March 2009 - Posts

• A World Baseball Classic

  Posted Mar 24 2009, 06:43 AM by radio silence

  Okay it's a little tough to do this after an exhilerating championship game between Japan and Korea, and also, after watching those incredible Korean pitching approaches -- much less professional and limited than American pitchers. I love watching those pitchers throw in-shoots, out-shoots, sliders, reverse sliders, curveballs, screwballs, and splitters, all night. Some might think that baseball belong to America, but if anything is really clear from the WBC, it's that each nation or region has their own unique spin and own unique practices in baseball.

  Recently, I wrote about a Classic that used actual teams from around the globe, participating in an event that is several months long, simply strung from April through September, and then featuring playoffs in October and November. Each nation and league involved would either send their best amateur teams, or their league champions, and maybe even several runners-up. Like the World Cup, the event would initially be divided into regional pools, with the playoffs drawn from pool play.

  Here's an example I came up with, using only a few nations. I envision a classic where the best teams from the Nippon Professional Baseball, Chinese leagues (China's league, and the Chinese Professional League in Taiwan), and Korea face off against Cuba's best, as well as the best from the Dominican, Mexico, and Venezuela. I imagine that the United States entries would draw from the two AAA leagues, as well as the top two AA teams. If the number of teams from each league / nation were limited, even more nations could compete.

  Korean entries:Doosean BearsSK WyvernsLotte GiantsSamsung Lions Chinese entries:Tianjin LionsBeijing Tigers Taiwan entries:Uni-President 7-Eleven LionsBrother ElephantsSinon BullsChinatrust Whales Japanese entries:Yomiuri GiantsSaitama Seibu LionsChunichi DragonsHokkaido Nippon Ham FightersOrix BuffaloesHanshin Tigers 

  Pool A	Pool B	Pool C	Pool D
  Doosean Bears	SL Wyverns	Lotte Giants	Samsung Lions
  Tianjin Lions	Beijing Tigers	Simon Bulls	Chinatrust Whales
  Uni-President 7-Eleven Lions	Brother Elephants	Chunichi Dragons	Orix Buffaloes
  Yomiuri Giants	Saitama Seibu Lions	Hokkaido Nippon Ham Fighetsr	Hanshin Tigers

    Cuban entries:Santiago de CubaIndustrialesHolguin Mexican entries:Diablos Rojos del MexicoSultanes de MonterreyLeones de Yucatan Dominican entries:Tigres del LiceyGiantes del Cibao Venezuelan entries:Caribes de AnzoateguiTigres de Aragua United States entries:Scranton/Wilkes-Barre YankeesDurham BullsSacramento River CatsOklahoma RedHawksMississippi BravesTrenton Thunder  

  Pool E	Pool F	Pool G	Pool H
  Santiago de Cuba	Industriales	Holguin	Trenton Thunder
  Durham Bulls	Sacramento River Cats	Oklahoma RedHawks	Mississippi Braves
  Diablos Rojos del Mexico	Sultans de Monterrey	Leones de Yucatan	Giantes del Cibao
  Tigres del Licey	Caribes de Anzoategui	Scranton Wilkes-Barre Yankees	Tigres de Aragua

  Pool play would then run from April through September in very short events held at neutral sites within the general region of the particular pools; from April through June, each team will play the other team in their pool twice (this could be accomplished in just a few weekends per pool), and then from July through September, the top eight teams from each regional bracket (Asia and North America) will face one another in double elimination play (again spread through a few weekends over the course of several months).

  Once October and November roll around, the top eight teams (four from each bracket) will face one another in 7-game elimination series, in a Quarterfinal, Semifinal, and Final arrangement.

  The reasoning behind this type of World Baseball Classic is that although this year's WBC finished with a great game, and featured some other gems, the current tournement feels too much like an exhibition for the MLB, and not a true competition between each nation's best. Moreover, simply moving an MLB player to their home nation suggest a simple form of nationalism that doesn't reflect the complex reality of national cultures that feature very good baseball competition, as well as their own great professional leagues.

  I believe a true WBC should not be centered around the MLB alone. Although the MLB is the premier league, the world's other leagues deserve showcase, and a sprawling, year-long event, structured somewhat like an international cup event in soccer, would do true justice to the world's great baseball leagues and hopefully forge an exciting history of competitive international tournements.

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• The Anti-XBH% II

  Posted Mar 22 2009, 11:33 PM by radio silence

   Just a note on the previous thread, about players that fail to produce an average XBH%: it should be noted that these players are not simply players that accumulate a lot of hits overall, and therefore simply cannot maintain an XBH% above 30%; the vast majority of MLB players with more than 160 H and 140 H, respectively, were able to produce an XBH% above the league average.

  Of the 208 MLB players that saw 400 or more PA in 2008, 64 collected 160 or more hits, while 96 collected 140 or more hits. Of the 64 that collected 160 or more hits, over 64% managed to produce an XBH% at or above league average. Of the 96 that collected 140 or more hits, over 63% managed to produce an XBH% at or above league average. Even of the 143 players that collected 120 or more hits, over 60% managed to produce at XBH% at or above league average.
  

  I simply think that that is an important note --  XBH% in this case is not simply a stat that favors players with fewer hits, and is detrimental to players that collect many hits.
  

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• The Anti-XBH%

  Posted Mar 21 2009, 10:58 PM by radio silence

  I've brought up XBH% in recent debates about Alcides Escobar. My simple point with Escobar is that he needs to improve his XBH% -- mostly by hitting more doubles (a kid with his speed should be racking up double his current doubles total) -- in order to become a more consistent and viable threat at the plate. The whole issue is that -- along with BB% -- if Escobar is not a threat to hit for extra bases, nor a threat to lay off pitches that are not strikes, he will become an easy player pitch to, and will not receive the pitches necessary or be able to sustain a consistent hitting base.

  My hypothesis has continuously been that hitting for extra bases is crucial for a batter in order to continuously receive a pitching approach that is conducive to drawing walks, hitting for average, and forcing the pitcher to work. Without that threat, the pitcher will be less inclined to be worried about making aggressive mistakes, knowing that the consequences of those mistakes will not result as doubles, triples, or home runs. Forcing a pitcher to work around the batter, throw fewer strikes, and throw fewer fastballs (and therefore fewer pitches that are easier to control) requires (a) discipline, and (b) some approach to drive the ball / some threat to drive the ball.

  Now, here is what my position is not saying: (a) XBH focus means swinging for the fences, (b) HR hitters are always more valuable, (c) HR are the most necessary form of XBH to aim for. The whole point, as always, with my offensive positions, is the following: the most productive batters will be the batters who can consistently find their pitch to drive, and drive it. Whether the end result is more hard-hit singles, more doubles, or more walks (due to working counts or being pitched around), the whole issue centers around driving the ball, and picking your pitch to drive.

  So, I wanted to see just how productive below average XBH% hitters are. Since I eye-balled the top PA batters -- MLB 400+ PA in 2008, I kept the XBH% cut-off around 33%.

  The actual MLB average XBH% was .336 in 2008, and is therefore closer to 34% than 33%. But have you ever tried eye-balling 34%?

  The rest is simple: I included PA, AVG/OBP/SLG, overall RC, and RC/G (the average RC/G created by an entire batting order of that player), and then XBH%. Note that RC and OPS (OBP + SLG) are not the same thing. RC also includes SB, CS, GIDP, SF, and SH, so there are other things going on there. So, the exact point is not to equate runs created with XBH%, but perhaps your interpretation of the survey will lean that way. I'm not yet sure that mine does.

  I split the list at 4.5 RC/G, because that's roughly the cut-off for your basic league average player. Of the 208 MLB players that accumulated 400 or more PA in 2008, 78 hit fewer than 33% XBH. 43 of those 78 players that hit fewer than 33% XBH managed to average more than 4.5 RC/G. Interestingly, 31 of those 43 players that hit fewer than 33% XBH but averaged at least 4.5 RC/G accumulated 500 or more PA. I'm not sure what this means, but it looks like the group of players that hit fewer than 33% XBH and accumulated between 400 and 500 PA were more marginal players. This probably makes sense, but it looks like the players that accumulated more than 500 PA and hit fewer than 33% were doing enough in the field or at the plate to justify more than 500 PA, which probably explains why most of the players on this list that averaged 4.5 RC/G did so in 500 PA or more; those are the players posting rather strong OBP, stealing bases, or doing something else to make up for the lack of XBH. (As a follow-up point, 31 of the 43 that averaged 4.5 RC/G while hitting fewer than 33% XBH posted an OBP above .340. The non-park-adjusted MLB 2008 OBP was .333).

  So, here's the list. Enjoy. I'd be interested to know your conclusions. I'm not sure I've entirely drawn mine. My main thought is that even if a player does not hit an average XBH%, that player will need to hit closer to 30% XBH than 20% XBH, and draw enough walks or simply collect an absurd number of hits in order to maintain a productive spot in the batting order....Of course, you are more than free to disagree with that point and draw your own conclusions. This is a large set of raw data, and as I stated, I have not yet completely digested it.

  Enjoy the spaghetti on the wall.

  **

  C. Jones, Atl (534 PA)            .364/.470/.574; 123 RC, 11.1 RC/G               .295 XBH%

  Mauer, Min (633 PA)              .328/.413/.451; 101 RC, 6.9 RC/G                 .250 XBH%

  Damon, NYY (623 PA)          .303/.375/.461; 102 RC, 6.8 RC/G                 .292 XBH%

  Giles, SD (653 PA)                 .306/.398/.456; 103 RC, 6.7 RC/G                 .327 XBH%

  Span, Min (411 PA)                ,294/.387/.432; 63 RC, 6.4 RC/G                   .283 XBH%

  Winn, SF (667 PA)                 .306/.363/.426; 101 RC, 6.3 RC/G                 .273 XBH%

  C. Jackson, Ari (612 PA)        .300/.376/.446; 93 RC, 6.3 RC/G                   .302 XBH%

  Ordonez, Det (623 PA)          .317/.376/.494; 96 RC, 6.1 RC/G                   .309 XBH%

  Aviles, KC (441 PA)              .325/.354/.480; 67 RC, 6.0 RC/G                   .301 XBH%

  DeJesus, KC (577 PA)            .307/.366/.452; 85 RC, 5.9 RC/G                   .277 XBH%

  Victorino, Phi (627 PA)          .293/.352/.447; 92 RC, 5.8 RC/G                   .311 XBH%

  K. Matsui, Hou (422 PA)       .293/.354/.427; 61 RC, 5.8 RC/G                   .318 XBH%

  I. Suzuki, Sea (749 PA)          .310/.361/.386; 104 RC, 5.6 RC/G                 .155 XBH%

  R. Martin, LAD (650 PA)      .280/.385/.396; 88 RC, 5.6 RC/G                   .245 XBH%

  Hudson, Ari (455 PA)                        .305/.367/.450; 64 RC, 5.6 RC/G                   .323 XBH%

  C. Guzman, Was (612 PA)     .316/.345/.440; 86 RC, 5.5 RC/G                   .268 XBH%

  Polanco, Det (629 PA)            .307/.350/.417; 84 RC, 5.3 RC/G                   .253 XBH%

  Iwamura, TB (707 PA)           .274/.349/.380; 89 RC, 5.1 RC/G                   .262 XBH%

  Schumaker, STL(594 PA)       .302/.359/.406; 77 RC, 5.1 RC/G                   .215 XBH%

  Fukudome, CHC (590 PA)     .257/.359/.379; 74 RC, 5.1 RC/G                   .295 XBH%

  Garko, Cle (563 PA)               .273/.346/.404; 72 RC, 5.1 RC/G                   .267 XBH%

  Atkins, Col (664 PA)              .286/.328/.452; 87 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .320 XBH%

  Jeter, NYY (668 PA)              .300/.363/.408; 85 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .218 XBH%

  Theriot, CHC (661 PA)          .307/.387/.359; 81 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .134 XBH%

  Zimmerman, Was (466 PA)    .283/.333/.442; 61 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .322 XBH%

  R. Sweeney, Oak (433 PA)    .286/.350/.383; 54 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .227 XBH%

  Crisp, Bos (409 PA)                .283/.344/.307; 53 RC, 5.0 RC/G                   .275 XBH%

  J. Lopez, Sea (687 PA)           .297/.322/.443; 89 RC, 4.9 RC/G                   .309 XBH%

  Ellsbury, Bos (609 PA)           .280/.336/.394; 78 RC, 4.9 RC/G                   .245 XBH%

  G. Anderson, Ana (593 PA)   .293/.325/.433; 76 RC, 4.9 RC/G                   .276 XBH%

  M. Young, Tex (708 PA)        .284/.339/.402; 88 RC, 4.8 RC/G                   .273 XBH%

  F. Lopez, Was/StL (532 PA)  .283/.343/.387; 66 RC, 4.8 RC/G                   .265 XBH%

  A. Ramirez, CWS (509 PA)   .290/.317/.475; 66 RC, 4.8 RC/G                   .316 XBH%

  Miles, STL (408 PA)               .317/.355/.398; 50 RC, 4.8 RC/G                   .175 XBH%

  DeWitt, LAD (421 PA)          .264/.344/.383; 51 RC, 4.8 RC/G                   .247 XBH%

  Loney, LAD (651 PA)            .289/.338/.434; 81 RC, 4.7 RC/G                   .314 XBH%

  Y. Escobar, Atl (587 PA)       .288/.366/.401; 71 RC, 4.7 RC/G                   .243 XBH%

  Navarro, TB (470 PA)                        .295/.349/.407; 57 RC, 4.7 RC/G                   .250 XBH%

  Aurillia, SF (440 PA)              .283/.332/.413; 54 RC, 4.7 RC/G                   .279 XBH%

  Carroll, Cle (402 PA)              .277/.355/.346; 47 RC, 4.7 RC/G                   .188 XBH%

  D. Young, Min (623 PA)        .290/.336/.405; 75 RC, 4.6 RC/G                   .251 XBH%

  B. Molina, SF (569 PA)          .292/.322/.445; 70 RC, 4.6 RC/G                   .316 XBH%

  Kent, LAD (474 PA)              .280/.327/.418; 57 RC, 4.6 RC/G                   .293 XBH%

  Scutaro, Tor (592 PA)             .267/.341/.356; 68 RC, 4.5 RC/G                   .225 XBH%

  G. Blanco, Atl (519 PA)         .251/.366/.309; 57 RC, 4.5 RC/G                   .176 XBH%

   

  O. Cabrera, CWS (730 PA)    .281/.334/.371; 83 RC, 4.4 RC/G                   .226 XBH%

  A. Pierzynski, CWS (570 PA) .281/.312/.416; 67 RC, 4.4 RC/G                  .300 XBH%

  Figgins, Ana (520 PA)            .276/.367/.318; 58 RC, 4.4 RC/G                   .128 XBH%

  Crawford, TB (480 PA)          .273/.319/.400; 57 RC, 4.4 RC/G                   .248 XBH%

  Y. Molina, STL (485 PA)       .304/.349.392; 56 RC, 4.4 RC/G                    .185 XBH%

  A. Casilla, Min (437 PA)        .281/.333/.374; 50 RC, 4.4 RC/G                   .204 XBH%

  A. Cabrera, Cle (418 PA)       .259/.346/.366; 47 RC, 4.4 RC/G                   .286 XBH%

  Millegde, Was (587 PA)         .268/.330/.402; 68 RC, 4.3 RC/G                   .286 XBH%

  K. Suzuki, Oak (588 PA)        .279/.346/.370; 65 RC, 4.3 RC/G                   .223 XBH%

  R. Hernandez, Bal (507 PA)   .257/.308/.406; 58 RC, 4.3 RC/G                   .319 XBH%

  A. Jones, Bal (514 PA)           .270/.311/.499; 58 RC, 4.2 RC/G                   .289 XBH%

  Bartlett, TB (494 PA)             .286/.329/.361; 55 RC, 4.2 RC/G                   .223 XBH%

  I. Rodriguez, NYY/Det (429 PA) .276/.319/.394; 49 RC, 4.2 RC/G                        .273 XBH%

  Barton, Oak (523 PA)             .226/.327/.348; 55 RC, 4.1 RC/G                   .307 XBH%

  Pierre, LAD (406 PA)             .283/.327/.328; 44 RC, 4.1 RC/G                   .123 XBH%

  Cano, NYY (634 PA)             .271/.305/.410; 69 RC, 4.0 RC/G                   .321 XBH%

  Kendall, Mil (587 PA)            .246/.324/.324; 59 RC, 3.9 RC/G                   .268 XBH%

  Butler, KC (478 PA)               .275/.324/.400; 51 RC, 3.9 RC/G                   .270 XBH%

  Matthews, Ana (477 PA)        .242/.319/.357; 49 RC, 3.9 RC/G                   .291 XBH%

  Tejada, Hou (666 PA)             .283/.314/.415; 70 RC, 3.8 RC/G                   .302 XBH%

  Renteria, Det (547 PA)           .270/.317/.382; 57 RC, 3.8 RC/G                   .250 XBH%

  Taveras, Col (538 PA)            .251/.308/.296; 55 RC, 3.8 RC/G                   .150 XBH%

  C. Gomez, Min (614 PA)        .258/.296/.360; 63 RC, 3.7 RC/G                   .255 XBH%

  F. Sanchez, Pit (608 PA)        .271/.298/.371; 61 RC, 3.7 RC/G                   .240 XBH%

  Izturis, STL (454 PA)             .263/.319/.309; 44 RC, 3.7 RC/G                   .128 XBH%

  Keppinger, Cin (502 PA)        .266/.310/.346; 48 RC, 3.6 RC/G                   .238 XBH%

  Betancourt, Sea (590 PA)       .279/.300/.392; 58 RC, 3.5 RC/G                   .295 XBH%

  E. Brown, Oak (438 PA)        .244/.297/.386; 43 RC, 3.5 RC/G                   .296 XBH%

  Gload, KC (418 PA)               .273/.317/.348; 40 RC, 3.5 RC/G                   .208 XBH%

  Francoeur, Atl (652 PA)         .239/.294/.359; 61 RC, 3.4 RC/G                   .329 XBH%

  M. Cabrera, NYY (453 PA)   .249/.301/.341; 42 RC, 3.4 RC/G                   .204 XBH%

  Bourn, Hou (514 PA)             .229/.288/.300; 45 RC, 3.2 RC/G                   .178 XBH%

  Johjima, Sea (409 PA)            .227/.277/.332; 33 RC, 2.9 RC/G                   .302 XBH%

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Whatever Happened to My Rock'N'Roll?

  Posted Mar 20 2009, 06:59 AM by radio silence

   So I completely missed the SportsBubbler blog "cover band set list," which means that I am probably a member of that band that never makes the gig on time because our van broke down or our drummer overdosed on heroin, or some idiot forgot to put a case of Dogfish Head IPA on the rider.

  I've recently expanded my interest in psychedelic, which began more than a year ago when I purchased The Velvet Underground and Nico, which was possible because I began listening to The Dandy Warhols when I finished high school. I came to the Dandys as the last of an old project to purchase a record by every alternative band I could think of with a hit in 1996-1997. I vividly remembered "Not if you were the last junkie on earth," was immediately taken by the layered, intense, meandering repetitions of The Dandy Warhols Come Down. I engaged in the Dandys' entire catalog throughout school, which tuned my ear for more demanding brands of rock'n'roll. I wandered into psychedelic with curiosity, a curiosity that was paid off with a now-intense love.

  It never occurred to me that the punk ethos that I prided myself on carrying forward -- D.I.Y. recording, minimal production values, heavy/fast music, fuzz, and most importantly, complete creative anarchy / freedom -- merged naturally with my new love for psychedelic. When I realized that psychedelic rock answers the demands of punk rock even better than much of the history of punk rock, I turned my views on music on their head. I went back to the fork in the road and took a different turn; when I experimented with indie rock, noise rock, and various sorts of feminist, dada, or radical punk, I first did so under the banner of "D.I.Y.," the banner of creative freedom of punk rock.

  But the freedom of punk rock manifest in constricting forms of music throughout punk's history -- formulaic hardcore, standard pop punk, and repetition without creative advancement. Punk rock itself did not last very long as a genuine movement, and I never understood why that was so until recently; the point of punk was never with the formula of the music, but with the attitude towards music itself. An ethic of creativity, not a focus on the final product.

  Wandering through the history of psychedelic, which lands me with new bands such as Darker My Love, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, and All The Saints, old bands such as 13th Floor Elevators and The Byrds, and all sorts of noise rock in between -- especially the Jesus and Mary Chain and Big Brother and the Holding Company, I am now at peace with the equation of punk and psychedelic as complementary ethos.

  Unrestricted creativity, unchecked intensity, fuzz pedals; this noisy strain of psychedelic, evident from the very beginning with The Byrds and Big Brother and the Holding Company contrasting one another in the mid-1960s, runs through rock n roll history as the B-side to mainstream development. It's as though the answer to the question of Nirvana -- who fills that gaping hole in rock'n'roll -- had an answer all along. The quirky, apathetic pop of the 1990s-installment of alternative rock advanced one particular strand of rock'n'roll and punk rock, a strand that was beaten out on the airwaves by rap metal, metal rap, and various forms of hard rock (the heavy side of Nirvana was taken and bludgeoned to death by commercial airwaves in the completely wrong direction); alongside a creative strain that has no ceiling, the "heavy" side of rock'n'roll is taken in a different direction with this latest installment of psychedelic bands, returning to the grainy, fuzzed out, noisiest elements of 1960s rock and that family of psychedelic.

  The absence of Nirvana as a cultural icon ,the power vacuum that ensued; both have their answer now, in a strand of music that was always there, hiding in the background behind punk rock, before punk rock. While one side of punk rock developed into formulas and cliche, the other side -- the ambiguous side, the side with many possible musical manifestations, the creative side, the anarchic side -- the other side endured. And is surfacing.

  It is not with comfort but with uncertainty that I equate the relationship between psychedelic and punk; it's tracing the vitalty of music, rather than the fashion of music; the creativity of music, rather than the commercial success; and at the core of it all is this never-ending quest for a perfect expression of pure creativity, an expression that is only possible with a completely active stance towards the issue of freedom. 
  

  With 2 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Great Expectations

  Posted Mar 19 2009, 06:49 AM by radio silence

   We often hear arguments about Rickie Weeks and his draft expectations, and I have even discussed this previously. But, I've been thinking recently, even though we know that the 2nd pick has a poor history for middle infielders in general, what about the entire history of the first 30 picks for second basemen in particular?

  Here's the list of second basemen drafted in the first 30 picks:

  Rickie Weeks (2nd): 1615 AB, .245/.352/.406 (97 OPS+)

  Todd Walker (8th): 4554 AB, .289/.348/.453 (98 OPS+)

  Ty Griffin (9th): DNP

  Chris Burke (10th): 1185 AB, .241/.318/.363 (76 OPS+)

  Pat Rockett (10th): 411 AB, .214/.288/.251

  Jemile Weeks (12th): Drafted in 2008

  Rich Puig (14th): 10 AB, .000/.091/.000

  Chase Utley (15th): 2739 AB, .298/.375/.526 (128 OPS+)

  Mike Fontenot (19th): 479 AB, .290/.369/.457

  Terry Lee (19th): DNP

  Luis Alicea (23rd): 3971 AB, .260/.346/.369 (88 OPS+)

  Blake DeWitt (28th): 368 AB, .264/.344/.383

   

  First off, does this surprise anyone else? The number of second basemen taken overall within the first 30 picks is incredibly low, possibly noting the importance of the position; most of the first round is dominated by pitching picks and shortstop picks, which shouldn't be surprising (shortstop perhaps being the most important position on the diamond, and probably the most difficult to play in the field -- you might argue catcher, but I'd say catcher is a whole different beast in itself).

  Secondly, where do we go from here? Obviously, this does nothing to change Weeks' draft hype; but it's surveys like this that always lead me to question the way we think about the draft. The hype that goes along with early picks doesn't seem to do justice to the nature of how the draft turns out -- that is, turning out even part time players or relievers or what-have-you from the first round is not a bad thing. Turning out average players is certainly not an issue.

  So why isn't this discussed when the draft occurs? Obviously it's boring to talk about average production in the shadow of a draft that allows for exaggeration at any turn, an embellishment of talents, dreams of fantastical production; yet I do not think it is obvious that people understand the importance of producing average players in the MLB draft, and here's where value and expectations collide. The value of an average player drafted in the first round is more important than the expectations of fantastic performance in the first round because drafting and then controlling average regular players means that a team has one less position that needs to be filled on the market.

  Here's where cost comes in, too; if any draft pick turns out to be an average regular player, that player will not only provide his team with replacement-or-better production (given that true replacements are almost never average -- hence the paradox about Value-Above-Replacement, which almost always ends up including average players as players that are above replacement value), that player will do so at a cost that is less-than-free-market levels. Meaning that in other cases, more money can be freed up for other free-market acquisitions. 

  Think about this in other terms -- if the Brewers don't have a controllable and cost effective Weeks on their 2009 roster, they perhaps need to spend on Orlando Hudson or another option that requires giving up talent (ex.. a trade); but without that cost-effective option at second base, can they afford to splurge on a specialist closer? Or on a veteran centerfielder? Or an average middle rotation? What about drafting in the first round, which wouldn't occur had Hudson been sgned?

  Think about the way the Brewers can construct their team because they have second base covered; not only is the free agency market for second base usually uninspiring, but having that option at a middle-of-the-diamond position locked up means that the Brewers can focus their dollars on other positions that are even more important (such as CF or SP).

  ***

  The Brewers have an average second baseman that they drafted and now control from 2009 through 2011. We should be happy that we have this cost-effective option in the middle infield, because it will take stress off of one aspect of the team structure and allow resources to be applied to stress in other parts of that very structure.
  

  With 1 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link