“Hey Peter,” my friend Marc asked me on a cold Boston day back in April, “do you have any interest in blogging about baseball?”

I enjoyed writing and I enjoyed baseball, so I thought this would be a fun opportunity. Never did I expect to meet and engage with so many interesting and intelligent people during the season.

Now, as I bid farewell, I want to thank each and every person who has read Beyond the Boxscore. I know that sounds corny, but it’s true: we write for you, and I’m flattered that you took time out of your day to read our thoughts, analysis and ramblings. I appreciate your comments, compliments, and criticism. I appreciate your insights and incisive questions, and I enjoyed discussing the glorious game of baseball with you. You pushed me to be a better writer, a better analyst, and a better baseball fan.

I especially want to thank Marc Normandin and RJ Anderson for offering this opportunity to lowly ol’ me, and for not sending me to low-A ball after they saw what I could (or couldn’t) do. I want to thank Dan Turkenkopf and Sky Kalkman for being such excellent colleagues, along with Harry Pavlidis and Chris Quick, who I didn’t get to know as well but, judging from their work on BtB and elsewhere, will help take Beyond the Boxscore to new heights. I also want to thank David Appleman for the opportunity to contribute to the excellent community over at Fangraphs, as well as Dave Studeman at Hardball Times for hosting an article I co-wrote. 

As for you, reader, I only ask that you keep on reading. There is some incredible stuff being done, both here on BtB and in other places across the web. Keep asking questions, keep testing ideas, and keep watching baseball. The baseball community is a large and welcoming place, and there is room for many different people with many different opinions. Only through research, discussion and criticism can we begin to unravel our favorite pasttime’s mysteries, mysteries that keep us up at night, mysteries that keep us warm in the winter, and mysteries that enthrall us throughout the summer months.

As I prepare to engage in the next chapter of my life, I hear Branch Rickey’s words in my head: “Never surrender opportunity for security.” And, as I seek out my next opportunity, I know that BtB has dedicated writers – and incredible people – who will continue to move baseball analysis further beyond the boxscore.

The Rays have reportedly inked Pat Burrell to a 2-year deal worth $16 million total.

Think about that.

Pat Burrell is going to be paid $8 million a year. For only two years. His successor in Philadelphia – an older, less effective, worse fielder (contrary to what his employers may think) – is getting paid $30 million over three years. And Burrell wasn’t offered arbitration, so the Rays won’t have to give up a draft pick to sign him.

Seriously, what a deal.

Finances aside, Burrell is EXACTLY what the Rays need: a right-handed, middle-of-the-order bat. Burrell is a terrible fielder, but will only have to play the field in an emergency, and will become the full-time DH. He hit .250/.367/.507 last year, and has posted OBPs of over .360 (including three years over .380) every year since 2004, and has slugged over .500 for four consecutive years. He crushes lefties (.276/.410/.540 in his career) but is very good against righties too (career .251/.352/.467). Even though he has spent his entire career in Philadelphia (and has played in a hitter-friendly park for most of it), his career home OPS is 851, and his career road OPS is 853.

Last season, Eric Hinkse had a wRAA (weighted runs above average) of 6.5. Cliff Floyd was 4.8. Together they were 11.3. Pat Burrell was 24.3 (and he was 30, 24, and 32 over the previous three years). It’s fair to assume that Burrell is at least approximately twice as good as the players who DHed for the Rays last year, and is approximately a 1.5 – 2 win upgrade (at least) over the previous DHs.

That may not sound like a lot, but think about it this way: Eric Hinske and Cliff Floyd were actually fairly productive for the Rays in 2008 – 11.3 wRAA is nothing to sneeze at. Even if Burrell is “only” twice as good as those two, it’s not like those two were bad in the first place – so twice as good is saying something. Furthermore, Burrell is only one player, so the Rays in essence free up a roster spot by not having to use a platoon at DH.

Burrell is also very low-risk, having an established track record of consistent success throughout his career – especially over the last four years. His OPS+ since 2005 has ranged between 122 and 128 – now that’s consistency.

Continue reading this post »

“It's like training for a marathon. You need to build stamina incrementally. The unofficial industry standard is that no young pitcher should throw more than 30 more innings than he did the previous season. It's a general rule of thumb, and one I've been tracking for about a decade. When teams violate the incremental safeguard, it's amazing how often they pay for it.”

So wrote Tom Verducci last February, illustrating what he called the “Year After Effect,” but has since gained popularity as the “Verducci Effect.” Let’s start by looking at the seven players that Verducci identified as being particularly risky for the 2008 season, and then let’s try to identify some risky players for 2009.

Here are the pitchers that Tom Verducci listed as being possible victims of the so-called Verducci Effect in 2008:

Ian Kennedy
Fausto Carmona
Ubaldo Jimenez
Tom Gorzelanny
Dustin McGowan
Chad Gaudin
Yovani Gallardo

Wow – pretty convincing evidence for this theory. Kennedy was awful at the major league level; Carmona was hurt for much of the year and ineffective when healthy; Gorzelanny’s ERA went up nearly three full runs; Gallardo got hurt and missed most of the season (although this is unfair, as his injury was a fluke unrelated to his shoulder or arm).

Jimenez defied the Verducci Effect, pitching nearly 200 innings and showing tremendous improvement. Gaudin pitched primarily out of the bullpen and maintained his production. However, five of the seven players that Verducci identified as being particularly risky were either hurt or very ineffective in 2008.

Of course, caveats abound: there is no control study, and we know that pitchers – especially those under 25 – are inherently risky, not just pitchers who have had big innings increases. Furthermore, this is a very selective sample: in order to accumulate a large increase in innings, you have to be pretty effective – perhaps even more effective than your “true ability,” thus making regression more likely. Still, the results are convincing, and Verducci writes of similar results from past seasons as well.

So what about 2009? Well, we can identify seven pitchers once again who may be at increased risk due to the so-called Verducci Effect.

Continue reading this post »

In this space, I have been quite critical of the Royals this offseason – from the Coco Crisp trade to the Mike Jacobs deal to the Kyle Farnsworth signing, I disagreed with the direction that the team was heading. In short, I believed that the Royals were being short-sighted, and making moves designed to aspire to mediocrity, rather than long-term success.

I more or less still believe this to be true: it’s not that moves such as the Coco Crisp trade were bad in a vacuum, but they represented only short-term marginal upgrades, not enough to get the Royals into contention in a year or two, and not enough to give them long-term hope of contending.

That being said, I want to examine the question: can the Royals win the AL Central in 2009?

This idea is not a preposterous as it may first seem. The Central was relatively weak in 2008 and is poised to be underwhelming again in 2009. Last year, the White Sox won the division and also had the most third-order wins of any team in the division, posting a third-order record of 88-75. The Royals finished last, with a respectable third-order record of 76-86. The 12 game difference between the first place and last place teams was by far the smallest difference of all of the divisions in baseball. Furthermore, the division looks like it will be tightly bunched again in 2009: there are no teams that stand out as being awful, and there are no teams that could claim to be elite, either.

In 2008, the Royals were poor at run prevention, but not awful. Although their 4.48 team ERA ranked 22nd in baseball, they weren’t far off from the 16th place team, which had a 4.36 ERA. The Royals actually had the 12th best Park Adjusted Defensive Efficiency in baseball, despite running David DeJesus and Joey Gathright out in center field; replacing them with Coco Crisp should help their defense considerably.

Continue reading this post »

What a weird offseason in San Francisco.

The Giants signed Randy Johnson to a one year deal worth $8 million yesterday. This signing comes on the heels of several other acquisitions: Edgar Renteria, Bobby Howry and Jeremy Affeldt. This is a disturbing trend – that’s four smart, sensible moves by Giants GM Brian Sabean.

All of these deals are short-term deals (two years or less), thereby limiting the team’s risk. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that each of these players is going to be productive – perhaps even more so than they were last year.

Johnson had a 3.91 ERA last year, but a 3.76 FIP and should benefit from gettingout of the hitter-friendly environment of Chase Field. While he may not pitch 200 innings this year, Johnson did manage 184 innings last year as well as 205 innings in 2006 and 225 in 2005. While Johnson’s fastball now hovers around 90-91 MPH, he still struck out 8.46 hitters per nine last year, while walking only 2.15 per nine. In other words, despite his advanced age, Randy Johnson has a very reasonable chance of being an above-average starting pitcher for 170+ innings next year.

The scariest thing about this development is that the San Francisco Giants now have to be considered outside threats in the NL West. Don’t laugh – it’s true. As pathetic as their offense is, their pitching is so good as to make up for it. You know how good Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are; Jonathan Sanchez is on the brink of breaking out (although his ERA was 5.01 last year, his FIP was 3.85 and there’s reason to believe he can be even better than that); Barry Zito had a 4.33 ERA and 80/54 K/BB ratio in his last 106 innings of 2008; and Randy Johnson is Randy Johnson.

Furthermore, there’s reason to believe that Matt Cain and/or Jonathan Sanchez could join Lincecum as an elite pitcher in 2009. Both of them have tremendous stuff, and there’s a chance that either/both of them “figure it out” in 2009, elevating them to the level of the NL’s best. Of course, this may not happen, but even if both pitch worse than their stuff, they should each be productive pitchers.

On the other hand, questions abound – how well will Lincecum hold up after his huge workload last season? Can Barry Zito build on his “strong” finish to 2008? Can Randy Johnson’s back hold up? And the Giants lack quality depth for their rotation as well. And, then there are their offensive issues. So there is considerable risk for the Giants 2009 season, and chances are they will not compete for the division. However, there is a reasonable chance that the Giants can contend in what should be a very weak division – if they avoid setbacks, and one or two things go their way (like Sanchez elevating his game, for example), then the Giants could really surprise some people.

Maybe the Yankees read Beyond the Boxscore after all.

In the space we have been lamenting the Yanks’ seeming lack of interest in Mark Teixeira, a player who would immediately improve their offense and defense and is likely to age gracefully. And today comes word that Teixeira will sign an 8-year contract with the Yankees. As such, it’s now fair to say that this has been a good offseason for Brian Cashman.

With Teixeira in tow, the Yankees offense becomes formidable once again, rather than league average. Teixeira instantly improves their infield defense, and allows Nick Swisher to move to the outfield, thus improving the outfield defense too (assuming he’s not in center). The Yankees now can rotate Swisher, Hideki Matsui, Xavier Nady and Johnny Damon between DH and the two corner outfield spots, leaving Melky Cabrera (or Mike Cameron) in center, and thus improving the defense even further.

This is perfect for the Yankees: Nady is best deployed in part-time action, against all lefties and maybe a few righties. Matsui can avoid lefties (not that he’s particularly bad against them anyway), and both he and Damon are significant injury risks. Swisher should rebound from an awful 2008 and can man any outfield position.

The situation gets a bit murkier if it turns out that Jorge Posada can’t be a full-time catcher, but even if that’s the case, Posada can DH some of the time, benching someone like Matsui. The Yankees can try to trade any of these players, but they have no pressing needs and may better off keeping them in case of injury.

While it appears that the Yankees stole Teixeira from the clutches of the Red Sox, the big losers in this situation are the Angels.

Continue reading this post »

The Padres are clearly in rebuilding mode, coming off of a 63-win season and with little hope of competing next year, even in a weak division. They have made their intention of trading Jake Peavy known, and even though talks have stalled, Peavy is still very likely to be dealt this offseason.

That begs the question: should they trade their other big ticket, Adrian Gonzalez?

The answer, of course, is that it depends on what they would receive in return. However, there are few players who would command more on the trade market than Gonzalez, and it may behoove the Padres to deal him now. 

Everyone knows that Adrian Gonzalez is good, but few people understand just how good he is. He hit .279/.361/.510 this year with 36 homers, a slight improvement in his offensive production from last year (when he hit .282/.347/.502 with 30 homers). However, overall offense declined in 2008, leading Gonzalez to have an OPS+ of 138, as compared to 125 last year (and 127 in 2006). Gonzalez is a lefty who struggles against left-handed pitching, but is still decent: he has a career line of .248/.308/.427 against southpaws – he certainly doesn’t need to be platooned.

However, Gonzo has been hampered by playing half of his games in PETCO Park. His career line at home is .264/.336/.439, as compared to a .299/.360/.544 line on the road. Of course, we can’t take these splits at face value: unlike every other non-Padre, Gonzalez’s road stats don’t include games played in PETCO, and he has played 38 games in Chase and Coors Field every year. However, there’s no question that PETCO has significantly hampered Gonzalez’s overall offensive statistics.

Continue reading this post »

Mets obtain JJ Putz, Sean Green and Jeremy Reed.

Indians obtain Joe Smith and Luis Valbuena.

Mariners obtain Franklin Gutierrez, Jason Vargas, Endy Chavez, Aaron Heilman, Mike Carp, Ezequiel Carrara and Maikel Cleto

Although it only involves one big name, this 12-player trade probably qualifies as a blockbuster. Let’s examine the deal.

For the Mets: Obviously, Putz is the prize in this trade. In Putz, the Mets get a guy who was perhaps the most dominant reliever in the game in 2006 and 2007, before running into injury woes. However, it is those injury woes that allowed the Mets to get Putz without giving up any amazing prospects. Although Putz returned to action in 2008, he didn’t quite return to form (although he was very good), and questions remain about whether he can stave off injuries in the future. Furthermore, he won’t be cheap: Putz is due $5 million this year, and has a club option worth $8.6 million for next year. Yes, that’s probably below market value, but it’s not chump change either. If healthy, Putz can be a dominant force in the back end of the Mets bullpen.

Reed is very similar to Endy Chavez – actually, Reed is younger and cheaper than Chavez – but is probably miscast as an everyday player, especially in a corner. He can have some value as a defensive-minded fourth outfielder, but the Mets should still be looking for an everyday corner outfielder.

Green has posted xFIPs over right around 4.00 over the last two seasons, and has some value in a major league bullpen. He’s probably not quite as good as Joe Smith, but is worth having as a middle reliever.

The Mets are in the position where they can afford to gamble on someone like Putz. The money is of very little consequence to them, and a healthy Putz would be a tremendous benefit to their bullpen. They gave up value, but nothing irreplaceable.

However, Omar Minaya should not assume that Putz will be healthy for 70 or 80 innings this year. The Mets’s problem in the past has been an embarrassing lack of depth, and this trade does little to help. If Putz (or Francisco Rodriguez) gets hurt, the Mets bullpen will once again be exposed, with little to help them in the short-term. The pen has the chance to be above-average, but also the chance to be awful. For a team like the Mets, which harbors legitimate playoff hopes in 2009, they had better make sure that they have a Plan B and Plan C for their bullpen.

Continue reading this post »

In 2008, the Yankees were 7th in the AL in runs scored, 8th in ERA, and 25th in baseball in defensive efficiency. So how do the Yankees choose to solve these problems? By throwing $250 million at the top two free agent starters on the market.

Don’t get me wrong: Sabathia and Burnett are excellent pitchers, and as lucrative as their two deals are, I don’t necessarily think they’re terrible deals for the Yankees. Unlike just about every other team, the Yankees can afford to overpay players, both in terms of AAV and years. If Burnett or Sabathia get hurt, the Yankees will still be able to make other moves to improve their teams, so neither contract is likely to be crippling. And if healthy, both men are excellent pitchers. The thing is, the Yankees pitching was already pretty good, and the Burnett/Sabathia combo may not be quite the upgrade that many Yankee fans think.

In 2008, the Yankees received 448 innings from the trio of Mike Mussina, Darrell Rasner, and Sidney Ponson, none of whom will return in 2009. These three combined to give up 219 runs, good for a 4.39 ERA. Let’s charitably assume that Sabathia and Burnett can cover these 448 innings between the two of them next season (let’s give 248 innings to Sabathia and 200 innings to Burnett). Obviously, this is somewhat optimistic, as it’s likely that both pitchers won’t quite reach these innings totals, but let’s run with it.

Marcel predicts Sabathia to have a 3.22 ERA next season, and Burnett to have a 3.97 ERA. If this holds true, that means that Sabathia would allow 89 runs over 248 innings and Burnett would allow 88 runs over 200 innings. Thus, in the 448 innings between them, Burnett and Sabathia would allow 177 runs combined.

As you recall, Mussina, Rasner, and Ponson allowed 219 runs in the same amount of innings last season. Thus, Sabathia and Burnett would qualify as a 42-run upgrade, or approximately four wins. Remember, we’re assuming that Sabathia and Burnett are able to total 448 innings between them, an unlikely assumption.

Rather, it’s more likely that some of those innings will have to go to the bullpen, which is collectively as not as good as Burnett and Sabathia. However, even a charitable assumption nets the Yankees only four marginal wins over Mussina/Rasner/Ponson.

Continue reading this post »