Russell Branyan Signed, Does He Fit?
We've discussed this plenty of times, but the Yankees have a need for a left-handed bat to platoon with Andruw Jones. That need may have been filled in the form of a non-guaranteed deal for Russell Branyan, an aging power bat that has had plenty of success against righties throughout his career.
Against right-handed pitching from 2004-2010, Branyan averaged a .355 OBP, a .288 ISO, a .376 wOBA, and a 131 wRC+. Those are very good numbers, and when given the chance to showcase his strengths, it seems like he'd do very well.
But last year? Not too good, especially for a guy that was supposed to hit righties very well. Granted, small sample sizes were in effect, as he only had 116 at bats in 60 games. It's absolutely worth wondering how much an effect the small sample had on him. On the other hand, it's also worth noting he has dealt with small samples before, and those samples never showed him to be so bad against righties.
Let's try and figure out what exactly happened.
After taking a look at his 2004-2010 numbers, a team looking for a guy to mash righties would have thought they were getting exactly that - a guy who could crush right-handed pitching. He did it for seven consecutive seasons, so should expecting an eighth have been expecting too much?
Here are his numbers:
| Season | BB% | K% | OBP | ISO | BABIP | wOBA | wRC+ |
| 2004 | 12.10% | 34.20% | 0.349 | 0.336 | 0.324 | 0.390 | 135 |
| 2005 | 17.30% | 30.50% | 0.405 | 0.258 | 0.379 | 0.393 | 139 |
| 2006 | 13.10% | 28.80% | 0.332 | 0.260 | 0.264 | 0.348 | 111 |
| 2007 | 13.10% | 36.90% | 0.310 | 0.250 | 0.260 | 0.327 | 100 |
| 2008 | 13.80% | 24.60% | 0.377 | 0.373 | 0.288 | 0.422 | 159 |
| 2009 | 11.90% | 26.60% | 0.363 | 0.275 | 0.304 | 0.380 | 134 |
| 2010 | 12.70% | 28.60% | 0.352 | 0.268 | 0.305 | 0.375 | 137 |
| 2011 | 12.00% | 27.10% | 0.293 | 0.190 | 0.237 | 0.301 | 85 |
Statistics from fangraphs.com
In 2011, his BB% and K% stayed constant, so that's probably not the problem. And while his BB% stayed constant, his OBP fell off a cliff. That's a red flag for me.
His ISO also dropped considerably, and he is getting older, so it is very possible that his 2011 decline has to do with age. As age increases, power decreases, and that isn't a secret. Maybe those home runs just started turning into long fly outs.
But then I see his BABIP, and I start seeing a potential problem. Could it be that he was simply unlucky? From 2004-2010, Branyan averaged a .303 BABIP, but in 2011, it dropped to .237. As stated above, we are dealing with a small sample size, and BABIP coupled with small sample size can lead to some interesting numbers to say the least.
Looking at his statistics, when his BABIP stays around his average, he puts up consistent numbers. If his BABIP hovers around .300, the Yankees could be getting a player that can really hit righties, maybe even along his 2009 and 2010 lines - seasons where his BABIP hovered around his average from 2004-2010.
If his BABIP doesn't return, or if his 2011 struggles were age-related, then it doesn't really matter because the deal is non-guaranteed. Branyan would simply get DFA'd and we'd be done with it. In signing Russell Branyan, the Yankees have given themselves a high-upside, low-risk option that has shown the ability to hit right-handed pitching very well.
44 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think
minor league invites for this kind of guy are always a good idea. A better idea than throwing money at Ibanez and then being stuck with him all year if he doesn’t hit.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
Most of the names being tossed around for LH DH are just like Branyan- old, cheap, and coming off bad seasons.
Damon, Ibanez, Branyan, Hall. (Actually, Hall is coming off a bad season every year). The strategy of signing a bunch of them to non- guaranteed contracts and then fihuring out who is washed up and who just had a bad year is a good one.
A .237 OBP suggests an injury, disclosed or not, more than it does really bad luck. He put about the same percentage of balls into play as he always did. Perhaps someone can produce the spray chart of where his batted balls landed. If he was hitting dribblers and popups instead of the fly balls his swing usually produces, then he may be done. Or not. Who knows?
by designatedquitter on Feb 9, 2012 9:54 AM EST reply actions
Check his LD%
I can’t find one for just against right-handed pitchers, but his line drive % last year was 18%, which is lower than this career average LD% of 21%, but higher than his LD% in 2010, which was 15%. Since 2001, his LD% has been between 19%-24% apart from the past 2 years. With a LD% of 18%, unless I’m mistaken his BABIP should have been closer to .300 (.180 + .120), but his overall BABIP (vs. lefties and righties) was .244.
He was really unlucky.
.237 BABIP, not OBP. Huge difference. Like I said, this came over the course of 116 at bats in just 60 games, meaning he simply wasn’t getting consistent at bats. It is very conceivable that the sample size and playing time were just not enough to make valid conclusions.
Contributing writer for Pinstripe Alley.
Follow me on Twitter @frankiecamp48
by Frank Campagnola on Feb 9, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
I meant BABIP.
My point is that it was extraordinarily low, which might mean an injury interfering with his swing or ability to run, or else just inexcusably lame hitting consistent with declining skill.
by designatedquitter on Feb 9, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
Someone more knowledgeable is welcome to correct me, but BABIP isn’t something that’s generally affected by something like that, just poor luck…?
by MichaelGGBGrabow on Feb 9, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
BABIP is influenced by a lot of things
It’s most influenced by LD%, GB%, FB%, and luck. If you’re hitting a lot of line drives, you should have a lot of balls falling for hits. Hence, if you want a good indication of what BABIP should be, take LD% and add .120 to account for the few ground balls and fly balls that find holes. LD% would be affected by an injury, which is how BABIP would be affected by an injury. As I said above, His LD% last year was 18% (roughly consistent with his career BABIP, and especially his BABIP since 2001), so his expected BABIP should be around .300. Instead, it was nearly .060 lower than that. In fact, his BABIP should have been higher last year than the year before since he had a lower LD% the year before. That it was lower despite the higher LD% indicated that, as I stated above, “He was really unlucky.”
Hafner Trade
Having this chat at Lets go Tribe. Just curious of the response here. Would you do this?
Hafner + $8 million for Nova OR Warren and Phelps?
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 10:29 AM EST reply actions
Hafner + Yankee Stadium
That combination doesn’t interest you at all? I think he’d potentially murder Yankee stadium, especially when you factor the upgraded OBP around him.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, but I really don’t want another guy who can’t do anything but DH. We got Branyan for nothing.
Romine!
WHAT IS THE BEST HAFNER COULD DO?
I agree. What is the most you would be getting from a guy like Hafner? Based on his last 4 years, you’d probably get .280/15/60 at best, for one year. And for that you’d give up a young arm that could be a fixture in the rotation for years, plus a minor league arm that could potentially be a spot-starter and fixture in the bullpen for years (or could be serious trade bait a year or two down the line, like Ian Kennedy?), PLUS CASH?!?!?!
The Yankees are doing exactly what they should be doing. They dont want to commit to another mega-contract right now, and don’t want to trade one of their long-term arms for a very short-term and limited bat, so they are stockpiling guys on one-year options for limited money and will make spring training an extended beauty pageant for ageing veterans desperate for one last chance of glory. If none pan out, you’ve lost virtually nothing (except a bit of cash, which we can afford). If one works out, Branyan or one of the others could give the same production you’d expect from someone like Hafner without having to give up Nova or Phelps or anyone else.
Even if none of those works out, the offense will as good as Rodriguez and Texiera takes it. If those two are healthy (in ARods case) and have rebound years (in Tex’s case), the offense will be absolutely fine no matter who is at DH. If those two dont perform, then it really wont matter anyway whether Branyan or Hafner or Damon or Ibanez is at DH.
Let me rephrase.
Either Nova alone, or a package of Warren and Phelps.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
No. It’s still a lot to pay $5 million for a platoon DH with health issues who has zero value on the field. You also have to factor in his $2.75M buyout of his 2013 $13M option. I’m not giving up 5 more years of team control of Nova nor Warren or Phelps over that. The Yankees offense will be fine even if they decide to give Ramiro Pena full-time DH at-bats.
by Scooby Snacks on Feb 9, 2012 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
Fair enough.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
Hafner isn't worth my asscrack lint
Last night, a comedian died in New York. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows
it's hard to get proper value for ACL
by long time listener on Feb 9, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
Now I see why it takes so long to recover from a torn ACL.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Hafner is barely worth only one of Warren/Phelps by himself. I wouldn’t do either trade straight up either, Hafner is simply not good anymore and is expensive to go along with that.
"Don't you think it's strange that you'll make more money than President Hoover this year?"
"Why not? I had a better year than he did." - G.H. Ruth
He’s actually pretty good against RHP (.384 wOBA) but I don’t want him at that price.
by Scooby Snacks on Feb 9, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Uhhh, Not only no, but Hell No!
"I don't want one of those guys who'll drive in two but let in three every game." Casey Stengel
by tnredneckyankeesfan on Feb 9, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
Since when have the Yankees accepted money as compensation for a trade?
They have more than anyone. More than they have minor league catchers. More than over-hyped young pitchers. How would more of something they already have too much of induce them to either take on Hafner or part with Nova?
Also, how can you equate Nova with Warren?
by designatedquitter on Feb 9, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Another Question
Do you really believe Gardner was as valuable as Pujols in 2011? (equal WAR)
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 11:48 AM EST reply actions
is their WAR equal?
Baseball Reference has Pujols a full win higher. Which is a little surprising, but Gardner was outstanding defensively and on the basepaths and played in nearly every game, whereas Pujols had a down year, missed 15 games, and added little on the basepaths. So it’s not outlandish that they’re closer than you’d think.
by long time listener on Feb 9, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
WAR is also in the context of position
so Pujols loses value due to the quality of 1st basemen versus left fielders. But yeah, Pujols was a FAR more valuable offensive player and defensive metrics are generally considered less reliable than offensive ones.
fangraphs has them both at 5.1
though i am a big fan of brett the jet, i think this is an example of how war isn’t the end-all and be all of sabermetric evaluation. that he’s an incredible defender and super quick runner is unquestionable, but does that make him worth more than pujols? no.
Boone Logan is a good boy. So is David Robertson. Team A.J.
Hypothetical
Team A: 9 Pujols equivalent players at each position. (Including DH)
Team B: 9 Gardner equivalent players at each position. (Including DH)
Each team has an identical rotation. Team A loses each Pujols 15 games per year, at random points of the season, and is replaced by a league average player.
If these teams play 162 games, and you simulate this season 1 million times to normalize the variance in which games are missed by the 9 Pujols’, how many wins do you think Team A would average?
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 9, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Lol, no takers?
I’ll throw one out there.
Average record for team A would 161-1. Rounding up for the fraction of a win Team B would receive during those seasons where more than 6 Pujols’ were injured at the same time.
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 10, 2012 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
Well seeing as Pujols missed 15 games while also not hitting very Pujols-like, being crappy on the bases, and playing 1B, while Gardner is an elite defender/base-stealer with an above average bat, yeah i believe it.
Contributing writer for Pinstripe Alley.
Follow me on Twitter @frankiecamp48
by Frank Campagnola on Feb 9, 2012 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Gardner = Pujols in 2011? No. But.....
This is an apples and oranges comparison that WAR tries to make. Is 100 games of a great offensive player worth 160 of a great defensive player? WAR says yes, apparently, meaning that they contributed an equal overall value, not that Gardner is ‘as good.’ On a games played basis (and I don’t have the numbers in front of me), Pujols generated probably 50% more WAR per game played.
Ont he other hand, barring injury to Gardner, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is objectively the better player in two years. He can still improve. Pujols is a bit past his prime.
by designatedquitter on Feb 9, 2012 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Why?
Just curious, why do you have Pujols playing only 100 games?
Most arguments are really about context.
by SheaWasBettor21 on Feb 10, 2012 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldnt say Pujols is PAST his prime.....
But Pujols did have a poor (for him) season in 2011. All of his major metrics were down. He had career lows in hits, doubles, triples, RBI, BB, Slugging, OBP, OPS (and it wasnt a career low in games played in a season), and that was even with a terrific September (.355/5/20).
I dont think similar WAR’s for Gardner and Pujols for 2011 is that outrageous either. Gardner had a very good year, offensively AND defensively, and Pujols (who has never been worth much defensively) had a poor year, for him.
Recent posts on Hall of Famers (and others) show that after age 30, production drops off noticeably.
Typically from HOF level to ‘real good player’ level. Put another way, from 6 or 7 WAR, to 4 or 5. Pujols could be the exeception, but historically speaking, 32 year olds have few, if any great seasons left.
by designatedquitter on Feb 10, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

by 




































