Q. Surely the Tigers aren't serious about dealing Granderson.
He's one of the best players in the game, right?, worth $15-20M per season but getting paid only 4 x $9M.
A. I think they are serious. And as with J.J. Hardy, I think people may be surprised at the disconnect between what MLB teams think Granderson's worth, and what sabermetricians think he's worth.
As far as the assertion that Granderson couldn't be part of a salary dump if he has a value contract, no. We're definitely reading Fortune-500 execs wrong on that one.
We sabermetricians have a tendency to project our own logic onto high-ranking F-500 execs.
It doesn't work that way, "Granderson's a WAR/$ asset and therefore he stays." If the Tigers' controlling players want to win via the Tampa Bay route, that's what they'll do. It doesn't matter a lot whether you or I agree with it.
One thing that really has to stop, if we want our analysis to have any kind of contact with reality, is the article that reads (1) Here would be my approach to this problem, so (2) therefore I can't believe that an MLB org would do it any differently.
They can and will do it differently. You can never tell what's going to happen in a boardroom. And not because they're morons. :- ) Because they have pressures to deal with.
.
Q. Could Detroit really be in cost-cutting mode?
A. The Tigers just gave away free advertising to the automakers in a show of appreciation for their support over the years. This was pathetic. I don't mean "pathetic" as in, worthy of ridicule; I mean "pathetic" in terms of being tear-jerking.
You have any friends in Detroit? It is scaaaaaaaaary there.
...............
The execs are in the business of keeping their jobs, which coincides nicely with the idea of keeping costs as tight as possible and the financial picture as strong as possible.
If the board decides that three of the top 4 players have to go, they're not going to have Hardball Times or Baseball Prospectus on the PowerPoint projector as they argue it. You can b'lee DAT, baby.
The Tigers' beancounters will be looking at the auto industry (etc.) over the next 5-10 years. It may look grim. I haven't seen their projections on the local economy in the '010's. I assume that Theoden's projections on his Keep were rosy by comparison.
................
I dunno if Detroit is scaling back. But the locals are panicked over it. Dombrowski did specify "minimum-salary pitching" as his requirement for Edwin Jackson.
.
Q. But surely the baseball execs, such as Dombrowski, are going to make it clear to the beancounters that Granderson's getting paid at 50 cents on the dollar.
A. I don't agree that Granderson is going to be paid at 50 cents on the dollar over the life of his contract.
But supposing he were?, all (good) club-controls players are paid at pennies on the dollar. Grant for a moment that Granderson is paid $5.5M next year, but worth $14M. What's the outrage in dealing him for two guys who make $1M each and deliver $10M of performance each?
Guys like Granderson, signed to value contracts, can be traded for younger players signed to even better-value contracts. I will guarantee you that Michael Saunders and Brandon Morrow have better WAR/$ ratios next year than Granderson does. What's the WAR/$ ratio on a guy that makes $0.4M and produces 1-2 wins?
.
Continuing with taro's comments on using career norms in HR/Fly and BABIP to adjut batting lines...that's good in theory, but when a hitter significantly changes his basic hitting approach...your method breaks as it will for Lopez.
I think its the ideal way for adjusting for luck. Its a lot better than using a theoretical Ex.BABIP for a 'pool' of players, its using that individual players ACTUAL career BIPs based on outcome (FB/GB/LD/BH BABIPs).
If a guy changes his approach it'll show in his peripherals. Its very unusual for a guy to change his FB BABIP, GB BABIP, LD BABIP unless there are outside factors like defensive alignments or a new home ballpark. Even then the changes are probably minimal. If a guy improves, he'll improve by increasing his FB%, his LD%, or by getting better plate discipline, making more contact, etc.
Granderson improved by upping his FB% and CT% (mostly the FB%). His HR/FB% stayed at career levels. Lopez had a high HR rate thanks to a career high in HR/FB%.
HR/FB% almost always regresses to around career average with a player that has 4-5 seasons of data in and is still in his prime. Its EXTREMELY rare for a player to increase his established HR/FB% and have that level maintain. It would need to correlate with an increase in HR distance, and even then it usually regresses. I don't believe that Lopez is one of those exceptions. His high Hr/FB% in '09 didn't even correlate with an average 390+ feet HRs.
And given that HR/Fly is notoriously volatile, it is difficult to make any assumptions on whether a one-year change was luck or a changed approach. On the one hand...the volatilty of HR/FLy argues for Lopez' high mark being luck...on the other hand, it cautions the user not to make assumptions about the player's career averages in previous seasons since it's very sensitive to changes in the batter's swing trajectory that won't necessarily always present themselves in changes in FB% or LD%.
He didn't change that much asides from a high HR/FB% (that isn't supported by his HR distances).
He had a slightly high FB%, he popped up a little less, he was swung at even more pitches than usual, his O-Swing% was a tad higher.
He was pretty much the same guy as last year asides from the HR output.
I'm looking at month by month splits and seeing two Lopezes.
Right, but it was the power in the 2nd half that boosted Lopez' numbers. Regardless, this would be an adjusted line for his 'full-year' in '09. Not neccesarilly a prediction for '10 (although I'd guess at around 2 WAR if we're going that route).
In any case, I'm going to go calculate that adjusted line..
Lopez's adjusted '09 line:
.274/.305/.426
Wow, I'm actually suprised at how low that is. I thought Lopez would gain more hits, but his FB BABIP was actually higher this season, it was all GB BABIP that was unlucky (and that was good for 9 singles and 1 2B which he lost with the FB BABIP). His LD BABIP was slightly lower but only good for a little over 1 single. Overall he gained 9 singles and lost 8 HRs.
It turns out Lopez's '09 BABIP probably wasn't all that unlucky. Kind of a suprising outcome. His '09 Hr/FB% is going to HAVE to maintain to some degree in '10 and beyond, and IMO thats asking for a lot. This re-inforces my opinion that we need to sell high here if a Danks-esque return is possible. Lopez's '09 season was COMPLETELY driven by a high HR total that is unlikely to continue with half of his games in Safeco.
I tried using a 9 HR/FB% as a baseline, using the assumption that Lopez has earned a lot of that '09 HR/FB%. Keeping in mind that this is very unlikely considering Lopez hasn't even touched that mark pre-'09 and that this is a skillset that usually doesn't improve (with Lopez not showing a lot raw power via hittracker).. I still need to consider the scenario in which Lopez raises his true Hr/FB% in Safeco.
I come with ex. Value of 20 HRS (+ 9 singles) as opposed to 25 with an adjusted line of:
.279/.310/.445
His value might be between the last line and this one since I was thinking of awarding some doubles for Lopez's lost HRs in his last batting line.
One problem here is that the majority of research trendlines are based on large groups of (often) very disperate hitting types. And as you narrow down focus on groups closer in style, the sample sizes shrink, so the reliability of conclusions swoons, also.
The reality is that a truth for a group can *NEVER* be completely applied to any individual. Each player is different -- and even when the numbers line up perfectly in sync with the theories and postulates, suddenly in year X you see something completely unexpected. When Sexson first swooned, it was due to a massive drop in BABIP ... which was almost universally accepted by the math crowd as 'unluckiness'. He never recovered. Sexson is the PROOF that BABIP isn't "always" luck.
With Lopez, absent any other data, I could easily agree with Taro's luck assessment. But we DO have extra info. We have the knowledge from Lopez himself that after he returned from the latest family tragedy, he CHANGED his approach. His spike in performance directly follows that stated change.
That said ... even though his year-long 2009 numbers aren't far off his 2008 ... his HOME/ROAD splits for 2009 are 100% out of whack with everything he'd done before 2009. Prior to 2009, he had no significant home/away skew. In 2009, he suddenly became a monster on the road, and suffered at home. He DID become a different hitter in 2009, which clouds the utility of the pre-2009 data.
When I add his 2009 changes, the knowledge that they were DECISION-related, and pile on the fact that he did this at 25, when normal peak age is 27 ... I see Lopez having a potentially better 2010 and 2011. And, if he maintains the new road edge, come 2011 ... THEN he should have major, (instead of minor), value on the open market.
There's one other thing. He's had zero growth in patience ... and no, he's never going to walk 70 times in a season. But, I believe for the first time, his head is at a place where it may be possible for him to be taught to lay off ONE PITCH. Doesn't matter which one. His change in approach was based on pitch-recognition. If he gets that one tiny improvement, picks up 5 or 6 walks ... the big payoff isn't in walks. The big payoff is in getting slightly better pitches to hit.
Aaron Hill could've been sold as a 'sell high' candidate after his 17-HR age-25 season. And for what it's worth, (not much), on Aaron Hill's comparability chart - Jose Lopez is #1.
Yes, but I used Lopez's career BABIP lines to adjust his '09, not an arbitrary group total.
The fact of the matter is, if you buy into Lopez '09 HR total as his true talent level you HAVE to buy into his higher HR/FB% in '09. Theres just no other way around it. He was actually 'less' patient in '09 than in previous seasons, and his other skills were not that far off from the norm.
Aaron Hill is actually a hitter I expect a HUGE regression from. The interesting thing is that Hill's average HR distance improved in '09, but definetly not enough to support 30+HRs. I'd bet on a MASSIVE regression there, much larger than that of Lopez'. The low end of 20-25 HRs for HIll in '10 is a safe bet considering the ballpark, and a mark in the high teens wouldn't suprise me either.
I actually don't think theres much of a difference between Lopez and Hill. Hill is a 'tad' better (better patience+FB%), but the advantage in raw power can be explained by park. Both guys had UP years in HR production IMO; Hill significantly so.