5 Questions: Chicago White Sox

[DBAHO]

From one of my favorite online publications;

 

In recent years, the White Sox have generally defied predictions self-appointed experts have about them. Last year they won a division title, despite many assuming they were also-rans.

 

Though they make forecasters look foolish, I have a ready-made defense protecting me: I already am a fool, so it's a little late for me to worry about what the future holds.

 

1. Should the White Sox be worried about Bobby Jenks's declining strikeout rate?

 

Typically, a declining strikeout rate is a sign of danger. It normally means the pitcher is losing his speed and is in decline. It also inarguably means he relies more on his defense. These are ominous facts for Jenks who, after fanning over a batter an inning in 2005 and 2006, dropped to 56 strikeouts in 65 innings in 2007 and 38 in 61.3 innings last year. On the face of it, Jenks looks like he's in trouble.

 

Well, on the face of it, sure, but it helps to look beyond the numbers. While a declining strikeout rate normally means he's losing a few miles on his fastball, that is not the case for Jenks. He can still bring the heat when needed and hit the high 90s late in 2008.

 

His strikeout rate isn't caused by necessity, but by choice. He made a decision to rely more on his two-seamer and put balls into play. He's not losing his stuff, but evolving from a thrower into a pitcher. At the same time his strikeout rate has dropped noticeably, his control also greatly improved. In fact, he walked more people in 2006 than in 2007 and 2008 combined. He also gives up fewer homers. Strikeout rate be damned, Jenks is one of the most effective and dependable closers in the league.

 

2. What will the young duo of Gavin Floyd and John Danks do for an encore?

 

Among the many reasons for the White Sox's surprising run in 2008, few were as crucial as the pitching by young starters Gavin Floyd and John Danks. They entered the year with barely 300 MLB innings between them and a combined ERA of 5.95.

 

Instead of floundering, each moved forward, helping to anchor Chicago's staff. They each started 33 times, with Danks posting the superior ERA (3.32 to 3.84) but Floyd possessing the better win-loss record (17-8 to 12-9).

 

Perhaps more impressively, both improved their strikeout, walk, and home run rates, indicating that last year might not have been a fluke. Both have some warning signs that should be examined, however.

 

Floyd has the most serious problems. First, he had a BABIP last year of .259, while the White Sox as a whole had one of .302, a substantial difference. According to Baseball Prospectus, he allowed 26 hits fewer than one would expect, based on his teammates' BABIP and his own strikeout, walk, and home run rates.

 

Now, that doesn't mean the entire 26-hit difference was entirely luck. At this point, approximately a decade after the rise of Voros, very few would argue that pitchers have no control over the ball in play. One clear reason shows Floyd had an impact which lowers his BABIP: he's a flyball pitcher. His GB:FB ratio was 0.73, whereas a normal one is around 1.20. Anyone who has ever checked zone ratings can attest that fly balls are more likely to turn into outs than ground balls.

 

Still, while Floyd's predilection for ground balls means he's more likely to allow fewer hits than one might expect, an undershooting of 26 hits (and 43 points of BABIP) is extreme. While we can all sit around and have a nice debate about a pitcher's impact on the ball in play, BABIP has been shown to vary more than home run, strikeout, and walk rates, and 26 fewer hits than expected is unusually extreme.

 

A second factor should be noted about Floyd: his ERA overestimates him because he allowed a huge number of unearned runs. Last year, 18 percent of his runs allowed were unearned. For the rest of the White Sox, barely 7 percent of runs were unearned.

 

With a difference that stark, it looks like Floyd threw an unusually large number of bad pitchers after errors were made.

 

Floyd isn't to blame for the errors behind him, but when such a stark difference exists in a pitcher's UER% and that of his team, most likely a flukishly high number of bad pitches came after errors. He'll still have some bad pitches next year, but if they're more evenly doled out, his ERA will feel a greater impact.

 

Between UER and BABIP, Floyd has two factors weighing down on his ERA. He is still young and at an age when improvement should be expected, but the factors weighing against him outweigh the factors on his behalf. He'll still be effective next year, but closer to average.

 

Danks looks like the better bet. All the things that hurt Floyd make Danks look good? Want to talk UER? OK—Danks only allowed two last season. Thus his ERA, if anything, underestimates him. Wanna look at BABIP? Fine, Danks had a .295 one, a little lower than Chicago's team average, but then again Danks is also a flyballer (0.78 GB:FB ratio in 2008). He should have a slightly lower BABIP, as he did.

 

However, the GB:FB ratio points at the one problem for Danks looking forward. Last year, of the 328 fly balls he allowed, only 15 left the park. That's a bit lower than anyone would expect, especially anyone who pitched half his games at The Cell.

 

OK, so all arrows aren't pointing up on Danks—almost all of them still are. He passes the Voros test, his UER underrate him, and last but not least, he is still very young. He'll turn 24 next month, making him approximately two years younger than Floyd. Danks should certainly continue to improve. With Danks and Mark Buehrle, the Sox will have one of the best one-two punches in major league baseball.

 

That is especially important because all millennium long this team has utilized solid starting, and lots of it. Last year they had 153 starts come from a quintet of hurlers with an ERA+ of 98 or better. This year, the back of their rotation has some questions. They are bringing back Jose Contreras, who has recovered from a ruptured Achilles heel (OW!) much faster than anyone could have reasonably imagined. Since he pitched brilliantly for a stretch last year, there is hope he can regain the form that he displayed in 17 consecutive regular season victories in 2005-06. Then again, the Cuban is "37" years old in 2009 and has been generally ineffective since the second half of 2006.

 

3. Does A. J. Pierzynski go bowling with Dorian Gray or something?

 

In the four years A. J. has spent with the White Sox, he's been probably the most consistent player in baseball. For example, since 2005, he's struck out 68, 72, 66, and 71 times in a season. He's driven in 56, 64, 50, and 60 runs each year while scoring 61, 65, 54, and 66. He's averaged 15.5 homers a year, with a high of 18 and a low of 13. Last year he splurged on doubles with 31, after pounding out 21, 24, and 24 in his first trio of South Side campaigns.

 

My favorite stat is his walks. He's drawn 23, 22, 25, and 19 each year in Chicago—plus 19 in his San Francisco season and 24 in his Minnesota finale. He's been hit by pitches exactly eight times a year for three straight seasons. Not surprisingly, his overall production is pretty consistent. OPS+ gives him marks of 90, 94, 83, 88.

 

This isn't natural. Players usually vary some from year to year. Also, he turned 30 two years ago. He's at the point where he should be declining, not treading water. More so, A. J. was a good-but-never-great hitter at his peak—that's exactly the sort of player most likely to drop off dramatically in his early 30s. Finally, he plays catcher, the position most likely to speed up the aging process.

 

Not natural? Hell, it's not human. It's like he's a cyborg sent from the future to draw 22 walks a season or something.

 

For all the reasons listed above, I think A. J.'s a really good bet to decline this year. A little bit of drop off from him will hurt his overall game considerably. Pete Palmer's batting runs already lists him as a net negative offensive force.

 

Of course, I thought he was in trouble last year, and look what happened. But I intend to keep predicting imminent doom for him—eventually I have to be right about him. I think.

 

4. What will Carlos Quentin do this year?

 

Last year Quentin came out of seemingly nowhere to come in fifth place in the AL MVP Award. He would have done better, but he fractured his wrist at the beginning of September. Not bad, given that he came to Chicago in exchange for a minor leaguer as part of a three-way trade. Two concerns about Quentin are thus: is he healed, and is he for real?

 

First, by all signs he's apparently healthy. By and large the White Sox do an exceptionally good job looking after the health of their players.

 

Second, the man is talented. Essentially, Chicago general manager Kenny Williams did a great job buying low on Quentin last offseason. Quentin was well-regarded enough to be a first-round pick in the 2003 amateur draft. (OK, so it was the end of the first round, that's still first round). He hit well in the minors, and as a 23-year-old rookie in 2007, he posted a 115 OPS+ in 57 games.

 

He hit a wall last year in Arizona, but that might say more about the D-backs than Quentin. Though fans sometimes think of player development as entirely a process that occurs in the minors, trying to establish oneself in the majors is arguably the most important and treacherous part of the journey. It's worth noting that in recent years many young hitters have stagnated (Mark Reynolds) or tread water (Stephen Drew, Chris Young, Chris Snyder) instead of improving in their mid-to-late 20s.

 

Quentin has talent and should be a valuable bat in the White Sox lineup for years to come. However, the aging curve isn't always a straight line and someone who rose up so dramatically as Quentin did last year might fall back a bit (at least in terms of rate stats).

 

For example, using the database mentioned in my last column the following ten players experienced the biggest rise in their OPS+ from age 24 to 25 since 1920: Adrian Beltre, Bobby Murcer, Bill Freehan, Bobby Higginson, Wally Post, Joe Rudi, Al Cowens, Ray Lankford, Roy Smalley, and Justin Morneau. (This isn't a perfect comparison for Quentin as the database only includes players who qualified for the batting title, which Quentin didn't at age 24. It works well enough, though.)

 

All 10 of those players declined in terms of Pete Palmer's Batting Runs at age 26, and nine out of 10 had their OPS+ drop (Bill Freehan rose from 144 to 145). They almost all remained quality players, about half were All-Star caliber. All were good enough players to hold a starting job for a prolonged period of time. Among the retired men listed above, they all remained regulars well into their 30s. Personally, I think Quentin has more talent than most of them, and given that he lost a month to injury he has a shot to make up for in quantity what he might lose in quality in 2009. Still, players that do wildly better one year from the next are good bets to regress a bit the next year.

 

It is vital for the White Sox that Quentin buck that trend and continue to produce at a high level for them. Last year, when park factor is accounted for, the White Sox had a generally mediocre offense.

 

Aside from Quentin, their main bats are all on the wrong side of age 30: Paul Konerko (age 33), Jermaine Dye (35), and Jim Thome (38). Aging is rarely a straight line and they one shouldn't assume they'll all decline, but as a group they are a bad bet to improve. (And that's before you wonder if Thome's back will let him play 149 games this year). I already noted why I think A. J. is due for a downturn this year.

 

An old baseball truism has it that the hardest sort of team to improve is one without a considerable hole in it. Well, though not spectacular, the 2008 Sox had an unusually solid lineup.

 

Baseball-reference has a stat which demonstrates this: sOPS+. It compares the park-adjusted OPS a team posts in a particular split with overall league offensive production in that split. For example, a team with an sOPS+ of 100 at catcher had aggregate league average hitting from their collective backstops. In 2008, the Sox had an sOPS+ of 94 or higher from every position except first base (where Konerko returns). They were usually a little under 100, but they were consistently right around there. For a club with an offense-wide of OPS+ of 101, they have surprisingly little room for significant upgrade, which makes an potential age-related declines that much more damaging. Thus it's important for them that Quentin produce as their other big boppers drop off.

 

Furthermore, the flip side of that old truism is that creating a hole on a previously solid team is a quick way to worsen the squad. The Sox lost three of their starting position players from last year: third baseman Joe Crede, shortstop Orlando Cabrera, and centerfielder Nick Swisher.

 

The franchise can likely handle the loss of their infielders. Third baseman Josh Fields has already shown he can hit at a major league level. They team has a gaggle of talented prospects looking to move into second base (as Alexei Ramirez shifts from second to short to take Cabrera's slot).

 

Center field might be the hole that hurts their lineup. Three men have been mentioned as possible starters in that hole this year: Jerry Owens (66 career OPS+ in 415 PA), Brian Anderson (67 OPS+ in 652 PA, and Dewayne Wise (62 OPS+ in 504 PA). Though the team's defense should improve (helping flyballers like Floyd and Danks), the offense should suffer horribly.

 

5. Do you get the feeling that Kenny Williams knows something we don't?

 

When I look at the White Sox, I see a third-place team. They went 89-74 last year on the strength of a very solid team, and this year I think their lineup has at least one hole in it, is likely to worsen overall, and I also think the back of their rotation will be a touch worse than 2008.

 

However, as noted at the outset, the White Sox have done a really good job making their critics look like idiots. Sure, Nate Silver's PECOTA projection system made a deadly accurate prediction of their 72-90 record in 2007, but it also badly underestimated them in 2006. Conventional wisdom did a better job in 2006, but much worse in 2007. Neither the sabermetric community nor the public at large saw Chicago's 2005 or 2008 triumphs coming.

 

I'd like to be able to sit back and explain why the Sox will be better, and how Kenny has brilliantly maneuvered the Sox into another surprise title in 2009, but . . . . I don't see it.

 

Williams has always done a good job balancing the desire to win now with the ability to win down the road. Thus the Sox have two postseason appearances (and one ring) with only one losing record on his watch. This juggling act is especially impressive given that Williams doesn't have a huge margin of error to work with in either direction.

 

This year, it looks like Williams has leaned more towards winning down the road than winning next year. The Sox usually acquire at least one proven veteran who can make an impact with the team right away. It can be a big name like Jim Thome or someone smaller like Nick Swisher.

 

This off-season the Sox lost the three previously mentioned starting position players and Vazquez. They are largely being replaced with kids. Even though they are good kids, talented young'uns often take a while to earn their sea legs in the majors. The biggest veteran Chicago signed is Bartolo Colon, who is essentially just a flyer having won just 11 games in the last three seasons.

 

Chicago's best hope for a postseason appearance lies with the rest of the division. They need Cleveland and Detroit to remain hibernating, Kansas City to continue to stink, and Minnesota to falter. Frankly, all those things are possible, but I wouldn't put my money on all of it occurring.

[ThunderBolt]

Great article. I enjoy how all of the great stats sites acknowledge that KW seems to be playing a different game then everyone else.

[justBLAZE]

Eh, he says that we will have at least one big hole .. in Center Fields.

 

Nick Swisher absolutely stunk last year.

[ThunderBolt]

People seem to forget that in a down year the guy still hit 24 home runs and 69 RBIs, but yeah he performance wasn't ideal.

[SoxAce]

People seem to forget that in a down year the guy still hit 24 home runs and 69 RBIs

 

Not to mention a .742 ops. Hell, that would be a good year for Owens.

[justBLAZE]

People seem to forget that in a down year the guy still hit 24 home runs and 69 RBIs, but yeah he performance wasn't ideal.

 

You make a point, but if we give BA a full year @ CF, can he duplicate those numbers?

[Jordan4life_2007]

People seem to forget that in a down year the guy still hit 24 home runs and 69 RBIs, but yeah he performance wasn't ideal.

 

Calling it even a "down" year is giving him too much credit. Nick Swisher was simply one of the 10 worst players in baseball last year. I'd love to know what his numbers were if you take away his one good month (was it June?).

[Whitewashed in '05]

Good article. Seems like more people are becoming aware KW isn't just throwing people on the field and crossing his fingers that it will work.

[witesoxfan]

Calling it even a "down" year is giving him too much credit. Nick Swisher was simply one of the 10 worst players in baseball last year. I'd love to know what his numbers were if you take away his one good month (was it June?).

 

Going into June 1 - .200/.329/.308/.637

From July 1st on - .195/.306/.405/.711

 

So probably around a .670 OPS. And you can't simply forget about his best month, otherwise you can do that for every other s***ty player too.

 

Tony Pena Jr had 235 PAs last year and put up a .398 OPS. In 15 PAs during August, he went 6 for 15 (all singles) for a .400 AVG, .400 OBP, .400 SLG, which leads to an .800 OPS. If you take that out, I could very easily see his OPS being in the .380 or lower range.

 

In all seriousness, to suggest that Nick Swisher was one of the 10 worst players last year is flat wrong. Even if it was just one month, he still put up a 1.000+ OPS in June, and then he put up an .850+ OPS in August. Those months have to be counted, no matter how s***ty the others were. In the end, his season ended with a .742 OPS, and he wasn't even the worst offensive regular in his own lineup (Cabrera and Pierzynski were offensively worse, though Pierzynski is a pretty good offensive catcher which isn't speaking in raw offensive terms but rather more along the lines of VORP).

 

Let it be known that I'm not defending Swisher...he was absolutely brutal. Just that he doesn't deserve to be called one of the 10 worst players in baseball.

 

 

 

 

(Swisher actually had a higher OPS+ (given, 92 to 91, but still) than Chris Young, but I'll keep that hush-hush as Chris Young was also a decent base stealer and played superior defense to Swisher).

[Jordan4life_2007]

Going into June 1 - .200/.329/.308/.637

From July 1st on - .195/.306/.405/.711

 

So probably around a .670 OPS. And you can't simply forget about his best month, otherwise you can do that for every other s***ty player too.

 

Tony Pena Jr had 235 PAs last year and put up a .398 OPS. In 15 PAs during August, he went 6 for 15 (all singles) for a .400 AVG, .400 OBP, .400 SLG, which leads to an .800 OPS. If you take that out, I could very easily see his OPS being in the .380 or lower range.

 

In all seriousness, to suggest that Nick Swisher was one of the 10 worst players last year is flat wrong. Even if it was just one month, he still put up a 1.000+ OPS in June, and then he put up an .850+ OPS in August. Those months have to be counted, no matter how s***ty the others were. In the end, his season ended with a .742 OPS, and he wasn't even the worst offensive regular in his own lineup (Cabrera and Pierzynski were offensively worse, though Pierzynski is a pretty good offensive catcher which isn't speaking in raw offensive terms but rather more along the lines of VORP).

 

Let it be known that I'm not defending Swisher...he was absolutely brutal. Just that he doesn't deserve to be called one of the 10 worst players in baseball.

 

 

 

 

(Swisher actually had a higher OPS+ (given, 92 to 91, but still) than Chris Young, but I'll keep that hush-hush as Chris Young was also a decent base stealer and played superior defense to Swisher).

 

How about one of the 10 worst players with at least 400 at bats (not sure how many he had exactly. But I know he had at least that many)? If you can find 10 players worse, I'll give you your props. And I wasn't trying to subtract his best month. Just pointing out, and the numbers obviously prove that it was that month, and only that month, that he didn't look like the 2k version of Dan Pasqua.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2009 by Jordan4life

[Kalapse]

Jeff Francoeur

Khalil Greene

Michael Bourne

Bobby Crosby

Kenji Johjima

Freddy Sanchez

Jeff Keppinger

Yuniesky Betancourt

Cesar Izturis

Jose Castillo

Bill Hall

Daric Barton

Emil Brown

Gary Matthews Jr.

Edgar Renteria

Corey Patterson

Jay Payton

John Buck

Geoff Blum

Austin Kearns

Paul Bako

Brad Wilkerson

Richie Sexson

Jason Michaels

Tadahito Iguchi

Kevin Millar

Jose Vidro

Luis Castillo

John Bowker

Joey Gathright

David Dellucci

Gary Sheffield

 

Just a few players who got a ton of PA last year and were less productive than Nick Swisher. There's a lot more but I left out some of the better defenders at premium positions, elite baserunners and incredibly versatile defenders. I also just glossed over some names who were probably worse.

[Kalapse]

How about one of the 10 worst players with at least 400 at bats (not sure how many he had exactly. But I know he had at least that many)? If you can find 10 players worse, I'll give you your props. And I wasn't trying to subtract his best month. Just pointing out, and the numbers obviously prove that it was that month, and only that month, that he didn't look like the 2k version of Dan Pasqua.

Michael Bourn

Khalil Greene

C. Izturis

Bobby Crosby

Jeff Francoeur

Jeff Keppinger

Jose Castillo

Freddy Sanchez

Daric Barton

Gary Matthews Jr.

Emil Brown

Bill Hall

Yuniesky Betancourt

Edgar Renteria

 

That's gotta be at least 10.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Damn, I forgot how bad Jeff Francoeur was. But fair enough. I guess being a Sox fan and obviously seeing Swisher on an every game basis made it seem like he was one of the worst players out there.

[GREEDY]

Damn, I forgot how bad Jeff Francoeur was. But fair enough. I guess being a Sox fan and obviously seeing Swisher on an every game basis made it seem like he was one of the worst players out there.

 

 

BINGO!

 

And that is where you are dead wrong. Just because Swisher took what seemed like a ton of called third strikes, then grimaced like he just swallowed Ozzie's spit cup, doesn't mean he was one of the worst offensive players in the league last season. It also doesn't help that the guy you essentially watch the games with (Hawk), hates taking a called third more than he hates watching DJ's ass try to chip in from bunker 100 ft away. Swisher needs to work on the Scott Podsednik half swing and emotionless walk back to the dugout.

 

Player A:

65 R/21 HR/77 RBI/.317 OBP/22 2B

 

Player B:

86 R/24 HR/69 RBI/.332 OBP/21 2B

 

 

Player A was recently annointed the future of the franchise and a will clearly be a fan favorite for years to come. While Player B was dealt and would have been run out of town by an angry mob if KW hadn't moved him.

 

Player A had Soxtalk posters clamoring for him to win a postseason award, Player B had Soxtalk posters saying he was one of the 10 worst offensive players in baseball in '08.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Player B wasn't a middle infielder, FWIW.

[Y2HH]

Let it be known that I'm not defending Swisher...he was absolutely brutal. Just that he doesn't deserve to be called one of the 10 worst players in baseball.

 

Change your name to swisherdefender.

[daa84]

BINGO!

 

And that is where you are dead wrong. Just because Swisher took what seemed like a ton of called third strikes, then grimaced like he just swallowed Ozzie's spit cup, doesn't mean he was one of the worst offensive players in the league last season. It also doesn't help that the guy you essentially watch the games with (Hawk), hates taking a called third more than he hates watching DJ's ass try to chip in from bunker 100 ft away. Swisher needs to work on the Scott Podsednik half swing and emotionless walk back to the dugout.

 

Player A:

65 R/21 HR/77 RBI/.317 OBP/22 2B

 

Player B:

86 R/24 HR/69 RBI/.332 OBP/21 2B

 

 

Player A was recently annointed the future of the franchise and a will clearly be a fan favorite for years to come. While Player B was dealt and would have been run out of town by an angry mob if KW hadn't moved him.

 

Player A had Soxtalk posters clamoring for him to win a postseason award, Player B had Soxtalk posters saying he was one of the 10 worst offensive players in baseball in '08.

this is an excellent post...and by many accounts (people can choose whether to believe them or not) player B is likely to have an even better year than the one posted above....and could also provide adequate defense in CF, which is a huge glaring hole for us.

 

i like marquez and betemit a bit for what they do, but frankly i dont think enough of marquez as a long term starter to convince me that this was a good trade. The insurance marquez provides this year, and the likelihood he will become a rotation fixture to me don't have enough value in comparison to the value a .340 obp with 25 HR (and i personally think it could be .360 with close to 30) has in CF, especially when CF is such a huge black hole.

 

the more i think about it right now, the more i wish i had a time machine and could go back and prevent KW from this trade. a top of the order of Getz, Swisher, Quentin, Thome (Dye, Konerko, AJ, Ramirez, Fields after that looks damn good) would not only get on base a ton, but would also see a ton of pitches

 

[lostfan]

If Swisher's batting average (and consequently his OBP) was 30 points higher, along with better consistency, he would've been an excellent player to have. I don't get why some here are so down on his CF defense though, he was ok out there.

[daa84]

btw you can gladly refer to me as a swisher defender...i am. i truly believe he was run out of town by our manager who didn't like his antics and body language. If you ask me im not even sure Swisher was one of the 5 worst players on our team last year. IMO he had a better year than AJ, Crede, Uribe, and Cabrera, and was roughly the equivalent of Konerko.

 

btw i found this is rob neyers blog this morning...

 

Newsday's Kat O'Brien reports that the Yankees might have locked down their everyday right fielder:

 

And here in Tampa, the news of the morning is that Joe Girardi said Xavier Nady is the starting right fielder. Said Girardi: "If we were to break today, Nady would be my right fielder."

 

Girardi said he likes what Nady did for the Yankees last year, thinks he can do even better now that he has adjusted to the league, and looks forward to his production. We'll see both him and Nick Swisher out there, but Nady is the regular starter.

 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense because -- wait, what?

 

Xavier Nady's been around for a while and is exceptionally easy to project. Given regular duties in the middle of a good lineup, he'll hit 25 homers and drive in 100 runs. He doesn't draw many walks, and he will reach base roughly 33 percent of the time.

 

Swisher would also hit 25 to 30 homers and wouldn't drive in as many runs because he'll take his walks but might score more because he'll reach base 35 percent of the time.

 

According to everything I can find, Swisher's the slightly better fielder. And according to everything I can find, Swisher's the better baserunner. Also -- and here's the nut if you're looking for one -- Swisher's the better hitter against right-handed pitchers, and last time I checked, there were more right-handed pitchers than left-handed pitchers.

 

Swisher's also (almost exactly) two years younger than Nady, which means he's got a better chance of improving over what he did last year (which, by the way, was a terribly unlucky year for him, coloring all the projections you'll find for him).

 

So, let's see … younger, better against right-handed pitching, better fielder, better baserunner … gee, why would you want to give that guy a regular job?

 

Oh, don't worry; it's not as bad as all that. Considering all the Yankees' creaky old geezers, there should be plenty of at-bats for a (relative) whippersnapper like Nick Swisher. These sorts of things do tend to find their natural balance, eventually. But with the questions about Alex Rodriguez's availability and the tough competition in their division, one might reasonably wonder if "eventually" will come soon enough.

[Dick Allen]

How about one of the 10 worst players with at least 400 at bats (not sure how many he had exactly. But I know he had at least that many)? If you can find 10 players worse, I'll give you your props. And I wasn't trying to subtract his best month. Just pointing out, and the numbers obviously prove that it was that month, and only that month, that he didn't look like the 2k version of Dan Pasqua.

I agree with you, it may be cherry picking but except for June, so 5 months, the guy didn't hit .200, and he wasn't a CF.

[GreenSox]

The mistake was the first Swisher trade. Sweeney and Anderson could be platooning in CF and that would be that.

 

Ozzie can't stand called third strikes- of course, if you're going to take walks, you're going to have your share of called 3rd strikes. Guillen didn't like Swisher, so Williams had to get something for him and he did.

[DBAHO]

If Swisher's batting average (and consequently his OBP) was 30 points higher, along with better consistency, he would've been an excellent player to have. I don't get why some here are so down on his CF defense though, he was ok out there.

I thought he was ok too (RZR rating wise for 2008 I think he was around the league average IIRC). Really surprised that the Yanks are gonna go with Gardner out there to start the season, but I guess they're putting a premium on defense this season.

[Steve9347]

Good article.

[shakes]

I thought he was ok too (RZR rating wise for 2008 I think he was around the league average IIRC). Really surprised that the Yanks are gonna go with Gardner out there to start the season, but I guess they're putting a premium on defense this season.

 

They're putting a premium on defense at that position, but their defense as a whole could be pretty awful.

 

 

[DBAHO]

They're putting a premium on defense at that position, but their defense as a whole could be pretty awful.

Getting Teixeira to replace Giambi will certainly improve their infield defense no doubt.

 

If they play Gardner / Swisher / Cabrera more than they played Damon in CF last season, that's probably an upgrade.

 

Losing Abreu and replacing him with Nady in RF should be an upgrade.

 

So I think the Yanks defense will definitely be better than it was last season (and last season it was definitely pretty bad).

 

They're probably mediocreish now though.