Life ain't fair

by Johnny Safron on Jun 19, 2008 1:34 AM EDT Comment 37 comments

When Juan Castro was a Twin, he was ripped constantly for many things, most of all his lack of offense.

This season in Tampa, we hear nothing but accolades about Jason Bartlett.

The below chart shows how awful Bartlett has been offensively. He has provided far, far less punch than Juan Castro gave the Twins. Even if Bartlett is fielding well it's all not enough to explain the polar opposite approaches that fans took to these two players.

Bartlett has gone to Tampa and become a virtual zero on offense. He's terrible so far. As he approaches the AB totals Castro had during seasons in which he was a Twin, here is what we see. Top two lines are Castro's. Bottom is Bartlett in 2008.

Year	Ag	Tm	Lg	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS+
2005	33	MIN	AL	97	272	27	70	18	1	5	33	0	1	9	39	.257	.279	.386	74
2006	34	TOT		104	251	18	63	10	3	3	28	1	2	11	36	.251	.281	.351	62
2008	28	TBR	AL	66	233	23	59	5	1	0	17	15	3	12	37	.253	.295	.283	60

0 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Rays are winning

And Bartlett is probably better in the field than Brendan Harris.

by wcooley on Jun 19, 2008 9:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Barlett

Bartlett isn’t that much better in the field than Harris, but his 253 avgis at least somewhat better than Harris’ .236. Then again, Harris is slugging .314 to Barlett’s .283. I guess it depends on if you prefer BA or power from your number nine hitter.

By the way, Harris has a .992 FLD% in 210 innings at SS while Barlett has .973 in 597 innings for what that is worth.

by joeiscool12 on Jun 19, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bart makes errors

Maddening errors. But fielding percentage is a misleading statistic for shortstops, especially with Harris’ range.

How long will Harris be the shortstop for the Twins?

by wcooley on Jun 19, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe not "misleading"...

but incomplete when analyzing defense.

by wcooley on Jun 19, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is true...

Which is why I said “for what it’s worth.”

Barlett does make a LOT of bad errors, I’m not arguing that; that’s half of the reason why I didn’t mind trading him (the other half being that he really didn’t offer much to the offense).

Nonetheless, Harris SHOULD be the Twins shortstop for the forseeable future this season, but Gardy will be sure to put Punto in there everyday when he gets back.

I see Everett being DFAed and/or traded not long after returning from the DL.

by joeiscool12 on Jun 19, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Casilla?

Why not give Casilla a shot? Oh yeah, the gaping hole at second base. Luke Hughes, anyone?

by wcooley on Jun 19, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't fix what isn't broken...

Casilla’s doing just fine at second right now in my eyes. I’d probably just leave him there.

by joeiscool12 on Jun 19, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

until saturday

When Punto comes off the DL, I don’t expect to see Harris in the lineup much.

by Hoya on Jun 20, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn'd say far, far

Two points of OPS+ is not all that much difference. Bartlett is mostly getting accolades for his defense, with good reason. He’s one of the three best defensive shortstops in the AL. I don’t get your argument. Castro is out of baseball and Bartlett is the starting shortstop on a contending team. That seems a rather large difference in the here and now.

I was one of the most vocal about the Bartlett/Castro thing. My main problem was that Castro was slow and had little range. That seemed odd on a team full of GB pitchers. Of course, Bartlett also had the numbers offensively while Castro never did. My other problem with Castro is he was a career utility player who had averaged about 80 games a year in his career. You can’t expect a 33 year old to play everyday if they just have never done it. Mike Lamb is another example. They have done OK off the bench, but the more games they play in a row, the more feeble they look out there.

I think replacing Castro with Bartlett was one of the three top reasons the team went from the cellar to the top in ‘06.

Of course, Bartlett was old for a prospect, in part because the Twins gave the job to Castro and sent him back down when it was his time. Now he’s getting older, and his lack of power is starting to show. He’s still a great defender and a solid shortstop, but he will never be an offensive force. I don’t think the Rays or their fans mind as long as he catches the ball.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2008 10:08 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

On Bartlett

There are 174 players in the majors that are currently qualified for the batting title.

173 on the list, in terms of OPS: Jason Bartlett, at .579. He’s one of three players under .600; only Freddy Sanchez, at .564, is worse.

by Jon Marthaler on Jun 19, 2008 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Rays got Bartlett for his defense

And their defense is a lot better than it was last year. And the Twins’ defense is worse than it was last year. This is not a coincidence. Bartlett has been awful at the plate this year, but I would still take him over Harris. It wouldn’t make a huge difference, but I would still do it.

by ubelmann on Jun 19, 2008 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For defense. Really?

Bartlett had 99 and 88 OPS+ the past two years. And you are saying the Rays thought they were getting a 60 OPS+ from that same guy at age 28? They expected six extra-base hits from a player who had 14, including three home runs, as a rookie?

I think we all have to vote “no” on that one.

Oh. The Twins are 13-10, I believe, in games Harris has started as SS since he moved over there from second on what seems to be a permanent basis. They were 24-26 before the move.

As for taking Bartlett over Harris, Bartlett is a little tweaky in the health department. It will be interesting to see how this season wears on him. Maybe being able to put his feet on dirt basepaths on defense once in a while at Tropicana will be healthier than the all-turf field at the Metrodome.

by Johnny Safron on Jun 19, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...he was arguing defense, not offense.

And Harris has been worse at SS on defense, particularly when it comes to making plays most shortstops make.

Brendan Harris: .769 RZR, 9 OOZ .992 Fld%, 1.6 Defensive win shares
Jason Bartlett: .823 RZR, 27 OOZ, .973 Fld%, 2.5 Defensive win shares

I don’t know if the Twins would be better or not with Bartlett, but then again we really don’t know how each player would have performed if they weren’t traded, either. Still I think you’re right—the Rays probably weren’t expecting this kind of offense from Bartlett. I’d like to see Jason stay healthy, play healthy…there’s never any fun when a guy gets hurt or has a string of injuries that hamper him.

by Jesse on Jun 19, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OOZ and RZR

The OOZ stat, which is very subjective and thus, I don’t take a lot from it, is skewed by the fact that Bartlett has over 400 more innings at SS than Harris. The same can be said for most all of those stats except Fld%.

by joeiscool12 on Jun 20, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OOZ is not subjective.

It rates everyone on the same scale.

Essentially, the baseball field is split into zones. If 50% of balls in play hit into a particular zone are turned into outs, that’s considered “in the zone” for that position. So, every shortstop in baseball will have the same “zone”. This still means that Bartlett is making a decent number of plays outside the zone of an average shortstop…he may not be spectacular, but he’s still got some range, and the ability to utilize that range to convert outs.

If you’re talking about the total number of OOZ plays, you’re right—it’s like comparing how many homers Morneau will get this year versus Brian Buscher. It’s probably not fair because Justin gets more playing time…but he’s still a better hitter. And Jason is still a better fielder. The stats are imperfect and don’t give us the whole picture, but they’re good enough to back up that statement.

by Jesse on Jun 20, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying...

that Harris is a better fielder cause he probably isn’t, but I haven’t seen any stupid mistakes out of him like we did Bartlett far too often last season.

Personally, I would take a dependable player who maybe doesn’t make many spectacular plays over one who can make a lot of plays “out of zone” but can’t make all of the plays he’s supposed to.

by joeiscool12 on Jun 21, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Harris has 1/3 as many “OOZ” plays as Barlett does in 1/3 as many innings.

Would that not put them on par with each other anyways?

by joeiscool12 on Jun 21, 2008 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harris vs. Bartlett

Bartlett gets to a lot more balls than Harris. Harris catches a higher percentage of the balls he gets to. There’s value in that, but not as much as the game ascribes. Errors are magnified by the scoring system. But if you don’t get to a ball you probably should get to, it’s not counted as an error. Still, it’s an out that should have been recorded and was not. The real value of a defensive player is to make outs that should be recorded. When you add up Bartlett’s errors and the balls in his zone he should have caught but never got to, he makes more plays resulting in outs than Harris even though Harris makes fewer errors. That’s why Bartlett is a better defender.

That’s why we have zone ratings. They more accurately rate defense than errors or fielding percentage. The zone represents the balls players should get to. If a player makes plays out of his zone, that’s just gravy.

Two variables that are not counted into the various zone rating metrics and can skew the ratings are the speed of balls hit into your zone and positioning. A ball can be really spanked two feet from you and you can make a great play on it. If you fail to make that play, it counts as a play you did not make in your zone. Also, slow rollers outside your zone count as OOZ balls even though their relatively easy plays.

The turf affects zone ratings quite a bit because hard hit balls will tend to scoot through no matter how close you are to them in your position. Players in the Dome tend to have lower RZR than players in US Cellular, where they grow the grass really long. I’ve been arguing for turf park effects factored into the ratings for quite some time. It’s imperfect, but it’s still better than looking at fielding percentage or range factor or any of the other defensive metrics that people talk about.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 21, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is subjective

If play behind a groundball pitching staff in which at least some starters put the pitch were its called, I have a huge advantage as a fielder. If I’m playing behind the Nationals’ pitching, my life as a fielder is going to be a frustrating one. Fielding is not a talent based solely on the player. There are other elements involved.

by Johnny Safron on Jun 21, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OOZ is not subjective

It’s just slimy.

by nathaneide on Jun 23, 2008 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What?

This season in Tampa, we hear nothing but accolades about Jason Bartlett.

From who do we hear “nothing but accolades” ... ...maybe you’ve been listening to your grandma in Florida too much?

by montanatwinsfan on Jun 19, 2008 9:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to be appoint yourself bulletin board monitor--

—you should point out all of these generalizations:

He’s still a great defender and a solid shortstop, but he will never be an offensive force. I don’t think the Rays or their fans mind as long as he catches the ball.

Someone here knows what the Rays and their fans mind? Frankly, I don’t think so. How ‘bout you, there, Montana?

by Johnny Safron on Jun 19, 2008 11:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well schucks Johnny

you got me there, I sure don’t know what the Rays and their fans mind.

Especially not when compared to you.

by montanatwinsfan on Jun 20, 2008 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is an SB Nation site on the Rays

I suggest you check them out.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 20, 2008 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Link

http://www.draysbay.com/2008/6/19/554852/the-numbers-tell-the-story

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 20, 2008 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll speak as a Rays fan

His offense is a bit infuriating at times, but his defense is really, really good, and after putting up with the Brendan Harris and Josh Wilson types of the world it’s refreshing to see a shortstop who can actually field a ball up the middle. Ideally he could revert back to 2006 offensively, but we’re not complaining too much at this point.

by R.J. Anderson on Jun 20, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Rays fan?

Who knew?

by wcooley on Jun 20, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll speak as a guy who watched Bartlett in 2007

He was an equal opportunity error machine, splitting his mistakes between fielding and throwing fairly equally, as I recall. I’m certain someone can find this stat on the many DZR, FRQ, LRY, FBI, CIA stats sites.

What Rays fans probably have not seen this year is the “unforced errors,” the bobbling of the ball and not being able to make a play, the balls through the legs. Bartlett made an uncommon amount of errors on very playable balls. The argument for those who love the man will be “range,” but as a pitcher and a manager and a teammate at the big-league level, you need guys who can make the routine play. You need teammates who know their limitations and play within themselves. Bartlett did not do that for the Twins last year. He made more errors than he should have on routine balls. Even if he negated those with wide-ranging plays that might have uplifted a pitcher, there were too many demoralizing mistakes.

And there’s one other problem with fielding stats: it’s when the errors are made that really matter. It’s no different than batting average. Hitting .295 is nice, but if the hits always come in blowout wins or loses, or with no one on, it’s less pertinent than hitting .250 when it matters. Booting a ball in a 10-1 win in the 8th inning matters a lot less than letting one go through your wickets in the fifth inning when you team is leading 2-1, and then walks off the field trailing 5-2.

by Johnny Safron on Jun 21, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

track record important

to quote you:

“Bartlett had 99 and 88 OPS+ the past two years. And you are saying the Rays thought they were getting a 60 OPS+...”

Yet batting 60 OPS+ for half a year is bad, but it doesn’t put him in the same category as Castro. Castro had never had success as a hitter in his entire life. Bartlett had. That’s what makes this year disappointing—the fact that he is usually better than that. The same numbers would not be disappointing from Castro, they would be expected.

Sure Bartlett might suddenly suck and never hit a lick again. So could Mauer. But he’s a better hitter than Castro, and a better fielder, who happens to be having a bad year at the plate so far. But his range and hitting ability are both better then Castro’s.

by by jiminy on Jun 20, 2008 10:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bartlett's LD% suggests that he's been a bit unlucky.

by R.J. Anderson on Jun 20, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Also, on the LD% thing, which always seems higher than you would expect given his other numbers. He hits a lot of balls medium hard to the right fielder. They register as liners by whoever tallies those things, but they’re pretty easy outs. Last year, they started to fall in about midseason when he started to get a bit worn down and they weren’t hit quite as hard. Perhaps that will happen again this year.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 20, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course...

...these things tend to stray.

The original post emphasized life ain’t fair. Specifically to these two: Castro was reviled, Bartlett loved. At least on Twins blogs. Yet the two players were not polar opposites. They were perceived to be, based on the hatred of Castro and utter love of Bartlett, but in reality their talents were closer than how they were perceived. And when it’s all done - Bartlett will not likely be playing at 34, as Castro did - I doubt he’ll be around at 32. So, again, the emphasis was big picture.

Castro was not the worthless player vilified on Twins blogs, and Bartlett was not the golden boy whom many felt was held in purgatory by the evil Gardenhire Empire. Twins bloggers also frequently treated Kubel similarly. Before”free Jason Kubel” they wanted to “free Jason Bartlett.” From what I have seen of these two as they developed, and considering their various health issues (most Twins fans know Kubel’s issues, but Bartlett has his history of injuries, including twice disabled for hand injuries before ‘05 season, and an ornery back and neck last year; whacked a ball off his foot the other day in BP and missed a game, and now he’s off to midwife a baby, and it will be interesting to see if the birth jumpstarts his offense, as has been the case with some big-leaguers) were brought along at, a pace comparable with their ability to contribute. If either are contributing at a level fans find acceptable now, it’s partly because they were brought along at a pace that was warranted.

In sum, the original post pointed out that Castro and Bartlett were treated as polar opposites regarding talent, but in their big-league careers they were hardly polar opposites. Castro never deserved the dissing he got, and Bartlett never deserved the support he received. For some reason, Twins fans love the young players more than most fans. All fans get excited about the prospect. Twins fans are overzealous, perhaps because of one too many Butch Huskey signings. But look at Delmon Young compared with Monroe now. Monroe has showed more worth than his support, and Young has less worth than his.

by Johnny Safron on Jun 21, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Argument

I think perhaps the polar opposite thing was a matter of your perception. My arguments were not absolute. I never said Bartlett was the best shortstop ever. I never said Castro was the worst shortstop ever. They are both pretty close to mediocre, Castro on the bad side and Bartlett on the good side. The reason there was so much focus on this is it’s about as close to a slam dunk argument as you can make. Bartlett was younger, cheaper, faster, rangier and a better hitter. The fact that Castro beat him out with four games of spring training is one of the most mysterious decisions in Twins history. When the team appears to make an obvious mistake, it spurs a lot of discussion. That is what happened. Perhaps some took absolutist approaches to that discussion. Most did not. I certainly didn’t.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 21, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One other thing

I wouldn’t have been so vehement in my arguments were it not for folks like you and TT and all those Pollyannas at DTFC who would never question an organizational decision. I mean, when you have a slam dunk, you don’t expect it to be contested. When it is, you get a bit vehement. If it weren’t such an obvious case (which the Twins basically admitted later) it would not have been so strenuously argued. Bartlett was better than Castro is six ways (bat, arm, range, speed, youth, price). Castro was better than Bartlett in one way (sure handedness). The organization admitted that Bartlett was the future at the position. And there was no monetary reason to wait. So why wait and jeopardize your season in the process? I still have no clue why they were so irrational in waiting, other than a sentimental attitude to give a guy who had never had a shot the chance to start in the majors. That’s no way to run a winning ball club.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 21, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bartlett wasn't ready

That’s why he wasn’t installed. Simple. In the big leagues, you need a shortstop that you have confidence in.

Question a decision. Not a problem for me, when I’m certain I have a good handle on it. This includes at least considering what kind of soap operas are occurring in players’ lives. Know-it-all fans think it always comes down to the manager not liking some player (hint: big-league managers like life in the big leagues, and they usually play the players who are going to help them to keep their jobs) or days played in the big-leagues, or some other outside-looking-in reason. Often, decisions are made based on something simple as girlfriend troubles.

A little tip: you probably know more about your family than your neighbor’s kid, because presumably you’re in touch with your family and you lived with some of them and have some vague understanding of your family’s dynamic, and the neighbor kid, well, he likes to smoke a little marijuana and skateboard with his buddies. Big-league managers and general managers know more about their players than people who think writers at Baseball America has some remarkable insight into the game.

by Johnny Safron on Jun 22, 2008 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes about as much sense as anything

I’ve probably vetted every possible explanation at one time or another, including yours. The least popular in the blogosphere had to do with what people call “conspiracy theories”, a phrase they missuse to refer to various inside, unexplainable decisions based on gut feel or whim. When I suggested that it was a team chemistry thing-Castro was close with Silva and Santana, who were the real leaders in the clubhouse at the time, contra Torii-people scoffed. The problem with talking about controversial decisions in terms of clubhouse or family issues is there’s just no way to prove it. Gardy wasn’t going to say that he made a decision based solely on how well he liked the two players off the field. So you’re left scratching your head and wondering what the story is. The most unsatisfying answer is, “Who knows? Gardy probably just like the cut of Castro’s jib.” Or, as others have said, “It’s none of your business. They had their reasons.” Some fans are OK with that. Most in the blogosphere are not.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 22, 2008 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs