifetime. That said, I’m happy he’s joining my Red Sox for the twilight of his career. That doesn’t mean he’ll be likely to join my fantasy rosters, however.
The problem I anticipate is a simple one. Owners will draft/buy him anticipating that, when he gets back in May or June, he’ll be both effective right away, and thus effective for enough of the season to be a top fantasy starter. He would also have to be able to find his place in a loaded rotation, jam-packed with guys that the Red Sox have more loyalty to than they really should (Tim Wakefield, much as I love him, springs to mind). The odds of that happening are too low for him to be anything but a late-round/low cost pick. You probably won’t be able to get him there, and you’re probably better off that way.
Pat Burrell-Tampa Bay Rays:
As a happy Burrell owner in “Baseball Tonight”, I’m inclined to laugh when I read all of the commentaries warning against the psychological damage Burrell will cause owners in head-to-head leagues,with his maddening inconsistency. Are head-to-head owners considered the “Idiot Jed”s of fantasy baseball leagues, demanding instant gratification, and pitching irrational fits every time our #2 or #3 outfielders have a bad week or two? Are we incapable of detecting that Burrell’s batting average does not do him justice, for he was one of three players to have drawn 100 walks in both 2007 and 2008, on top of his fine power?
His move to the Rays will, I expect, be more or less a wash. He won’t be the guy hitting behind the great quartet of Rollins, Victorino, Utley, and Howard anymore, and Tampa’s not the greatest place to hit, but the Rays will have some mighty talented fellows hitting before him as well. Consider him a quality starter if you play in a head-to-head league and you do not suffer from this Pat the Bat Inconsistency Disorder I keep hearing about. I guess if I’m offering something contrary here, it’s just a critique of the supposed ultra-importance of consistency in head-to-head fantasy baseball.
Kerry Wood-Cleveland Indians:
One of the few great young pitching talents to survive Dusty Baker, Wood transformed himself in a way that will make the most of what he has left. The problem, from a fantasy standpoint, is that this change will make the most of what he has left for his MLB team, not yours. The Indians, like the Cubbies, are potentially contenders, and thus there’s a real limit on how many games he’ll get to close. Consider that of the 68 save opportunities the Cubs recorded in 2007, Wood nailed home only half of them. Part of that was the “Marmol factor”, but now he’s got to deal with the “Kobayashi factor”.
In short, he’s much better than Joe Borowski*, which means he’ll have no chance of equaling the 45 saves Borowski recorded in 2007. Feel free to use that statement as an example of a paradox if you need to impress the smart chicks.
*Borowski’s a much less talented pitcher, and therefore the Indians didn’t care as much about keeping him healthy as they will with Wood.
Coco Crisp-Kansas City Royals:
I’m excited for Coco, particularly given his lack of individual success with the Red Sox, but I don’t share the optimism some publications have regarding his chances of being a fantasy starter again in 2009. Such a projection overlooks the two mildly divergent stages of Coco’s career, and why he’d have to pool the best elements of both periods in order to be truly useful again.
2004 and 2005 saw Coco’s emergence as a 15-15 guy for Cleveland, but he was far from an efficient player (Sub-.350 OBP as a leadoff hitter; 35% caught stealing). In Boston, there was a partial improvement in efficiency; he remained lousy at setting the table, because he didn’t do much when he swung. He was more likely to take a walk per plate appearance and delivered a 90% success rate as a base stealer in his three Boston years. At the same time, of course, the nice quantitative numbers (except for the steals) evaporated.
The question, therefore, becomes whether Crisp can continue to steal effectively and draw more walks per plate appearance, while returning to the pop of his Cleveland days. Given that he was brought in to bat leadoff and catalyze an offense with better power hitters behind him (Guillen, Jacobs, really everybody but Callapso), and that he’s doubtful to dramatically increase his steals without also bringing the failures up, I can’t see how the answer to that question could be possibly be yes.
If I were starting from scratch in a draft or auction, I would bear in mind the near-inevitability of what the above indicates, and draft him as a backup option. If you feel compelled to take a Royal outfielder, the other two are both good enough that there’s no sense reaching for this one.
Quick reminder: The analysis provided here is based upon the scoring system of “Baseball Tonight.” Hence the concern with a guy getting caught stealing. It matters in real life, after all.
Brian Fuentes-Los Angeles Angels:
Here’s one of my top sleepers for 2009, a guy who you can pick well after the elite names are off the board, and get almost as good a season from. His qualitatives have steadily improved, and that doesn’t look artificial; factoring walks allowed and strikeouts per nine and considering that he surrendered more unlucky hits than ever, 2008 was the best year of his career. But closer value is a product of opportunity more than ability, and so it’s much more important that he’ll be heading to the club that produced 89 save opportunities in 2008 (thus making Francisco Rodriguez a very rich man).
This bucks an argument I’ve read, which states that “Ex-Coors closers don’t succeed elsewhere.” (Email me privately and I’ll tell you the source). Seems like there’s too small a sample size for that to possibly be a winning claim. I’ll admit to not having a thorough file in my memory banks regarding all past Rockie closers, but a brief perusal of the Rockies’ all-time saves leaders strongly suggests that leaving Coors has had little to do with the successes or failures of Ex-Rockie relievers.
To wit, Jose Jimenez has been the only guy to land another closing gig after departing Colorado and fail; he started seven games the year before he left as well, so he wasn’t really a “pure closer.” Oh, and he mostly stunk before, during, and after he pitched for the Rockies, regardless of his role. With Dave Veres, in fact, one can make a damn decent case for an Ex-Rockie closer having gotten better after leaving. Don’t fear some bizarre double-reverse Coors effect on Brian Fuentes.
The only hitch to drafting Fuentes is that you’ll have to keep an eye on Scot Shields and Jose Arredondo, as Fuentes isn’t discernibly better than either of those guys, and worry that they might vulture some saves. But you can grab those guys on the cheap and use them for strikeouts and holds (once again returning to the “Baseball Tonight” scoring format). Cornering the market on the Angels’ save candidates looks like an awfully smart move after 2008.
Matt Holliday-A’s:
My favorite offseason fantasy topic is the widespread notion that Holliday will blow outside of Coors owing to his road BA/OBP/SLG. There’s a nice page called “Please Stop Abusing Matt Holliday’s Road Stats” at Beyond the Box Score, which points out the exaggeration of Holliday’s inevitable demise from a numbers perspective, so I’ll begin with a philosophical point.
Today, Alex Rodriguez’s alleged positive steroid test from 2003 was revealed by Sports Illustrated. It took less than a day before the first “A-Rod’s no longer a lock for the Hall of Fame” article was printed on a major website. Again, I don’t want to talk crap about other people’s opinions, so email me if you’re wondering where I saw it. Now, I want you to engage in an exercise with me. Write down the words “Barry Bonds” on a sheet of paper. Now, answer me this: What thoughts did that produce in your brain? If I had to take a guess, you likely thought “greatest hitter (or one of the greatest hitters) of all time” and “steroid user” in quick succession. Which came to you first probably depends upon how certain you are that Bonds was intentionally dirty. Either way, the “greatest hitter” thought was probably in your brain within thirty seconds, if you know much of anything about baseball.
Five years from now, it would appear, the same mental associative process could occur within fans’ heads regarding Alex Rodriguez’s name. The media will be working on this particular narrative until “steroid user” or at least “alleged steroid user” have become a part of what the words “Alex Rodriguez” mean to you, the sports fan. Hopefully, A-Rod’s greatness will still be with you.
Now, let’s return to Matt Holliday. Jot his name down. I guarantee you that, assuming you’re into fantasy sports, things like “Coors-inflated” will come to you within a minute. You might even be able to quote his supposedly damning .280/.348/.455 career road numbers. But the phrase “one of the best outfielders in the game” may not enter into your thinking.
The problem with this is that, like Bonds and A-Rod, whose career numbers are both unique and extraordinary, to such a point that they transcend a character debate regarding their worthiness for the Hall of Fame, Matt Holliday’s situation is unprecedented, to a point that analysis of his career’s home/road splits won’t get you to an accurate assessment of his worth. You’ve been hearing the wrong stuff all offseason.
Talk about unprecedented: No player in Rockies history with numbers remotely approaching Holliday’s departed in the prime of his career. The only player to come remotely close to doing so, Vinny Castilla, left Colorado for the first time at 31, following what was then the worst season of his career. That isn’t close enough to be applicable for comparison; Holliday’s on his own switching teams at 29.
Also consider Andres Galarraga, who, at 37, had a year as good as his two previous, career-best seasons (in Coors) after moving on to Atlanta. Given the supposed Coors effect (one I don’t dispute as a general phenomena; how could I?), that season was simply inexplicable. I bring these two cases up only to demonstrate that no argument concerning Holliday’s situation is as flawless as the naysayers suggest. The certainty of his detractors bothers me.
Next, let’s deal with this “career home/road splits” business, around which 90% of the Anti-Holliday talk has centered. The term makes it sound like he’s been around forever, certainly long enough that we can pass solid judgment on his performance away from Coors. The reality is that he’s been around only five years, and the first two data sets, compiled when he was too young to rent a car, were by far his weakest. It gets better: His away numbers in batting average and OBP have improved significantly every year of his career. The slugging percentage has stabilized at a remarkably consistent .485/.485/.486 over the last three years, making that “.455 career road slugging percentage” citation look like a ridiculously lazy assessment of his actual worth, particularly given that when you look at 2008 again, only his 5th year in the majors, you’re looking at a decrease in all extra base hits from his 2006 and 2007 totals, partly owing to injury. The career road averages in batting average and OBP are even more irrelevant than the “.455” when it comes to his actual capabilities away from Coors. Do not expect Holliday to put up qualitative numbers comparable to those silly “career road” qualitatives.
One more thing on the home/road splits matter before I continue: Holliday’s road numbers, as I’ve stated above, actually suggest a player getting better and better on fields that do not favor the hitter like Coors. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile for those bringing up his away performance to at least mention this?
My feeling is that Matt Holliday represents the 2009 edition of “Fantasy Baseball Genius Syndrome,” something I try to be wary of. Presumably, if you like fantasy baseball enough to read this kind of column, you like numbers and how looking at them can help you predict future player performance. Sometimes the temptation to be the guy who can see the numbers most brilliantly, and translate that numerical vision into fantasy success prevents one from thinking clearly. If one looks at the “career away numbers” and decides Holliday needs to be dropped out of the second round of a redraft league, or bid upon as if he’s not a worthy #1 OF in an auction, one is “seeing a different game” in a bad way.
The next time you write down the words “Matt Holliday,” I hope you associate them with “staggering overreaction from the experts”.
I’ll say this much; Holliday had never stolen bases the way he did in 2008, and heading to Oakland, he probably won’t get there again in 2009. I say “probably” because he showed himself to be Ichiro-esque in terms of SB efficiency in 2008, so there might be an exception. Don’t hold your breath though.
Quick Conclusion:
I’m glad it took me until after A-Rod’s bad news came out to finish this, but it’s notable that players of potential fantasy impact, Manny Ramirez for one, have yet to be situated. I hope that by this point next week, when my NL version of this column is printed, some more signings have been made, and more commentaries have been written for me to disagree with. Because disagreeing is fun.
