Winter Meetings Open Thread: Day 3

by gondeee on Dec 5, 2007 9:10 AM EST in News Comment 21 comments

So the blockbuster happened yesterday between the Fish and the Tigers. We got what looks to be a bargain in a lefty and backup infielder. Have the D-Rays traded away any more troubled outfielders?

There were multiple sources that had us talking to free agent backup catcher Damian Miller. He's sort of Todd Prattish. The Nats are also in on him and may offer him more playing time. I'm fine sticking with Sammons and/or Pena.

We could also be in on Reggie Willits from Anaheim, but aside from being a good on-base guy, I don't find him that exciting, and I certainly don't want to give up anything north of a B-level prospect for him.

There's been a lot of activity and a lot of chatter for just two days, but we've got two more to go.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well actually the OBP kinda gets me excited...

I mean the guy has legit 30 to 40 steal speed, plays some pretty good d, and while he does not hit for power, he does seem to be able to hit for at least a decent average. With respect to Josh Anderson, I would say that he is a nice upgrade, and perhaps an option in left and to lead off even when schafer is ready to play.

by bravessuperbeast on Dec 5, 2007 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

LF???

You can't have a sub-.400 SLG guy at a corner OF spot...

Anyway, I like Willits. His OBP is not good, it's flat great. In that respect, he's like Ichiro, except that his number is less dependant on AVG. His .391 OBP through 430 ML AB last season is right in line with his MiL figure, so it's not like it's a fluke. His base-stealing abilities are adequate, but he has the speed to be very good. His defense is also solid. That said, I wouldn't give up much since he's just Gregor Blanco Plus. I doubt we get very far in those talks anyway, since I don't see what we could give the Angels that they'd want/need.

Come check out my blog 52 Card Pick-up and let me know what you think!

by ejruiz on Dec 5, 2007 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why can't we have a sub-.400 SLG in LF?

A legitimate leadoff hitter can play anywhere in the field he needs to. The Braves have more than enough power to offset what Willits wouldn't provide. Maybe we should move Kelly Johnson back there since he hits too many home runs to play 2B.

Of course, since the Braves have Matt Diaz and Brandon Jones in LF this year, and since the Braves probably won't get Willets anyway, this is all a moot point.

by kray1000 on Dec 5, 2007 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

...on the catcher situation. McCann has been around long enough now where a veteran backup isn't a requirement; there's no need to mentor him. I would be completely comfortable with Pena or Sammons, actually leaning towards Pena because of his versatility.

by VegasAces on Dec 5, 2007 10:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pena..

..well from what was gathered over the season Pena isn't likely to play catcher. While with Richmond he played more 1B/3B/OF/DH than he did at catcher.

I think the Braves see him as anything but a catcher at this point in time.

by RainDelay on Dec 5, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the update

I remember Pena played a lot of non-catcher baseball at Richmond but I didn't know if they were down on him at catcher. Given this, he could still make the club as a super-utility guy/emergency third catcher.

Plus, that versatility could be appealing to other teams. Anyone see him as possibly a part of a trade package?

by VegasAces on Dec 5, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully disagree

If Willits can provide top of the order from production that the braves have lacked since they had furcal, and schafer can prove to be a decent run producer, then I think it would be very reasonable to have willits in left field beyond '08. However, I do agree, we should put a run producer in left if we cannot resign Teixera, but I would not be disappointed with willits in our outfield for a few years.

by bravessuperbeast on Dec 5, 2007 10:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

hey

It would be nice to have a typical lead off hitter but we still finished 3rd in the league in runs scored so does it really matter that much? Or does it just make people feel comfortable?

Jose Reyes is the type of lead off guy teams would go nuts for but we did out score the Mets. Yes, it was only by 6 runs but we still did better. To me, it doesn't matter how you score runs as long as you score runs.

by seifer300 on Dec 5, 2007 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Right

But Willits would be an upgrade OBP wise over every candidate to play left field and center field next season. Sure he doesn't hit for power, which is why he'd be a much better center field option next to a Diaz/Jones platoon, but he's still under long term control and will have loads of value if the Braves wanted to deal him next offseason or later (switch hitter, defensively sound, good on-base guy, smart runner, not a free agent until 2012, etc).

His OPS was equal to Willie's and better than Andruw's last year, so it wouldn't be a complete disaster to have him in the lineup, especially because we do lack a real lead-off hitter (Escobar doesn't have a high OBP, Johnson is better suited as a #6).

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Escobar has low OBP??????

Escobar doesn't have a high on base percentage??? This statement is far from the truth and I'm not sure why you would say that.

Escobar's OBP in 300+ Major League at bats is .385, which means if he had enough at bats to qualify for the league leaders that he would have been in the top 20 in the National League of OBP. And if you look at the league leaders there is not one single Lead Off hitter that has a higher OBP than he does (Jose Reyes' OBP was .354, that is 30 points lower than Yunel's).

To throw some more stats out there to back up my point about Yunel, in 106 at-bats to lead off an inning his OBP was .407. Then you look at when he batted in the #1 spot in the order (34 games)and he compiled an even .400 OBP. So saying that he doesn't have a high OBP is just crazy.....now I'm not saying that he is typical leadoff guy because I know he isn't the fastest guy in the world, but based on the numbers above coupled with his baseball savvy, I would say that Yunel is a very capable Lead Off hitter.

by whunt13 on Dec 5, 2007 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

I should have clarified. His OBP is fueled by his high average (.326). His high average is fueled by an unreasonably high BABIP (.367). Now, maybe Yunel is going to maintain that high BABIP throughout his career and keep the average high. If he even becomes a .300 hitter instead of a .326 hitter, his OBP will be .359, which isn't that great for a lead-off guy.

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How is .359 not great for a lead off guy?

Like I stated in my earlier post Jose Reyes, who I'm sure the majority of people on this board would agree is probably the best lead off guy in the national league, posted a .354 OBP last year which is lower than what you just stated "isn't that great for a lead-off guy."

Not to mention that there is ONLY ONE single lead-off guy (Rickie Weeks) on the National League Leaders list that had above a .359 OBP, so provided this information which is readily available I just don't understand how you can even consider making the statements that you have previously made on this subject.

by whunt13 on Dec 5, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

And that's more a question of why are teams hitting such guys leadoff rather than better OBP hitters. There were fifty guys qualifying for the batting title with an OBP above .373. Such names as Weeks, O. Hudson, K. Johnson, Pedroia, Roberts, Polanco, Willits, Figgins, Ichiro, and Jeter would be suitable leadoff guys.

Answer, bias towards stealing bases.

As to Reyes being the best guy to leadoff in the game, I'd strongly disagree. All his value is based on his base running and such unmeasurables. His OPS is pedestrian even for the position (103 OPS+). I think we can all agree Rickey Henderson is the best leadoff man in history; he posted a .401 OBP for his career.

Again, my argument isn't that Escobar couldn't play at a level equal to current lead-off hitters, it's that the Braves can do better as an organization.

None of this should be construed to sound like I don't think Escobar should be our shortstop or a ML starter, just that I'd prefer someone else hitting leadoff. And if he does keep delivering a .385 OBP consistently, he should lead-off; I just don't see it.

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

clint sammons

Fits the backup role perfectly. Pena, while maybe offering alittle more with the bat is not a better option. Sammons is the best defensive catching option since mccann..and before mccann who knows. There's a reason why sammons saw time this year while pena just hung out in aaa. Vegas Aces has it i think. McCann is a very smart player, as well as a very experienced one. The braves aren't dying to get an older guy up there, and mccann doesn't need it. Also, Sammons is the man. He is an outstanding catcher and i mean outstanding. And though his average at the plate isn't mind blowing, he is surprisingly clutch. Very mature player for his age. Mark My Words! Clint Sammons wins job over Pena anyday

by bravos408 on Dec 5, 2007 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well here is my idea...

If we were to get willits, i think yunel is similar to renteria or freddy sanchez in his hitting approach and would be a fine number too option, with that being said

CF Willits
SS Escobar
3b Chipper
1b Teixera
C McCann
RF Francouer
2b KJ
LF Jones or Diaz
P

This would be our lineup versus a righty

CF Willits
SS Yunel
3b Chipper
1b Teixera
RF Francouer
C Mccann
LF Diaz
2b KJ or Infante (do not know how good infante handles leftys)
P

Those are my ideas. I could see if someone is struggling switching out the guy in the second spot with the guy in the 7th or 8th spots easily. It is a pretty good luxery when you have three guys who can produce in the number 2 spot or bottom of the order (Yunel, Diaz, KJ).

by bravessuperbeast on Dec 5, 2007 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Johnson

Johnson's splits don't show much difference between hitting against LHs or RHs (.278/.378 against righties and .272/.366 against lefties). The main problem is his power disappears (.479 SLG against righties and .405 against lefties). Meaning he just becomes merely a league average OPS guy versus lefties (.771 OPS) while he's all world against righties (.857). League average certainly doesn't necessitate playing Infante, who's best OPS season is still worse than Johnson vs. LH.

Either way Francoeur would be my #8 hitter until his OPS rises above Diaz's.

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Francoeur Batting 8th is ridiculous

Why would you want to put our best clutch hitter in the 8th hole where you could just pitch around him.

Francoeur might have sacrificed some of his 'pop' for a higher batting average this year, but when the at bat counts, meaning runners on or in scoring position Francoeur knows how to get the job done.

Not saying that Diaz hasn't been clutch as well, but I would want Francoeur batting right behind the guys (Chipper & Tex) that will be consistently getting on base.

If Francoeur had been lucky enough to bat in Andruw's spot last year, he would probably have had around 150 RBI's because the top of our order with KJ, Edgar, and Chipper were always getting on base. Unfortunately, Francoeur had to bat behind Andruw "Black Hole" Jones which left Francouer batting with no one on base a lot because Andruw was either not getting on base in front of him or he was ending a rally with a grotesque strikeout.

by whunt13 on Dec 5, 2007 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

The idea that someone can be "clutch" has been debunked using statistics. Check into Baseball Between the Numbers; one of the chapters is devoted towards the topic and shows that basically the best clutch hitters (ie the guys that preform most positively in high leverage situations) are uniformly the best players in the game. Francoeur's reputation as "clutch" has come from a handful of high profile at-bats where he delivered a game winning hit. We don't remember the weak ground outs and strikeouts mixed into that bunch.

Look at the OBP/SLG/OPS for the Braves last season using the normal lineup:

Johnson .375/.457/.832
Escobar .385/.451/.836
C. Jones .425/.604/1.029
Teixeira .400/.563/.963
Francoeur .338/.444/.782
McCann .320/.452/.772
A. Jones .311/.413/.724
Diaz .368/.497/.865

If, we got Willits (which is what I was accepting), he would lead-off and Escobar would hit second. Chipper 3rd, Teixeira 4th. Using OPS to rank the remaining hitters, it'd go Diaz 5th, Johnson 6th, Francoeur 7th, McCann 8th. So I was wrong, I'd actually hit Francoeur 7th assuming both he and McCann had similar seasons.

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to disagree again

First off Francoeur's label as "clutch" doesn't come from a handful of high profile at-bats, he is in the top two or three players over the last two years that have the most RBI's with two outs. A-Rod is one of the other players and this might prove your point a little bit about the best players doing the best in high leverage situations, but if this is the case I guess we have to say that Francoeur is also one of the best players in the game because he has routinely come through in "high leverage situations". So I ask of you, why would you bat one of the best players in the game 7th or 8th in a lineup, just to let the other team pitch around him in those "high leverage situations"???

Second, you say stats debunk clutchness. Whether or not this is true, I don't know. But what I do know is that stats don't lie. And if you look at the stats below compared to the ones you offered earlier (all at bats for 2007) you will see that Francoeur most certainly does better in "high leverage situations".

AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS

RISP RISP - 2 outs
Johnson .282/.394/.470/.864 .333/.450/.621/1.071

Escobar .333/.417/.417/.833 .310/.429/.379/.808

C.Jones .310/.426/.586/1.012 .241/.397/.407/.804

Teixeira .405/.548/.740.1.288 .375/.514/.804/1.317

Francoeur .341/.389/.527/.917 .333/.408/.494/.902

McCann .278/.347/.536/.883 .268/.355/.524/.879

Diaz .287/.316/.379/.696 .226/.255/.302/.556

So after breaking down these stats, do you really want to tell me that you would rather have Diaz, with his whopping .696 & .556 OPS batting 5th behind the guys that get on base? Or would you rather have a great hitter in "high leverage situations" like Francoeur hitting right behind our big sticks, with his .900+ OPS.

Personally I would like more runs in a ball game, so I would have to make the obvious decision here and say bat Francoeur 5th and let him get his 120 RBI's.

by whunt13 on Dec 5, 2007 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

1. Small sample. I'm certainly not prepared to say a) clutch hitters exist and b) Francoeur is one of them based on 419 career at-bats with RISP and c) Matt Diaz is a poor "clutch" hitter based on 223 RISP PA or 102 2 outs, RISP PA in his career. That's an absurdly small sample.

Career numbers:

2 out RISP
237 PA, 216 AB, .310/.371/.500/.871

RISP
472 PA, 419 AB, .332/.381/.535/.916

His numbers regress back to normal after that.

Baseball Prospectus writers crunched seasons worth (1,000,000s of at-bats) and detected no discernable difference between players preformance in "high leverage" and normal situations. Half of a tenth of a percent of those at-bats saying something different isn't enough to make me change my opinion. Francoeur's regular stat line is below average for a ML right fielder. Regardless of this supposed "clutch" hitting skill, he belongs below better hitters until he proves otherwise.

To lend a little assistance to my claims, I've posted some statistics below.

Teixeira (Career)

2 outs, RISP
409 PA, 337 AB, .297/.421/.671/1.092

RISP
913 PA, 796 AB, .327/.441/.645/1.086

Career
3246 PA, 2840 AB, .286/.371/.539/.910

Obviously Mark T. is a clutch monster, even though both totals are well south of his 2007 numbers.

Chipper

2 outs, RISP
872 PA, 677 AB, .269/.432/.464/.896

RISP
2344 PA, 1826 AB, .299/.421/.521/.942

Career
8143 PA, 6898 AB, .307/.403/.546/.946

Chipper's RISP numbers are almost exactly what his Career numbers are.

David Ortiz "Mr. Clutch"

2 outs, RISP
620 PA, 511 AB, .280/.406/.515/.921

RISP
1495 PA, 1203 AB, .301/.406/.517/.923

Career
4937 PA, 4215 AB, .289/.384/.559/.943

Seems Mr. Clutch actually preforms worse than his career numbers in "clutch" situations with his OPS looking basically the same in all three situations.

Just read the chapter in the book; reading the book will allow you to challenge previously held ideas about baseball and the clutch hitting chapter is particularly good.

by 17843 on Dec 5, 2007 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs