Let's Forget It for the Meantime: Let's Pass on Jose Reyes
by jessef on Aug 28, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
in Toronto Blue Jays Analysis
Email
Print
With Toronto Blue Jays fans hoping the team can contend in 2012, how to upgrade the team and reload for contention next season has been an important topic of discussion around here. One position that the Jays will look to upgrade (have already upgraded?) is at second base, where just about anything would be better than what Aaron Hill (as much as I love him) provided (.221 / .267 / .309, wRC+ 63) before being traded for Kelly Johnson.
A fairly popular potential solution to our second base woes has been attempting to sign potential free agent Jose Reyes for (what we're assuming to be) about 5 yr / $100 M. As I'm sure everyone knows, Reyes is an excellent player having by far the best season of his career (.336 / .377 / .507, wRC+ 149). He does pretty much everything well on the offensive end -- makes good contact, hits for some power, has a nice batting eye, and is a phenomenal base stealer -- and plays league-average defence at one of the most valuable positions on the diamond, shortstop. There are some grumblings that he'd be hesitant to move from shortstop back to second base (something he actually did do for the New York Mets back in 2004 to accommodate free agent signing Kazuo Matsui).
Of course, the Jays have been employing one of the best shortstops in the American League for the past season and a half, Yunel Escobar, who has hit well (.280 / .355 / .393, wRC+ 108) in 800 plate appearances while playing very good defence (metrics disagree but about 8 runs above average per season is fangraphs Aggregate Defensive Rating) since being traded to Toronto. The Jays recently traded for the aforementioned Johnson, a second baseman in the midst of a down season (.210 / .290 / .408, wRC+ 91), but who has been solid at the plate overall (career: .260 / .342 / .441, wRC+ 107) and provides about league-average defence. However, like Reyes, Johnson is a free agent after this season, which gives the Jays the opportunity to upgrade by signing Reyes and letting Johnson walk. Is this a good idea?
Before even tackling how the move should work analytically, it's important to keep in mind that slotting guys over to new positions generally works provided they are moving "to the left" on the defensive spectrum (see David Eckstein), but these transitions don't necessarily go smoothly (see Orlando Cabrera). Reyes was fine when he played second base years ago and it's likely, though not absolutely assured, that Escobar would be as well. Escobar is sure-handed (above-average career on the error component of UZR) and, while the double play pivot may take some adjustment, I'm confident that Escobar would continue to be solidly above-average at second, if not quite as good as he is at short. Of course, whether being asked to move would bother him is relevant to the discussion and should be addressed.
It's important to keep in mind that Escobar was just recently signed to an exceptionally team-friendly contract (2 yr / 10M (for both seasons), with two team options, each for 5M per season). There's little doubt that part of why he agreed to such team-friendly terms is because, after being run out of Atlanta on what was essentially a rail, he is happy in Toronto, where his "swagger" (or whatever) is generally considered a non-issue (or a positive!). While most of his peripheral stats looked fine in his last half-season with the Braves, he hit a paltry .238 / .334 / .284 (wRC+ 77), and some folks -- including him -- have said that part of his trouble there was that he was unhappy. Naturally, whether his hitting woes were anomalous or tied to frustration with the organization and discomfort with manager Bobby Cox are up to interpretation. At the same time, it's important to remember that part of why Yunel agreed to contract terms decidedly below market value may have been an assurance that he wouldn't be asked to switch positions unless it was absolutely essential to competing or it had become apparent that he'd lost a step or two.
However, even assuming his performance at the plate is not at all tied to short, signing Reyes and moving Escobar over to second may not be the best option. While Reyes was an excellent shortstop when he was younger, the defensive metrics seem to agree that Reyes is about average now (given his injury-riddled past few years). As I mentioned before, I'd predict that Escobar can play second well, though not quite as well as he plays short. A significant part of Escobar's value is his arm, which would be underutilized at second base, so I think a fairly safe bet for Escobar would be something like five runs above average (net loss of 3 runs). Add in the difference in positional adjustment between shortstop (+7.5 runs) and second base (+2.5 runs) for the season and, before looking at the offensive upgrade, we're looking at a net loss of approximately one win by asking Escobar to move.
Since we're assuming Escobar's offensive output will be the same at short as it is at second, the actual upgrade is from Johnson's bat to Reyes's bat. In addition to the obvious difference in salary (which is enormous, considering Reyes will likely command a five-year commitment at around $20 M per season, whereas Johnson could probably be extended for two or three years at about $7.5 M per season), the offensive upgrade needs to compensate for the win that is likely to be lost by moving Escobar. While there's no doubt that Reyes can hit, he's hit well above career norms this year (wRC+ 149 this season, wRC+ 111 career). To be fair, Reyes started playing very young, which drags his career line down a bit. Nonetheless, he's relied heavily on an excellent BABIP (.351) this year; if that falls back to where it was when he last played consistently (around .310), we'd be looking at a wRC+ closer to 125 or 130. Last season, Reyes hit just .282 / .321 / .428 (wRC+ 104) over 133 games.
Which brings us to the real trouble with signing Reyes -- his injury history. After being a model of consistency, playing 633 games between 2005 and 2008 (158 games per season), Reyes has been on and off the field a lot the past three years (mostly off), playing just 267 games since 2009 (89 games per season). He seemed to have shaken the injury bug this year until early August, when he was DLed with hamstring problems (he is currently rehabbing in the minors). Though it may not seem like it, I like Reyes and I think that, over a full season, a healthy Reyes can be worth about six wins. This may be generous, since, although he has had a couple six-win seasons in the past, those were back when he was a much better fielder (over his career, he's been worth about 4.6 fWAR per season of 670 plate appearances). At the same time, I do not think Reyes can play 160 games in 2012, let alone will he be able to play 160 games in four years. I'd say a reasonable bet for playing time would be something like 120 games per season (and even this is somewhat optimistic), which knocks Reyes from a 6.0-win player to a 4.5 win player. If the Jays can provide an adequate replacement for the remaining 40 games (say, someone who'd be worth 2.5 wins over a full season), they'd get about 0.6 wins from the position while Reyes misses time (making the signing worth about 5 wins total on offence). Remembering that moving Escobar will cost the team about a win, we're looking at bringing in Reyes as being worth about 4 wins.
So, assuming their salaries are the same, for the Jays to be willing to retain Johnson, he needs to be a four-win player. Kelly Johnson is not a four-win player, but even in this down season (where he's been hurt by a low BABIP -- .257), he's been worth between 1.5 and 2.0 wins. In 2010, Johnson had an excellent (albeit, fortunate -- BABIP = .339) season, worth somewhere between 5.5 and 6.0 wins. Over his career, Johnson has been worth about 3.5 wins per full season (670 plate appearances). All other things being equal, having Kelly Johnson does not make the team as good as having Jose Reyes. Of course, once again, salary considerations are not equal. In fact, they're nowhere near equal. Reyes will likely make somewhere around three times as much as Johnson and will require a commitment of four or five seasons. For what amounts to the difference between a 4-win player and a 3.5-win player, I don't think the difference in their salaries is worth it. Even if Escobar plays excellent defence at second base (13 runs above-average), we're still looking at the difference between a 5-win player and a 3.5-win player. Even then, I don't think the difference in salary and commitment justifies it.
Thanks to the Futureheads for today's title.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As with most options
It’s down to cost vs benefit. Up to a set figure Reyes would be a valuable talent, i’m thinking the $14million per area. It is the cost beyond that point that would negate the value of potentially signing him long term. If we could get him for say a 6/84 type deal i’d definitely be for it, or maybe a 4/68 type shorter term higher risk deal. Anything above that your throwing money at a bad deal.
I agree, but there's practically no way he signs for something like that
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
We'll see
I have a sneaky suspicion the injury history may drive the price down to something closer to $18million per. There have been a number of low priced deals for players this year at SS that drag down the market (Escobar/Hardy) and a few injury prone players struggling for big contracts. I don’t really see the Jays as an option but I reckon that with the Crawford blowup he’ll get less than Crawford got.
is it, though?
I know Lind’s looked awful for an extended period, and it is of course possible that there’s something the stats aren’t showing, but lind has excellent batted ball numbers, good enough that a regression predicts about 128 wRC+, which would be good for 4 wins. Edwin is probably a 2.5 win DH (depending on your idea of which Edwin is the real one), and Pujols is likely a 6 win 1B (though maybe more, but he’s on the wrong side of 30) or 5 win DH. That’s not a huge win increase and Pujols would nigh-definitely cost more than Reyes too
Total Internet points: 10 000
by benk on Aug 28, 2011 12:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
minor typo
Lind’s regressed wRC+ gives him about 3 wins and change, but if his defense is good he could potentially be a 4 win guy (but I doubt it)
Total Internet points: 10 000
by benk on Aug 28, 2011 12:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Very well put together article Jesse.
I don’t like the idea of moving Escobar to 2B for Reyes.
In another year I’m all for him moving over for Hechevarria -it may be misguided to put so much stock/hope in a SS I’ve never seen play but that’s the plan I look forward to.
Thisrighthere!
twitter.com/#!/TFSML
by TonyFernandezSavedMyLife on Aug 28, 2011 11:55 AM EDT reply actions
I get where you're coming from
But I’m also increasingly worried that the Jays’ plan of “pretty good players at every position” isn’t going to work against the Sox and Yankees’ seemingly six-or-seven-headed monster offenses – particularly when Bautista starts to show his age. I think the Jays at some point – preferably soon – need to try to acquire some really elite talent (Reyes, maybe Fielder if one of Lind or Edwin plus prospects can be moved for assets) and I can’t see next year being a better opportunity. The top-tier FAs this year fill needs and are unlikely to be pursued super-aggressively by the big spending teams (with the possible exception of the Sox).
All that said, KJ is likely a solid solution, but I worry that’s not enough
Total Internet points: 10 000
by benk on Aug 28, 2011 12:09 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I’m also increasingly worried that the Jays’ plan of "pretty good players at every position" isn’t going to work
Well said. Even assuming that Johnson re-signs, the Jays have (potential or definite) holes at LF, 1B, DH. They have to sign one or two big boppers.
by DavidLondon on Aug 28, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
great point
Passing the yankees and the red sox will take some elite players. I was all for going out to get Jose Reyes before the Jays got Johnson but I think Johnson likely makes the team almost as good and allows for a lot more payroll flexibility next season and going forward.
It’s true that, in a division like the AL East, you need to get every advantage you can. If you think his production this season is for real and he’ll get back to being able to play everyday it’s certainly an understandable viewpoint that the Jays should go after Reyes. I just don’t think he’ll be on the field enough the next few years to make it worth it when the Jays already have a pretty solid option at low cost. Don’t forget, we’re just one season removed from Kelly Johnson being worth 3 WAR more than Reyes — and that was a season in which Reyes played 133 games.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
right, good points
and with KJ you also get the “buy low” bonus. but to return to my original point (sort of), saving money only helps if the money we save can be put towards acquiring a couple of elite guys, whether through free agency, taking on a bad contract, or anything else
Total Internet points: 10 000
agreed
Johnson is not as good as Reyes but I do think he helps the team almost as much. On a side-note, which do you think is a bigger upgrade, Hill → Johnson or Johnson → Reyes?
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
as much as I want to say the second one
given that we’d be lucky if Reyes played 140 games, it’s Hill to Johnson.
Total Internet points: 10 000
former
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
your implementation of the positional adjustment is wrong
the idea behind the positional adjustment is to compare the difficulty of different positions, so that a player’s theoretical WAR is independent of what position he plays. the fact that SS is +5 higher than 2B means that on average, a league average fielding shortstop is a +5 fielding second baseman. so really, if Escobar is a +8 SS (plus a +7.5 positional adjustment), then we’d expect him to be a +13 2B (plus a +2.5 positional adjustment).
now, since escobar has a strong arm, his abilities aren’t as well-levereaged at 2B, so maybe he’d only be a +10 or so fielder there (plus the +2.5 positional adjustment). at the very least, the cap of how much value he’s going to lose is 5 runs, but the true number is probably somewhere on the order of 1-3 runs.
I don't think that's how positional adjustments work
The assumption is not that a player’s defence will play a certain number of runs better at a position. Would John Buck be a +20 rightfielder? I doubt it. I’m pretty sure that the positional adjustments are based on how difficult it is to find someone to play that position not on how much better a guy would be if you moved him to a different spot. Do you think moving Escobar to first would make him a +28 run first baseman?
It’s difficult to find someone who can catch, which is why catcher has a high positional adjustment. It’s difficult to find someone who can play shortstop, but that doesn’t mean that playing shortstop means that you can play second base exceptionally well. As the article states, there have been guys who have moved from short to second and played well (Eckstein) and poorly (Cabrera). The reason Eckstein’s transition was smooth, likely had to do with how bad his arm is. Not sure why Cabrera seemed to have trouble. Each guy is different.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Of course, I should have said that
a shortstop is obviously much more likely to transition well to second than a catcher is to CF (though Biggio did it!). And Cabrera probably isn’t the best example since he hasn’t played that much second, but the point still stands: some guys’ skills are better-suited to playing short than second.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
no that is how positional adjustments work
or at least, how tango does them. he looks at players that play multiple defensive positions and see how they do as a group. the result is that SS is about 5 runs higher than 2B and 3B (which are about equal), and CF is about 10 runs higher than LF and RF (which are about equal). OF vs. IF is a bit trickier because of the lefties not being able to play infield, and C (and to some extent 1B) is really in a world of its own.
as for the escobar being a +28 run first baseman? probably. gardner/crawford are like +20 LF, and the average 1B is an even worse fielder than the average LF. think about it this way: escobar is +8 relative to the average fielding SS (ie someone like jose reyes). at first base, you’d now be comparing him to someone like adam lind. i think it’s very plausible that escobar is 28 runs better defensively than adam lind (maybe even more than 28 runs).
Hmm, didn't know Tango did them that way
People have done them the other way, too (see http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/replacement-level-article/ ).
There are drawbacks to both ways, I’m not sure which I prefer, I have to think about it. The farther away two positions are on the defensive spectrum, the more skewed these data become. Even if you think Escobar glove would be worth 28 runs above average at first (I certainly don’t), it couldn’t possibly be worth 33 runs above average at DH. Essentially, I’d say that doing adjustments this way works if, and only if, you’re comparing positions that players would actually be switching to and from.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
from the article you link to:
“Exactly how bad of a hitter do you have to be for consideration as a replacement level player? Tango Tiger has recently updated his position adjustments. These are based on defensive statistics, not offense. He looks at how players who play multiple positions perform when switching for one to another, with some consideration for handedness, as lefties do not play second, third, or short.”
It’s based off of defense. People sometimes interpret it as being an offense thing, but that is an incorrect use of them.
as for comparing between positions that players actually switch between, you are correct there. 2B, SS and 3B are essentially the same type of position, so the adjustment works well there. same with LF, CF, RF. it’s why C, DH, and 1B to some extent are in their own universes, because they’re very different from all the other positions. it’s also why it’s tough to compare OF to IF – the sample of players is different.
this post plus the comments is a good primer: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/uzr_positional_adjustments/#comments
Yes, Tango's are based on defence, you were right about that
The whole point of that article is that Sean Smith’s are based on offence (emphasis mine):
A typical major league team has two catchers, two 1B/DH/PH types, five other infielders, and five outfielders. Multiply by 30 and I’m looking at the 61st-best catcher, 61st-best 1B/DH, 51st-best at SS, 3B, 2B, and 151st best outfielder. I’m looking at offense only, I have not integrated the major league defensive projections with this list, and I do not have minor league defensive projections. What I get is this (outfielders are all lumped together):
Top players not in majors
POSITION REPLACEMENT LEVEL
Catcher -30
Shortstop -29
Second base -23
Third base -23
Outfield -19
First base -17
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
ok point taken
but it makes more sense to look at it from a defensive perspective, because positional adjustments really are measuring defense, not offense. the different defensive positions (Catcher excluded) are slightly different, but require the same skills – getting to the ball, catching the ball, and throwing the ball. different positions leverage different skills differently, but are all more or less the same thing in the end. (analogy – different positions in the batting order leverage different skills differently, but they are all more or less the same thing in the end).
that’s why it makes no sense to look at the 51st best SS, the 51st best 2B and the 51st best 3B. any player CAN play any defensive position, so really the replacement level 2B, SS and 3B is the exact same player (call him player X for now)! and we want X’s WAR to be the same regardless of what position we play him at. these are the components of WAR:
offense: runs above/below league average offense
defense: runs above/below that position’s average defense
position: the positional adjustment to account for different difficulty of different positions
replacement/playing time: a player who has a 0 in all three of the above categories is a league average player, not a replacement level player, so this is essentially a “fudge factor”, generally set around 20 runs per 150 games
offense and replacement/playing time are obviously the same regardless of what position X plays since they’re compared to the league average, not positional average. so what we need is defense+position adjustment to be a constant. and thus we see that position adjustment is just the difference in defensive ability between the average defender at each position – ie how much we expect a player’s defensive numbers to change when moving positions.
now, these numbers are averages, and not exact, since each player has different strenghts/weaknesses and each position leverages different abilities. so while the league average SS is a +5 defender at 2B, a strong-armed league average SS might only be a +2, while a weak-armed league average SS might be a +8
hmm . . . I see what you're getting at
but I’m really not sure whether or not I agree. While it’s true — to a large extent — that players can play anywhere on the diamond, the amount of difference due to leveraged skills is just so great that I don’t think I buy into a player being a “league average defender” vs. simply a slightly below-average third baseman. You compare it to spots in the batting order, but, really, they’re not similar. It may be slightly more important for leadoff hitters to get on base and fifth-place hitters to hit for power, but that’s nothing similar to the difference between a shortstop needing a good arm and a second baseman not needing one.
There are plenty of guys who it would be difficult imagining playing a different position. Scott Rolen’s an exceptional fielding third baseman — perhaps one of the best ever. Can you imagine him making the double play pivot? I’ve no doubt that he could play second base, but I’d think he’d be way worse at second than he is at third. So, using the Tango method (how good the player is at “defending” rather than playing his position), we have three options: a) estimate Rolen’s “average defensive abilities” based on how well he plays third (which overestimates how well he can play other positions by at least a few runs); b) estimate Rolen’s “average defensive abilities” by how well we think he can play second (which underestimates how well he plays third); or c) estimate his abilities somewhere in the middle.
Tango’s method seems to assume that he’s an amazing “defender” (i.e., he could play any position exceptionally well) even though it’s fairly obvious that he’d be far worse at some than others. This is fine, provided that you don’t actually assume he can play other positions at the same level. Another problem I see with the method is that it’s likely that the players he’s basing these adjustments on are more often than not better suited to the positions to which they’re being moved and players have good and bad defensive years (and the metrics are far from perfect). That’s why they’re being moved.
I had no idea that Tango made the adjustments that way, it does make sense for a lot of replacement players, who do move around the diamond, but doesn’t work for others. There are obviously problems with it for catchers (where I think the offensive method actually works better). Also, when we’re adjusting for position, I always think of it as adjusting the player overall, not adjusting his defensive component — since batting can have a much larger impact on a player’s value than fielding, I’d think we’d be adjusting that. I think of Kelly Johnson as a good bat for a second baseman, not as a slightly better than league-average bat who fields well and just happens to play second base.
Anyway, just want to say, this is great fun and I’m glad we’re having the discussion.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
i agree with everything you're saying
and when you say “I think of Kelly Johnson as a good bat for a second baseman, not as a slightly better than league-average bat who fields well and just happens to play second base”, that’s definitely how pretty much everyone thinks of the situation. it’s also how mlb teams seem to look at it – they pigeonhole players into certain positions.
i think my main point is that in a lot of cases that’s just wrong.i mean, some players have such an extreme skill imbalance that they’re much better leveraged at a certain position (ie rolen), but that’s not true for most players. and even for rolen, he’s a +15 3B, i bet he could easily be a +5 2B. and for escobar (since that’s where this discussion started), if he’s a +8 SS, there’s no doubt in my mind he’d be at least that at 2B. i mean, SS and 2B are such similar positions – it’s just that more balls get hit to SS than 2B, and that the throw to 1B is longer.
and i think you maybe believe this too. you say: “it does make sense for a lot of replacement players, who do move around the diamond, but doesn’t work for others”. what is your reasoning for that statement?
because the way I see it, replacement-level players move around the diamond a lot because they have to play multiple positions to keep a job. everyday players don’t do it because they don’t have to – but not because they can’t. i would assume that everyday players would be just as versatile as replacement-level players and show very similar positional defensive splits if they actually practiced multiple positions. and really that’s what we care about – how good that 3B (or whatever) would be at 2B (or whatever) if we gave him time to learn the position.
Sorry, didn't see you'd responded
There are plenty of replacement-level catchers who don’t really move around the diamond. Same for first basemen. Replacement-level middle infielders and outfielders, I’d agree.
As long as Yunel Escobar is concerned, I think you’re probably right in that his skills would transfer well to second base. However, he is tremendously skilled at short and part of what makes him so good is his arm (as we’ve discussed). I’d imagine it would take him some time to master the double play pivot (though I imagine he’d get the hang of it, eventually).
Overall, I’d imagine you’re probably right — +3 runs at second base is probably underselling him some. On the other hand, I don’t think you can just add his positional adjustment to his value at second, either. I’d bet he’d be somewhere between there.
I do see what you mean as long as “defending” and you’re right that guys can switch positions some but I think that it’s still at least a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, if only due to leveraging certain skills over others.
I mean, Lawrie seems fine at third, but was apparently an atrocious second baseman. This has to be reconciled, somehow, doesn’t it?
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
jessef is correct
Positional adjustments in no way are ment to predict a player’s ability to perform at another position.
Now do you think Fielder would make a good choice if Reyes is out?
assuming we can also trade either lind or EE.
what is 48÷2(9+3) ---> 2 or 288?
Get Brandon Phillips and Prince Fielder
As long as the REDS don’t pick up his 2012 option worth $12 million. That guy can play some defense, and has a decent bat.
Fielder makes more sense than Pujols as he’s younger and would fit better with our young core, plus Pujols will most likely re-sign with the cards.
by Marcos Montenegro on Aug 28, 2011 1:29 PM EDT reply actions
but theres almost no way the reds don't pick it up
they’re not strapped for cash
Sad, Drunk, And Poorly
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - JL
I would rather not
Injury history is just too big a flag here for the length of deal he wants. We’d wind up with another Ryan.
Money isn't an issue
It was management itself that said this team might be willing to spend upwards of $150 million in payroll. This year, they’re hovering around 60 mil. Even with the abnormally expensive draft strategy in place, the Jays have money to spend. There are very few players who are due for extensions in the near future (Morrow is about it), and nobody who will break the bank will be a FA in the next 4-5 years (Romero in 5, Lawrie in 5 or 6…maybe Rasmus in what…3 or 4?). There’s no financial reason not to pursue Reyes.
That said, I’d rather he move to 2B than Yunel, and whether or not he would want to is an issue. But boy, could this team use a bona fide leadoff hitter. Think Rajai Davis on the basepaths with (at worst) the bat of Escobar, or (at best) the bat of Henderson.
Good post, I appreciate your analysis, but this team has money to spend and a hole that they could fill with a truly elite ballplayer.
Thanks for reading
those are all good points and I do see where you’re coming from. I think one of the nice things about payroll flexibility is being able to take on decent contracts that teams that are out of it don’t want to be paying anymore as opposed to only taking on players through free agency. Consider it this way: Getting Reyes, on a per year basis, would cost twice as much as Hechavarria’s first four years. Now, raw potential is one thing, Reyes — a proven commodity — is something very different, of course. And, if the team wants to compete in 2012 and 2013, they need to get these marginal wins.
By the way, though, Reyes is nowhere close to Rickey Henderson. Henderson played until he was like 50 and his career wRC+ was still 142. Reyes’s, in an exceptional year that he’s unlikely to ever duplicate, is 149. Henderson had years as good or better (140 or higher wRC+) in 14 of his first 15 seasons. The only time he didn’t was when he was 21 years old.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
reyes career OBP: .339
escobar career OBP: .363
we already have a “bona fide leadoff hitter”. his name is yunel escobar.
Don't get me wrong
I love me some Yunel. But imagine him in the two hole hitting BEHIND Reyes. Imagine a leadoff hitter with that kind of speed. You bring up Reyes’ career .339 OBP, but that’s fueled by two years of .271 and .300…when he was aged 21 and 22. Since then, he’s only gone under .354 once.
My comparison of Reyes to Henderson is him at his best. At his best he is the best leadoff hitter in the game. As for Hechavarria, his ultimate ceiling isn’t as good as Jose Reyes. This team is close. An elite ballplayer like Reyes puts them into immediate contention. Imagine…
Reyes – Escobar – Bautista – Lind/another FA?/whatever – Lawrie – Rasmus – EE – Thames/Snider – JPA/d’Arnaud. All under team control for at least 3 years. If you replace Reyes with a lesser ballplayer (he’s the best offensive potential 2B in the game who is available atm), that lineup doesn’t look half as good.
My biggest worry with batting Yunel behind Reyes
we would see about 50 sacrifice bunts a year
But I do see your point. Reyes certainly could make the team much better than Johnson. But, just think back to last year — Reyes played almost the full season and was almost three wins worse (granted, Johnson had a high BABIP, but Reye’s wasn’t so low, .301). And that’s before we’re asking him to switch positions. I do think there’s quite a bit of risk with signing Reyes.
Basically, I think whether Reyes helps or not comes down to two things. If you think we’re close and we need someone to push us over the edge (who we can’t get elsewhere), he helps. If you think we’re there (either we’re close and someone else can push us over or we just need to make sure we get what we should out of guys), he doesn’t help. Maybe I’m just more risk-averse than the average bear.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
The best thing about Yunel leading off...
Is that it has really dampened his urge to lay down a bunt. Even at the beginning of the year, he’d still try the occasional one. Now, later in the season, the bunt attempt is rare.
I don’t know if this is because he has adapted to the AL style of play or because the leadoff role means he has fewer opportunities to move players along, or a combination of the two, but I do like this development. Bunting is OK if a player isn’t a good batter but players with Yunel’s skill at batting shouldn’t do it very often. I’d rather he swing because better things can happen.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
