Christensen's grades
by cmathewson
on Dec 28, 2005 12:36 PM EST
In a recent commentary in the Strib:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/509/5800210.html
Joe Cristensen graded Terry Ryan's three big moves of the offseason thusly: Castillo--B+, White--C, and Batista--D+. My first intuition here is that each of these grades is a bit low, or, put it another way, he's got a harsh curve. So I thought I could do better.
My criterion for grading the moves is based on four things: 1. Where does the player sit relative to other players in the league at his position? 2. Where does the player sit on the list of available internal options, all things considered? 3. Where does the player fit on the list of acquisition options? and 4. How much did Ryan spend to acquire him? If the player's in the top tier of talent in the league, is a huge upgrade over other guys on the roster, he's the best player available to Terry Ryan, and he was cheap to acquire I will give an A+. The scale is not scientific (as a former college teacher, they never are). But I will reason my way through the three grades appropriately.
Castillo--A
First of all, Castillo is now one of the best second basemen in a strong class in the AL. I would put only Brian Roberts ahead of him and put him on a par with Placido Polonco. Those three are in the upper tier in the league. I tend to give guys more credit for good gloves than the mainstream media, so guys like Mark Ellis are ahead of guys like Adam Kenendy in tier 2, and Cano, Iguchi, Grundseilanek (sp?) and Belliard are in tier 3.
Equally as important as where Castillo ranks in the league is where the other second basemen on the roster would rank: None of them would be in the top three tiers. I would rank Punto last in tier 4 and Rodriguez and Maza somewhere above him in the fourth tier with guys that replace players like Soriano and Hudson.
Overall, this is about as drastic an upgrade over the roster replacements as can be made. When you consider that none of the tier one second basemen was available (Soriano and Hudson were tier 2), and both would cost more than Castillo did, the grade is clearly an A, it would have been an A+ if Ryan had not had to give up a decent arm or two to get him and pay him $5 million this year.
White--B-
First of all, any assessment of DHs in the league is complicated by the fact that most of them also play a position part time. But let's just ignore that fact and state the obvious: Ortiz and Giamby are tier 1 talents, Hafner leads the class of tier 2 talents, and there's a whole mess of tier 3 guys like Carl Everett.
I would put White in tier 3, and I would put LeCroy in tier 4. So it was a modest upgrade over last year. Plus, there really isn't anyone on the roster (Garret Jones?) who would even make teir 4, so I would say the upgrade itself desrves a grade of C. When you consider the other available options in terms of price, injury risk, and career productivity curves, the deal gets better. White put up the best numbers of the available options last year, and was hurt diving for a ball (not running out a DP grounder or lifting weights). All things considered, he was the best option, and I'll give TR a C+ based on that fact. Then, when you consider that he was the cheapest option of all the tier 3 talents available (by a long shot), the deal becomes a B-.
Batista--C+
As our hundreds of posts on this subject attest, it's pretty tough to evaluate this move. But I will give it a shot on the criterion above. Batista is a tweener tier 3/4 talent. Rodriguez leads a small tier 1, Chavez leads a small tier 2 with Mora. Blalock and Beltre are tier 3 talents. And guys like Crede fill up a crowded tier 4. Batista is definitely better than guys like Cuddyer and Crede in tier 4 but not as good as guys like Blalock in tier 3, if nothing else because he's a plus glove and his bat is on par with tier 4 guys. So he's a tweener.
In terms of this roster, he's an upgrade over everything on it. I'd say he's a big upgrade over Tiffey. If Williams is healthy, he's a decent upgrade over him. And he's a somewhat marginal upgrade over Cuddyer. Complicating that evaluation is that Cuddyer is tough to evaluate. He still has upside, but one wonders if he'll ever reach it. And he's a poor third baseman defensively (though not as poor as either Williams or Tiffey). The simple truth is that this roster has one tier 4 talent and two guys who wouldn't even make a tier because they don't belong in the majors. In terms of that class of players, Batista is a significant upgrade. Based solely on those criteria, I'd give this a grade of C.
In terms of the available options, well this is tricky as well. Most of them were not really options for this team with this budget: Glaus, Beltre, and Blalock were too expensive in players or salary. Mueller didn't want to come here. So it's Batista vs. Randa. And I would rather have Batista by a small margin. Also, it's a pretty low risk, low money deal, so I give Ryan points for that. I'm going to put a plus on the C because of these considerations.
So I think Ryan did well overall. What do you think?
0 recs |
34
comments
EmailComments
Agreed
Would also give Ryan a B- for his fourth move, JC. We got a young kid who could turn into a solid player, or could never make it. More important, we got rid of $2.2mm and won't have a player that Gardy would send into games at critical times...a player that would likely let most of the guys on base score.
by roger on Dec 28, 2005 1:53 PM EST 0 recs
Grades
Perspective means a lot. What if Ryan had acquired the three newcomers in reverse order: White, Batista, Castillo. Instead of the strongest acquisition coming first, it comes last, and a lot of times perception is everything when considering overall franchise decisions. It doesn't make a difference on how successful/unsuccessful we'll be, but it's an interesting thought.
Castillo: A. There isn't much I don't like about the trade. We have up little, gained a Gold Glove defender, gained a very good OBP player, picked up a switch-hitter at the top of the order, and may have picked up an extra 25 SB's. Very good move.
Batista: C-. I'm more tempted to give him an 'I' for 'Incomplete', being as it's hard to judge Tony B. after a year in Japan. We know he has some power, but we also know Nick Punto could feasibly have a higher OBP (.340 2004, .301 2005). IF Batista can bat 7th or 8th, because guys like Castillo, Mauer, Stewart, Morneau, Hunter, White or Ford are having the seasons they're capable of, then it's a C+. I can live with a #7 hitter who hits 25 and knocks in 80. IF Batista has to hit 4th or 5th, then I give the acquisition a D. He'll drive in some runs, but with the top three of an order that we have on paper, there will be lots of RBI opportunities for the #4 and #5 hitters, and that OBP of his will play some havoc. I like Batista, because I'm an optimistic bastard. Here's hoping for a C+.
White: B. As I've said before, he wasn't the ideal choice that could have been made (in my mind). When considering that the Twins, barring some miracle of the baseball gods, are near the bottom of the list for teams able to acquire great HR threats with great OBP potential, it's not a bad pickup. Not good, definately not bad. What I like: only ONCE since 1997 has White had an OBP lower than .337. Career OBP: .343. He's driven in 80+ runs only twice, hit 20+ homers three times, but he hasn't been on many decent clubs, either. Montreal (93-00), Chicago Cubs (00, 01), Yankees (02), SD (03), KC (03) and Detroit (04, 05). Only 6 clubs +.500, with only 1 postseason appearance (Yankees '02). Great players succeed in spite of circumstances, but we all know White isn't a great player. He's a good player who may have had better numbers with better teams. If Rondell White can stay healthy, he'll be okay. Not good, not bad, but okay.
Overall: B-. Ryan did do well, I agree with cmathewson. White gives the Twins two nice OBP upgrades in combination with Castillo. Our defense up the middle (Mauer, Castillo, Hunter) will be one of the best in the AL. Batista is a power upgrade although you're sacrificing other areas of the game. This offseason's questions weren't answered the way I wished them to be, but they never are. Opening day 2006 can't come soon enough.
by Jesse on Dec 28, 2005 2:08 PM EST 0 recs
Well, Ok, except for Batista
Crede has bested the league average fielding percentage at 3B for the past 3 seasons. Defense is very difficult to get a handle on, but I see no reason why a younger Crede shouldn't be at least as good as Batista.
I also think its very unlikely that Batista will be better than the internal option. But the Twins absolutely decided that Cuddyer wouldn't play 3rd, so to the extent that he's better than Terry Tiffee, OK, that may be true.
Look, Batista wasn't very good in his best years. What people seem to be ignoring is that there is a non-neglibible possibility that Tony Batista cannot play anymore. Everyone says that he went to Japan for the money, and that may be true, but guys who post OBP's of .270 for two straight years aren't going to get a lot of chances to be everyday players in the majors. And now he's into his decline phase.
Folks have said that since the deal is not guaranteed, if he can't play, they can just cut him. While that's true, and a good thing, it ignores the pretty obvious elephant in the room, to wit:
Then what? Signing Batista and essentially stopping your search for a 3B is lost opportunity. If Batista just can't play, will they move Cuddyer back? If so, then OK, I think Cuddyer ought to be the 3B. But they have been so adamant about not doing that, a failed Batista puts them in a very ugly position of either scouring the waiver wire, overpaying in a trade, or using someone who is essentially a replacement level player (Tiffee).
Batista was a bad move, IMO, on any number of levels. I cannot give it a "C" of any stripe. Its a "D," maybe.
by Eric in Madison on Dec 28, 2005 2:18 PM EST 0 recs
Tiffee
Tiffee is below replacement level. His minor league numbers are less than spectacular, and his major league numbers are worse. His EQA last season of .181 is WAY below replacement level, but even if I grant that Tiffee could muster a Batista-like, replacement-level EQA of .240 (which I think underrates Batista's offensive contributions), Tiffee's defense is at least as bad as Cuddyer's defense. Batista is an upgrade on Tiffee, easily.
by ubelmann on
Dec 28, 2005 3:07 PM EST
up
0 recs
Tiffee
In all fairness, he barely has any major league numbers.
If you happen to be a person who infuses "small sample size" into statistical evaluations, it's certainly a requirement to mention it when speaking of Tiffee's MLB plate appearances.
"Less than spectacular" is certainly a subjective comment. As we can all be subjective, I would call them "encouraging" or "well beyond respectable" at the worst.
He did lead '01 Quad City in batting, hits and RBI, and was second in SA and doubles. He was fourth in the league in hits. Among '01 Quad City players, he was clearly spectacular.
In '02 in Ft. Myers, he led the club in batting, hits, doubles, RBI, and was second in TB and SA, third in HR and OB%. If he was less than spectacular there, it wasn't by much.
In '03, he led all the Twins' minor leagues in RBI, and was second in hits and TB.
Assuming "typical" minor league numbers matter, he went .315-14-93 with a .351 OB% in New Britain in '03, his first year at that level. He SO only 49 times in 530 ABs. That's a whiff every 11 ABs. What's not to like?
His first year at Rochester, only 316 ABs, he went .307-12-68 with a .357 OB%. He whiffed just 26 times. That's a whiff every 12 ABs. He climbed a level and kept his strike zone.
So, he successfully made the AA jump (Michael Cuddyer, for comparion, spend 2 years at New Britain with less spectacular numbers). All minor league stats indicate he's a more disciplined hitter than Cuddyer. His swing, compared with Cuddyer's, supports that.
Tiffee seems to have been lost among all the lament from Twins' fans that Michael Cuddyer has not been given opportunities.
Ah, the difference between being a No. 1 choice and a No. 26 choice while remaining in the same organization.
by Firpo Marberry on
Dec 28, 2005 4:10 PM EST
up
0 recs
Tiffee's minor league numbers vs. Cuddyer's
Cuddyer at age 22 put up a .301 average and .560 slugging percentage in 509 ABs. Tiffee at age 24, put up a higher average, at .315, but a much lower SLG, at .464, in 530 ABs. Considering the ages and the 100 point difference in slugging, I'd much rather have Cuddyer.
If we look at their career lines, Tiffee has hit .290/.431 to Cuddyer's .290/.485, where again Cuddyer was younger at every level than Tiffee was.
The only way you can think of Tiffee as a better player than Cuddyer, based on minor league statistics, is if you way overvalue Tiffee's 306 AAA at-bats in 2004.
I don't think projecting Tiffee at a replacement-level .240 is really all that unfair to him, considering that Cuddyer's been lingering around .255 and Tiffee's overall numbers in the minors are worse than Cuddyer's.
Tiffee is not a good enough hitter to make up for his poor defense at third base.
by ubelmann on
Dec 28, 2005 4:36 PM EST
up
0 recs
That's part of it.
Focusing on the Cuddyer aspect of this ignores your initial remarks about Tiffee's minor league numbers, which are certainly not unspectacular compared to his teammates and the league competitiion.
Tiffee has not fielded well in the majors, and this was considered an issue three, now almost four, seasons ago.
He swings from both sides. He's got a nice stroke. Although it appears it will be another slim look at him in March, I'd like to think the Twins would give him some playing time.
There's no question his swing is better than Cuddyer's.
by Firpo Marberry on
Dec 29, 2005 2:12 AM EST
up
0 recs
Not the right comparison, either
The right comparison isn't with the league competition or his teammates. 95% or more of those guys won't ever see more than 50-60 ABs in the major leagues. The proper comparison is with guys who make it to the next level and are successful. To that end, I think Cuddyer is a better comp than Tiffee's teammates.
"You can focus on age, but Cuddyer had twice as many AA abs as Tiffee, for instance."
For instance? Your criticism of Cuddyer here seems to be totally focused on the fact that he repeated AA. This is the only level he had a full season at and subsequently repeated. I'd hardly say his path was slow.
If we're going to talk about slow paths, having to repeat a year at the Midwest League is pretty embarassing for a guy who's already been seasoned at community college.
At any rate, looking at the minor league statistics, and remembering that there are plenty of guys with nice looking swings who can't hit MLB pitching worth a darn, I don't see any good reason to expect Tiffee to hit any better than replacement level.
by ubelmann on
Dec 29, 2005 2:23 AM EST
up
0 recs
cuddyer
by AdamOnFirst on
Dec 29, 2005 3:57 AM EST
up
0 recs
Let's see
Castillo: A
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. Castillo was an excellent pickup. The only reason I wouldn't give an A+ is because he costs 5 mil this year. The arms we gave away, while quality, are lost admid or rich system and are negligable. This really improves us.
White: B
I like your analysis, but I like this deal a little more than you do. I think White will put up numbers a bit better than Piazza this year, not get seriously injured as a DH, and be a good DH for us. At 3.5 mil, the price was very right, and we COULD have spent that money elsewhere.
Batista: F+
You all know how I feel about this. Ericinmadison mentioned many of the points, but I would like to say the pre-decline Batista of 2004 or 2003 sucks even if we got that level of play. The only reason this isn't a full blown "F" (and I know F+ isn't a real grade) is because we can cut him and recoup our losses.
So overall, we are at about a C+.
by AdamOnFirst on Dec 28, 2005 2:44 PM EST 0 recs
Grades
One of the reasons I think these grades go down like this is the order in which the moves were made, which is totally irrelevant now. How would you feel if the offseason went down like this?
Trade for Castillo--add $5M to the payroll.
Sign Rondell White--add $3.25M to the payroll.
Trade J.C. Romero for $2.2M payroll relief and a prospect
At this point, you've got $1.25-$1.5M to sign a 3B. The ONLY 3B who is going to sign for that is Tony Batista. As I've detailed elsewhere in comments, I think Batista is easily an upgrade over Cuddyer at 3B, and Cuddyer's an upgrade over Tiffee, so Batista is an upgrade over Tiffee, too.
There is basically a consensus that adding Castillo was a great move. So, if we're criticizing TR for his other two moves, tell me two players that the Twins could have signed for $5M combined to upgrade both DH and 3B MORE than TR upgraded with Batista and White. Right now, given what other guys have signed for, I don't see that TR could have made better moves.
by ubelmann on Dec 28, 2005 3:04 PM EST 0 recs
Um, no
by AdamOnFirst on
Dec 28, 2005 3:10 PM EST
up
0 recs
Dreaming...
Wes Helms is at least as much of a defensive sinkhole as Mike Cuddyer at third base, if not more. Wes Helms also has a career EQA of .256, to Cuddyer's career EQA of .255. Cuddyer is also 3 years younger. Helms would not be a good choice.
by ubelmann on
Dec 28, 2005 3:24 PM EST
up
0 recs
He would
by AdamOnFirst on
Dec 28, 2005 3:26 PM EST
up
0 recs
Adam
You can state that you do not think that Batista is as good as Cuddy, or you would be happier if they played Cuddyer rather than Batista. Please do not state it as fact, because it isn't.
Thank you!
by roger on
Dec 28, 2005 3:36 PM EST
up
0 recs
Whom do you trust?
Therefore, Roger, I have no reason to automatically trust that any TR move (esp. Batista) is a good move or that it's a "smarter" idea than some poster's.
I don't mind the move if there is a Koskie coming in yet at a cheap price. I'm not sure whether the Twins could live with only one backup MI, but I'd take my chances keeping Batista as a bench/platoon player. And at least when he was younger, he could take a turn at SS or 3B.
by statman on
Jan 3, 2006 5:18 AM EST
up
0 recs
60% of GM's are stupid
To state that any poster's ideas are as good as Mr. Ryans is a flat out ridiculous comment. There is so much garbage on this and other sites with everyone spouting off ridiculous comments and suggestions...they are all as good as a professional who has spent his lifetime in the business?
Unless you have been there, which by the way I haven't, you have no idea what goes into developing an organizational plan, dealing with other GM's who are trying to make their club better, dealing within the limitations of a budget, dealing with agents...to make a statement that any poster's ideas are as smart is not realistic or acceptable to any serious Twins fan.
by roger on
Jan 3, 2006 7:35 AM EST
up
0 recs
Statman
I do believe that your comment comparing the posts of anyone with Mr. Ryan does not show him the respect he has earned. The tone of my response was however, inappropriate.
by roger on
Jan 3, 2006 10:49 AM EST
up
0 recs
I think
I do definatly agree with what I believe the point of statman's post was. Saying "He's a GM, so he knows more and must be right" is ridiculous. Many Gm's have made many terrible, idiotic moves that others wouldn't make. They are people, and people make bad decisions. Just because they supposedly know more thatn us (which they likely do much of the time) doesn't mean they are exempt from poor decisions.
by AdamOnFirst on
Jan 3, 2006 6:01 PM EST
up
0 recs
Randa will make $4 million in 2006
by cmathewson on
Dec 28, 2005 6:04 PM EST
up
0 recs
My my
And yes , White is far better than Randa, I'm not a huge Randa fan, I'm just looking for anyone over Batista.
And there is still Helms.
by AdamOnFirst on
Dec 28, 2005 6:19 PM EST
up
0 recs
One stat at a time
I suppose you think Castro is better tha Batista because his OBP is the same and he has a better glove.
by cmathewson on
Dec 28, 2005 6:26 PM EST
up
0 recs
No
Look, I don't ONLY care about OBP. If batista had an amzing slugging percentage, like really amazing, it could make up for his terrible OBP. But the fact is, his slugging percentage is only abotu thirty points above league average. That is not nearly enough to make up for a OBP .60 points below it. Not by a long shot.
Now if he slugged, say, .520, then we might have a different story. But he deosn't.
Oh, and as far as Helms, he has been somewhat of a backup his career. He has never gotten the chance to trot out there every day.
There were actualyl several guys like that who I found in that entry on possible trades I did awhile back.
I would like to note that I called the Toronto situation before the Glaus talks and before anyone else thought of it. Frankly, the situation was better then, since now the money issues are intensly difficult.
by AdamOnFirst on
Dec 28, 2005 6:37 PM EST
up
0 recs
OBP and SLG
As for Toronto, let's say TR waited until something happened up there (perhaps he was prescient for whatever reason) and didn't sign anyone until after the Glaus move. Then he had the money for either Hillenbrand or Koskie. It would have still cost him all his discretionary funds plus a pitcher like Lohse to get one of the two. So we would be without White and Lohse all for an upgrade of 2 wins in Hillenbrand and an estimated five wins in Koskie. I think you lose more than you gain in that instance.
by cmathewson on
Dec 28, 2005 7:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
Slugging is totaled using at bats
Theoretically you could have a lower slugging percentage than OBP, which incidentally Luis Castillo does.
What you mean I presume is that its hard to have a high slugging percentage with a low batting average.
Which is true.
There is a stat called Isolated Power which is essentially slugging - batting average.
Tony Batista's career Isolated Power is .207 which is pretty decent but not really outstanding. Most people who hit 30 homers a year have similar and often higher numbers. All Stars like Manny, Vlad, Sheffield Ortiz are .300 and over.
Total bases doesnt tell you anything that slugging percentage doesnt tell you. One is a counting stat and one is rate state. Counting stats generally are frowned upon because they get inflated by opportunity. Someone with 620 plate appearances should have more total bases than someone with 425 plate appearance...but that doesnt make the former a better hitter, it just means he had more opportunities.
by BHtwins on
Dec 28, 2005 7:34 PM EST
up
0 recs
Opportunities are a function of talent
The opposite is true about players who have not had opportunities. For example, when Adam says about Wes Helms, "Well, they haven't given him the opportunity to play every day yet." OK, the guy's been with Milwaukee for six full seasons and he's only had one year of more than 100 games played. If he was really that good, why didn't the Brewers at least try to play him every day at third base? Perhaps it's because he will only hit 10 home runs and 20 doubles per year? Perhaps the Milwaukee brain trust (which includes guys like Phil Garner, in addition to several baseball men who have cycled through) thinks Helms is a mediocre, part-time player. We're not talking about the Yankees here. The Brewers are a .500 team in their good years. How good can this guy be if several differnet managers never gave him a chance?
Yet Batista has been given tons of opportunities to produce runs. He was given those opportunities becuase baseball ment (guys who are a lt smarter thn any of us) gave him those opportunities. And, despite making a lot of outs, he has taken advantage of his opporunities. No one will argue with the fact that he has driven in a lot of runs in his seven years for some pretty bad teams.
You see, opportunity does not equate to luck. It's a reflection of the skill of a player that manager after manager gives a guy 155 starts a year. I don't think a player should be penelized because he has a lot more opportunities than the average third baseman. Take Koskie for example. The Twins would have loved to play this guy n 160 games. But Noooooo. He had to have every nagging injury in the books and some pretty nasty ones. So his numbers are good because he only had 400 at bats a year and 120 games played. Who played the other 42 games and what did they do?
I'm just saying.
by cmathewson on
Dec 28, 2005 10:02 PM EST
up
0 recs
I'll partially agree with that
You might bat 8th for the Twins and have 630 plate appearances in 162 games or it might be for the Yankees and you get 670 plate appearances. Not your fault.
Someone could have Gardy for a manager, for example, who never stops line-up tinkering. Not their fault
Someone could have an acceptable back up who takes 80 plate appearances from you while someone else could play for a team with limited depth and is forced to play all 162 games
There are too many variables. Which isnt to say total bases is meaningless...its not. Its value is limited to context though just like rate stats are limited to sample size.
Total bases also ignores walks and in fact punishes players who walk a lot. Barry Bonds over the last few years doesnt put up tremendous total base numbers despite stratospheric slugging percentage because aside from being intentionally walked 60+ times gets pitched around pretty much in every at bat.
by BHtwins on
Dec 28, 2005 11:49 PM EST
up
0 recs
You forgot a couple of subtractions
One addition is the RonDL has a ton of incentives that make his contract more expensive should he reach them.
Additionally with the new ESPN tv deal, the XM radio deal, the escaltion of the Fox Sports TV deal, the sale of the Nats, and the luxury tax payments of the Red Sox and Yankees....the Twins should have added at least $12-15 million in revenue this year.
Their salary number will be about $8 or $9 million above last year roughly so its probably net gain into Mr. Burns pocket at this point. I believe the Twins are a profitable enterprise at this point and probably have been since about 2002.
Of course none of us really know what Pohlads arbitrary cap is and TR isnt very fothcoming about it either so....do we really know if TR was capped out or not?
Anyway none of that has anything to do with the grades.
Castillo-A Great pick-up. Relatively cheap talent-wise and for once TR traded a prospect at his maximum value. Hard throwing relievers who dont change speeds and throw straight fastballs get hammered in this league. Bowyer proved it in his September call-up.
White-B If he stays healthy as a full-time DH this is an incredibly valuable pick-up even if the Twins pony up the full value of the incentives.
Batista-F You can approximate the value of Batista with one serf that would make 315k per year already on your 40 man and have a player that likely is going to give you better value that is first year arbitration eligible at about 800K and already on your books. If your going to upgrade....upgrade. If you can approximate the same value in wins with players you already have than why risk even the $250k buyout. I hate this move and I hate it worse the more I think about it.
by BHtwins on
Dec 28, 2005 3:31 PM EST
up
0 recs
No
The Twins have a budget, unless you're just going to punish TR for having a budget, we have to recognize when assigning him credit for his acquisitions that there are just some moves he couldn't have made, period.
But, what I'm saying about the budget is that after all the dust settles from guys leaving the payroll and guys getting increases from last year's salary, that TR was allowed to spend about $10M on Castillo, White, and Batista. You tell me a better way to spend that $10M.
by ubelmann on
Dec 28, 2005 3:37 PM EST
up
0 recs
I gave Batista an F
TR spent at least $250,000 and possibly $1.25 million on production he already has on the 40 man roster.
by BHtwins on
Dec 28, 2005 5:54 PM EST
up
0 recs
Glove matters
Anyway, his production was a chimera. He hit ground ball after gorund ball with guys on base. He hit homers when no one was on. He had 173 total bases in over 500 plate appearences, which means he did not have much pop. In contrast, Batista averaged 235 TBs a season for seven years, once grabbing 312 of them. Cuddy had 43 RBI last year. And he's supposed to be more productive than a guy who averages 91 RBIs a year?
by cmathewson on
Dec 28, 2005 6:14 PM EST
up
0 recs
Randa would cost more...
And Helms isn't really an option. He's averaged fewer than 100 games per year over six full seasons. He has averaged 8 HRs and 12 doubles per year over that stretch. He's a career .257/.320/.424 hitter with three times as many strikeouts as walks. If he offered to play here for the minimum, I would still rather have Batista at the money we will pay him. Batista hit more homers (89) and doubles (86) between 2002 and 2004 than Helms has hit for his whole career.
The games played stat is most telling. Batista averages more than 150 starts a year at third. And for those who think Batista is headed for decline, the numbers sure don't indicate it. He's never been on the DL. And his 2004 numbers were the best numbers of his career when he played for Montreal.
by cmathewson on Dec 28, 2005 3:40 PM EST 0 recs
I could live with Batista ???
Thinking back I was trying to find the last time the Twins had a guy who batted 7th in the lineup and got 25 HRs and 80 rbis. It escapes me. I went back through the last 5 years and I am not sure that an everyday guy who was batting that low in the lineup did it. It may go back to 2000 when Jones was batting 7th, but later that year he got moved around.
If Batista ends up batting that low and has those numbers are am going to "love" it.
by twinsfanatic on Dec 28, 2005 4:29 PM EST 0 recs
in my opinion
by cortalekanak on Jan 13, 2007 9:24 AM EST 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
