Thursday, February 16, 2006
Benching the Numbers
I know, I know, today's post title a very lame attempt at a witty double entendre. But hey, if you want funny, you know where to go.
Anyway, one of the criticisms leveled against Jim Bowden since he took the reins in 2004 was that he appeared to have no coherent plan for the team. While I think it's a fair point to make, I'm willing to give JimBo the benefit of the doubt considering the interim nature of his job, the uncertainty surrounding ownership and the associated financial straightjacket that has been imposed on him. So far, it appears that JimBo's two main strategies have been as follow:
I'm going to take today's blogspace to discuss the second point. Is the Nats' bench circa 2006 better than the 2005 bench? Bill Ladson certainly thinks so, but do the stats back this up? To take a look at this, I get to show off my shiny new HTML table coding skillz.
Note that I'm going to rely on Bill James' runs created/27 outs metric here, which isn't the end all be all of statistics, but it is useful for a quick analysis. I am also going to limit the analysis of the 2005 bench to non-Opening Day starters who had 50 or more ABs in 2005. The 2006 bench players are based on my projections of the 10 Nats currently on the roster who I feel are likeliest to get 50+ ABs but won't be the opening day starters (hence the inclusion of Byrd, Watson, and Clayton). Reasonable minds should feel free to disagree on the players I've included.
This analysis suggests that Bowden's offseason moves have improved the bench considerably while saving almost $1 million in salary. Again, the metrics aren't perfect. For example, Brendan Harris and Ryan Zimmerman performed very well in limited duty whch skews their numbers somewhat. One could also quibble with my inclusion of Preston Wilson as a bench guy since he was a starter after the Nats acquired him. Nonetheless, I think the numbers stand up to the smell test and show that Bowden has done a fairly decent job improving the team where he could most easily do so this offseason.
Now if JimBo can just find a way to get a #3 starting pitcher...
Anyway, one of the criticisms leveled against Jim Bowden since he took the reins in 2004 was that he appeared to have no coherent plan for the team. While I think it's a fair point to make, I'm willing to give JimBo the benefit of the doubt considering the interim nature of his job, the uncertainty surrounding ownership and the associated financial straightjacket that has been imposed on him. So far, it appears that JimBo's two main strategies have been as follow:
- Avoid leaving a mess (i.e. long-term contracts) for the next GM to clean up.
- Since we can't attract impact free agent bats to improve the offense, let's at least improve the bench.
I'm going to take today's blogspace to discuss the second point. Is the Nats' bench circa 2006 better than the 2005 bench? Bill Ladson certainly thinks so, but do the stats back this up? To take a look at this, I get to show off my shiny new HTML table coding skillz.
Note that I'm going to rely on Bill James' runs created/27 outs metric here, which isn't the end all be all of statistics, but it is useful for a quick analysis. I am also going to limit the analysis of the 2005 bench to non-Opening Day starters who had 50 or more ABs in 2005. The 2006 bench players are based on my projections of the 10 Nats currently on the roster who I feel are likeliest to get 50+ ABs but won't be the opening day starters (hence the inclusion of Byrd, Watson, and Clayton). Reasonable minds should feel free to disagree on the players I've included.
| Player | RC/27 (2005) | Salary (2005) |
| Jamey Carroll | 3.04 | $335,000 |
| Preston Wilson | 4.68 | $2,000,000 |
| Marlon Byrd | 4.03 | $355,000 |
| Gary Bennett | 2.56 | $750,000 |
| Carlos Baerga | 3.29 | $350,000 |
| Junior Spivey | 4.43 | $2,125,000 |
| Tony Blanco | 1.59 | $316,000 |
| Wil Cordero | 0.57 | $600,000 |
| Ryan Zimmerman | 10.22 | N/A |
| Deivi Cruz | 2.77 | $800,000 |
| Totals | 37.18 | $7,631,000 |
| Player | RC/27 (2005) | Salary (2006) |
| Marlon Anderson | 4.30 | $925,000 |
| Matt LeCroy | 5.45 | $850,000 |
| Marlon Byrd | 4.03 | $800,000 |
| Michael Tucker | 3.73 | $800,000 |
| Damian Jackson | 3.89 | $700,000 |
| Robert Fick | 4.40 | $850,000 |
| Royce Clayton | 3.77 | $1,000,000 |
| Brendan Harris | 6.75 | N/A |
| Brandon Watson | 2.08 | N/A |
| Daryle Ward | 4.35 | $700,000 |
| Totals | 42.75 | $6,625,000 |
This analysis suggests that Bowden's offseason moves have improved the bench considerably while saving almost $1 million in salary. Again, the metrics aren't perfect. For example, Brendan Harris and Ryan Zimmerman performed very well in limited duty whch skews their numbers somewhat. One could also quibble with my inclusion of Preston Wilson as a bench guy since he was a starter after the Nats acquired him. Nonetheless, I think the numbers stand up to the smell test and show that Bowden has done a fairly decent job improving the team where he could most easily do so this offseason.
Now if JimBo can just find a way to get a #3 starting pitcher...
# posted by JammingEcono @ 10:40 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I don't intend this to be a criticism, but I don't think this is the best way to go about the analysis.
Basically, this is a comparison of guys who actually did play for the Nats last year against all the guys who could potentially play for the Nats this year. The problem is that not all of those guys will play for the Nats next season. Several of these veterans are non-guaranteed at the moment; while one or some will break camp, one of the most potent, Daryle Ward, seems like he's under a squeeze presently. Another, Michael Tucker, might be. And so forth. If they don't break camp, will they accept going to New Orleans? (I'm assuming they have the same agreement Baerga did last year, when he had the choice of accepting an assignment or becoming a free agent.) Hard to say.
So, yes, if all of those guys are part of the Nats' bench, then Bowden has greatly improved the bench. Regardless, he's more than likely improved it noticeably. (It was inevitable that the bench would improve next, whether or not Bodes was the guiding hand. That was a crappy bench with some bad luck!)
Anyway, just as you rightly pointed out the Wilson funkiness, I think any projections involving Ward, Tucker, and perhaps Clayton must have some serious caveats.
Basically, this is a comparison of guys who actually did play for the Nats last year against all the guys who could potentially play for the Nats this year. The problem is that not all of those guys will play for the Nats next season. Several of these veterans are non-guaranteed at the moment; while one or some will break camp, one of the most potent, Daryle Ward, seems like he's under a squeeze presently. Another, Michael Tucker, might be. And so forth. If they don't break camp, will they accept going to New Orleans? (I'm assuming they have the same agreement Baerga did last year, when he had the choice of accepting an assignment or becoming a free agent.) Hard to say.
So, yes, if all of those guys are part of the Nats' bench, then Bowden has greatly improved the bench. Regardless, he's more than likely improved it noticeably. (It was inevitable that the bench would improve next, whether or not Bodes was the guiding hand. That was a crappy bench with some bad luck!)
Anyway, just as you rightly pointed out the Wilson funkiness, I think any projections involving Ward, Tucker, and perhaps Clayton must have some serious caveats.
Basil,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. You've got a point in that it probably would have been better timing to do this analysis when the 25-man roster breaks camp. I'll probably revisit this topic then, in any case. That said, I think I covered the caveats you mentioned re: Ward, Tucker, and Clayton in my lead-in to the charts ("Reasonable minds..."). My projections were based on guys I think could get 50+ ABs, not necessarily the guys I think will be with the team all season.
I'm not sure how the non-guaranteed deals will affect the ability of guys like Ward and Tucker to be sent down to AAA, though, which I probably should take a look at. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks again for the comment.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. You've got a point in that it probably would have been better timing to do this analysis when the 25-man roster breaks camp. I'll probably revisit this topic then, in any case. That said, I think I covered the caveats you mentioned re: Ward, Tucker, and Clayton in my lead-in to the charts ("Reasonable minds..."). My projections were based on guys I think could get 50+ ABs, not necessarily the guys I think will be with the team all season.
I'm not sure how the non-guaranteed deals will affect the ability of guys like Ward and Tucker to be sent down to AAA, though, which I probably should take a look at. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks again for the comment.
I understand he has a limited payroll. I understand he is only concerned with the near term as he has no assurances of long term employment. But his methodology here is no different than what he did in Cincinnati. GMing by lightning in the bottle on retreads and failed prospects neglects to forward look, and condemens a team to erratic results. Yes, he'll have his occasional 90 win season but that is often sandwiched by 70-80 win seasons.
One of the important things to look at (and I'd have no idea how to 'study' it) is the composition of the bench on any given day.
You're probably sick of hearing me talk about the replay I played using actual lineups and rosters, but the bench options last year were atrocious at times. Tony Blanco was a viable choice at times, which is scary.
Bowden did well to improve the bench, and the players he did bring in ARE clearly better than what we had last year. As I said in my post today, though, the problem is that with the guaranteed contracts he's given out, it's hard for there to actually be the kind of flexibility to get someone like Ward in -- although assuming he takes the minor league assignment, you know he'll get a crack when NJ breaks.
You're probably sick of hearing me talk about the replay I played using actual lineups and rosters, but the bench options last year were atrocious at times. Tony Blanco was a viable choice at times, which is scary.
Bowden did well to improve the bench, and the players he did bring in ARE clearly better than what we had last year. As I said in my post today, though, the problem is that with the guaranteed contracts he's given out, it's hard for there to actually be the kind of flexibility to get someone like Ward in -- although assuming he takes the minor league assignment, you know he'll get a crack when NJ breaks.
We could break camp with that bench.
Granted, we'd only have a 7-man pitching staff, but we could do it.
Granted, we'd only have a 7-man pitching staff, but we could do it.
To be clear, not all the guys I listed on the 2005 chart broke camp with the Nats either. The criteria was 50+ ABs since guys shuttled in from AAA due to injuries (Blanco) or were traded for (Spivey, Wilson, Byrd, Cruz).
I'll admit again, I probably should have saved this post for when the 25-man roster heads north this year. I'll take a look at this topic again when that happens.
I'll admit again, I probably should have saved this post for when the 25-man roster heads north this year. I'll take a look at this topic again when that happens.
Regardless of how spring tunrs out the bench will be better, mainly because we shouldn't have any gaping holes in it like Wil Cordero or Tony Blanco. It was an easy fix that Bowden made terribly complicated, but he still made it.
Post a Comment
<< Home
