Baseball America Top 31 Prospects

I just got my BA Prospect Handbook in the mail. You know the top ten--now we know numbers 11-31:

1. Jordan Zimmermann
2. Ross Detwiler
3. Chris Marrero
4. Michael Burgess
5. Jack McGeary
6. Derek Norris
7. Destin Hood
8. Adrian Nieto
9. J.P. Ramirez
10. Esmailyn Gonzalez
11. Justin Maxwell
12. Garrett Mock
13. Shairon Martis
14. Danny Espinoza
15. Graham Hicks
16. Leonard Davis
17. Bill Rhinehart
18. Roger Bernadina
19. Ian Desmond
20. Craig Stammen
21. Marco Estrada
22. Mike Hinckley
23. Stephen King
24. Will Atwood
25. Josh Smoker
26. Colton Willems
27. Luis Atilano
28. Cory Van Allen
29. Luke Montz
30. Terrell Young
31. J.R. Higley

Zimmermann ranks 35, 31, and 39 in the top 50 overall prospect lists compiled by Jim Callis, Will Lingo, and John Manuel, respectively. No other National appears on these lists, and it seems possible that we won't have another player in their top 100.

The Nationals system ranks #21 overall, down from #9 last year. The team ranked #30 in '07 and #24 in '06. The brief comment on the ranking is: "The Nats seemed to be making strides before a disastrous 2008, plagued by injuries and a botched negotiation with first-round pick Aaron Crow. Blaming a fallow system on MLB ownership in the Expos years in as excuse that's starting to lose potency with the passsage of time."

Graham Hicks is named as the "breakout prospect," and Chris Curran as the "sleeper." Will Atwood and Danny Espinoza are listed as "closest to the majors."

One of the things I really like is that BA grades past drafts going back to 2004. Since it's impossible to really evaluate a draft until at least 3-4 years down the road, these grades are far more instructive I think than the instant analysis. Last year's draft, for instance, was rated the best in baseball at the time, but now BA gives it a "B." The 2006 draft gets a "C," while the Zimmerman-Lannan-Maxwell draft of 2005 gets an "A."

Other notable rankings include:

• Jhonny Nunez, traded to the Yankees for Alberto Gonzalez and subsequently sent to Chicago in the Nick Swisher deal, is #16 with the ChiSox.
• Daryl Thompson, part of the Austin Kearns / Felipe Lopez deal, is #11 in the Reds system.
• Jake Smolinski, sent to Florida in the Josh Willingham / Scott Olsen trade, is #25 in the Marlins very deep system.
• P.J. Dean, part of the same trade as Smolinski, is Florida's #20.
• Brian Duensing, the player drafted by Minnesota with the pick we lost in the 2004 signing of Cristian Guzman, is the Twins' #16.
• Glenn Gibson, traded for Elijah Dukes and rated last year as the Rays' #11 prospect, didn't make their list this year.

Nats Farm Authority offers some additional break downs on the list here.

Nationals Blacked out on Fox, ESPN

Awful Announcing has the early schedule of nationally broadcast games on ESPN and Fox. The Nationals are one of eight teams that will not appear on either network even one time. I can't say I blame them, but it's a disappointment nonetheless.

Here's the breakdown by team. Get used to hearing about how "it's gonna happen" (it isn't).

Cubs- 12
Cardinals- 11
Mets, Dodgers, Twins, White Sox, Braves- 10
Angels, Phillies, Yankees, Red Sox- 9
Indians- 8
Astros, Tigers, Rays- 6
Giants, Brewers- 5
Rangers, Diamondbacks- 4
A's, Mariners, O's- 1
Blue Jays, Marlins, Padres, Nationals, Pirates, Reds, Rockies, Royals- 0

PECOTA Spreadsheets Available

Baseball Prospectus has posted their PECOTA projections for 2009. PECOTA's been one of the best projection systems out there, especially for pitchers. You have to subscribe to get the full spreadsheets, but I don't think they'll mind if I post a few notables.

Pitchers first:

• They really like former Indians prospect J.D. Martin, projecting him for a 4.62 eqERA (league and park adjusted ERA), which is better than any other Nationals pitcher other than Saul Rivera (4.53). The team never mentions him as a candidate for the rotation, but I've been saying since the day he signed that if he's given a fair shot he could easily win a spot.
  
• They don't expect Terrell Young to make it through his rule-5 season, projecting him for a whopping 7.46 eqERA.
• They agree with the team that Jordan Zimmermann's ready, seeing him striking out 6.8 per 9 on his way to a 4.72 eqERA, which trails only Daniel Cabrera's eqERA projection among rotation candidates (speaking of Cabrera Eric Seidman has a really interesting piece on him here).
• They also expect sub-replacement level performance from Collin Balester and Mike Hinckley.

And hitters:

• They see a moderate bounce-back season for Austin Kearns (.264 / .355 / .417) , but not enough to make him a starter. Dukes, Milledge, and Willingham all top him in EqA, BP's composite offensive rate stat.
• Nick Johnson's projection (.266 / .410 / .472) compares nicely to Mark Teixeira's (.287 / .379 / .506). Nick's EqA actually beats Tex .312 to .308.
  
• They expect sub-replacement level from Anderson Hernandez.
• Milledge's OBP climbs to .352. That'd be a great step for his age-24 season.
• Zimmerman's projection is very solid (.289 / .358 / .471) but not the spectacular break-out they'd projected in past years.
• They love Dukes, seeing a big .282 / .390 /.508 season for him.
  

Dugout Central on JimBo

It's been around the Natmosphere, but I figure I'd be remiss if I of all people didn't link to this post arguing that JimBo is the worst GM in baseball.

I obviously agree with the overall thrust of the piece and basically all the particulars, although I'm not sure I could say for sure that one GM or another is definitely the worst. It's obviously a barstool conversation, and there's a solid case to be made.

The only thing I would say about it is that like most of my posts along these lines, there's a tendency for the argument to become less persuasive as it becomes more detailed. To me, the most obvious case against Jim's performance is to simply step back and review the overall results. He hasn't won enough to justify continued employment. You can make excuses or debate whether he deserves most or just some of the blame, but after 15 years the excuses run out. If he was a good GM, he'd win more. Same goes for players. You can excuse a bad month or two on sample size fluctuation or nagging injuries or whatever, but at some point if a guy never hits, you have to just decide he's a bad hitter.

• Update: the writers over at Dugout Central voted, and Sabean nosed out JimBo for worst GM. You can check out the votes and comments here.
  
• Elsewhere in Bowden-bashing news, we get this at the end of Christina Kahrl's latest transactions run-down at Baseball Prospectus:

Where I was initially willing to be generous and see Bowden as an aggressive mover and shaker perched atop a player development program that had done pretty well at keeping the system stocked, his long-term investments in players like Austin Kearns and Cristian Guzman (or Dmitri Young) and more speaks ill of his judgment as far as big-league talent, and the farm system's track record for generating talent is getting worse on his watch instead of better. When you get bad at the big and little things, and you're left with trying to hang your hat on minor success stories like getting some good work out of a guy like Harris, you really need to ask whether the real problem was the decision to retread Bowden when no other team was likely to ever make the attempt after his long track record of decline and failure in Cincinnati.

Fo' Shizzle my Nizzle they'll Hear Dibble Down in VA

R to the izz-O! B to the izz-D! That's the anthem get ya damn hands UP! (Sorry--I couldn't resist the chance for a big Jay-Z reference.)

Apparently not everyone is all that excited about Rob Dibble joining the broadcast booth--so much that there's been more of a reaction to him replacing Don Sutton than the fact that it seems like Bob Carpenter has a copy of the same incriminating photos of Mark Lerner that is keeping Clint and Jim in their jobs.

But Dibble I guess is going to be a big personality, and according to his media introduction he's not going to be a homer. I kind of think that might be fun.

Of course you all will have to tell me how it works out. When I'm not at the game or watching on MLB.tv, I turn down the volume and listen to Charlie and Dave anyway.

Bargain Basement Zim

Recently, the Nationals and the team's four arbitration-eligible players exchanged contract numbers for 2009. In Ryan Zimmerman's case the team offered $2.75 million, while the player is asking for $3.9 million.

You can see all the arbitration figures submitted league-wide here. The players in their first year of arbitration with the most similar figures to Zimmerman's are Mike Jacobs, Corey Hart, and Jeff Francoeur.

The arbitration process is way more art than science, and players aren't valued as they would be on the free market. On the free market, potential matters a lot; in free agency only past performance counts. On the free market, declining players take pay cuts; in arbitration players almost never see pay cuts. On the free market, at least some teams value defense properly; arbitration is hardly aware of the existence of fielding. Most importantly, in the free market you have 30 potential buyers bidding up the value of a player; in arbitration player values are set by the arbitrator who can only choose between the two salary numbers offered by the team and player, a process that depresses player values significantly.

Bottom line, all these first-time arbitration-eligible players will be underpaid relative to what they would get if they were free to offer their talents on the free market to the employer of their choice, just as you and I can. They aren't as underpaid as they were in their first three years, when with no power or voice whatsoever in salary they all get the minimum or close to it, no questions asked.

But let's adopt for now the logic of arbitration and look at Zimmerman, Jacobs, Hart, and Francoeur historically.

First, let's look at their career wOBAs (a composite offensive stat scaled to look like OBP). One of the great things about wOBA is that it can be easily translated into wins above replacement. If you want to learn how, go here. If not, I'll just do the math for you.

Zimmerman: .345 wOBA (2.39 WAR)
Hart: .345 (2.39)
Jacobs: .344 (2.34)
Francoeur: .318 (1.06)

OK, so other than Frenchy, these guys are nearly clones, right? Well, no. You also have to factor in fielding. Zimmerman plays on the more difficult end of the defensive spectrum, and he plays better defense than any of them.

Let's look at their career UZR/150 stats--this is a stat that estimates the number of runs prevented above or below average per 150 games (more or less a full season of opportunities). In the current run environment, we're down to about 10.2 runs per win, so you can do the easy math translating into wins by moving the decimal point one place and calling it close enough.

Zimmerman: +10.5
Hart: +3.5
Francoeur: +1.3
Jacobs: -9.4

Now let's add in the positional adjustment. The basic idea here is that because it's harder to play catcher or second base than first base or left field, that the same level of productivity coming from the harder end of the defensive spectrum is worth more. The positional adjustments in wins are:

+1.0 C
+0.5 SS/CF
+0.0 2B/3B
-0.5 LF/RF/PH
-1.0 1B
-1.5 DH

So taking Zimm's overall defensive contributions, he's about 3 full wins better than Jacobs and Francouer and about 1.3 wins better than Hart.

Now let's step out of backward-looking arbitration world and think a little about how players are valued in a real market--based on expected future performance.

Here are these four players' 2009 projected wOBAs:

Zimmerman
CHONE: .371
MARCEL: .346
Bill James: .363

Hart
CHONE: .355
MARCEL: .345
Bill James: .361

Francouer
CHONE: .336
MARCEL: .318
Bill James: .332

Jacobs
CHONE: .340
MARCEL: .332
Bill James: .360

Without exception, all three projection systems like Zim best. And let's not forget that he's two years younger than Hart and four years younger than Jacobs.

So what does all this mean? Well, I've been saying for some time that now is the time to sign Zimmerman long-term. I guessed that coming off his injury-plagued 2008 that his value would be depressed, and now we have concrete evidence that this is clearly the case.

A solid, healthy season in 2008, and Zimmerman easily could have been in the $5 million territory with Dan Uggla. Garrett Atkins got $4.3 million in his first year of arb last year. Even with his down year in 2008, I would argue that Zimmerman's a more valuable player than either of those guys, if you factor defense properly. If Zimmerman ends up somewhere around $3.3 million this year (about the mid-point of the two arb offers), he'll be a steal.

The team missed it's best chance to sign him long-term at a discount with Jim brought him up at age 20 to a team with no owner. Had he waited till the last week of May 2006 to bring him up, Zimmerman's arb date would have been pushed back a year and the incentive to sign long-term at this point last year or two years ago would have been greater.

We missed that boat. But now we have another chance. Last year we low-balled him with a 6-year, $31 million deal. Zimmerman's not going to take that now any more than he did then. He's looking at the huge payday he's in line for in 2012 when he's due to hit free agency going into his age 27 season. In October, I said the team should be willing to go as high as $9m a year for 6 years. In the current market, looking at how undervalued Zimm is in arbitration, it seems clear that he can be had for less. Six years and $40-45 million could be enough.

Regardless, I still expect Zimmerman to establish himself as an all-star or near-all star player over the next three seasons, and if he does reach free agency, $7-8 million a year won't be anywhere near his price tag.

So once again, I say get it done now. Be happy you're going to get him at an even greater discount, but don't let this moment pass or else it's going to cost the team financially 3 years down the road or else Zimm will be gone.

The Bowden Q&A

I'm guessing given the little market niche I've carved out as the home of all things Jim that people will come here looking for my take on the Q&A. Sadly, I wasn't there. I'm in Amsterdam on business. Yeah, tough life I know.

I'm guessing that Dave at Nationals News Network and Hendo at Nationals Pride will have detailed posts on the goings on. And SBF will have pictures of the AQ with JB. So go there to get caught up. That's what I'm gonna do.

PS--Hey Elijah. It breaks down like this: it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it, and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it, but that doesn't really matter 'cause - get a load of this - if you get stopped by the cops in Amsterdam, it's illegal for them to search you. I mean, that's a right the cops in Amsterdam don't have. Yeah baby, you'd dig it the most.

Chris Needham is Back(?)

According to NFA, former Capitol Punishment blogger Chris Needham has scored what appears to be a paid blogging gig over at NBCWashingon.com. Let me be the second to say welcome back.

To whet your appetite, I brought out my ChrisSpeak Translator. To my amazement, I didn't even have to put anything into it, and it busted out with the following:

"When's this team going to start spending like the major market team that it is? Don't tell me about any Plan either--it's a lousy PR stunt to distract fans for the cheeeeeeeep owners who won't spend a dime on any free agents except those of the dumpster-diving variety, and everyone who isn't a total fucking idiot knows that MLB teams budget year to year and the idea that we're saving up now to spend when we're ready to "get good" is total fucking BS. What a cheap fuck Mark Lerner is. Sell the team, you fuck. And Stan's a used car salesman in the body of an MLB executive. Sell the team and go to hell, Kasten. Yeah, so my big advice for the 2008 season was to sign Andruw Jones and bench Cristian Guzman in favor of Adam Everett. The only reason that didn't work out is because Lenny Harris is a bumbling moron. But now that he's gone we're for sure gonna be teh bestest teem eveh!1!111!!!! Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that the only reason the Nationals weren't in the World Series last year was Lenny. That and the fact that we didn't sign Andruw Jones. And where are my chili nachos?? And cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!1!1111!!!!!1!! If you still don't understand, then I don't think I can help you. (*cough*) Clearly since you're not agreeing you're a fucking idiot. Mikebasciksucks. (*cough*) Die Stan Die!!!! Ack!! Pohlad!!!!! Stupid incompetent DC Council!! Pffffft!!!! FuckLernerFuckFuckFuck!!!!! Fire Lenny!!! (*loud screeching "mah-mee...mah-mee" noise like a British police car*) Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeap!1!111!!1!!!!"

At that, my ChrisSpeak translator overheated and died, maybe for good. I'm going to let it rest for a few days, just to see if it comes back to life, like my cell phone did when it accidentally went through the laundry. I'll let you know what happens.

Will Carroll Interview with Jim Bowden and Mike Rizzo

Sorry I'm getting to it so late, but Mike Rizzo and Jim Bowden were interviewed last week by Will Carroll on Baseball Prospectus Radio about their top prospects and other matters. Here are some of the highlights, in case you haven't listened:

On Jordan Zimmermann:
Bowden in his usual self-promoting way reminds us that Zimmermann was the compensation pick for Alfonso Soriano, just in case any of you out there were under the illusion that perhaps it would have been a good idea to trade him for prospects at the deadline back in 2006. After he got done patting himself on the back for his prescience, he boasted about Zimmermann's mix of four solid pitches. He also fluffs up the "every GM wants to trade for Zimmermann" line.

On Ross Detwiler:
Rizzo took the first hard question. He insisted that the team hasn't reduced their expectations for Detwiler at all, citing his 96-mph stuff from the left side. Called him one of the top five lefties in all of the minor leagues and predicted that he will be an "impact starter in the major leagues."

On Chris Marrero:
Bowden said Rick Eckstein and Manny Acta saw him a few weeks ago and that "he looked 100% at this point." Specifically said "Baseball Prospectus has him evaluated properly as do the other teams in the league." Since BPro dropped him from our top prospect to #6 I'm not sure what to make of that.

On Michael Burgess:
Asked about the strikouts, Rizzo implied that he'd been somewhat overcoached before going on about his bat speed, which he compared to Lastings Milledge's, and raw power. Also raved about his arm.

On Jack McGeary:
This was the first time I'm aware of that Jim said McGeary plans to play full time (and he was quite patronizing about it, saying, "Will, you're just wrong with your information..." as if somehow this was publicly known). Said he had a chance to be a #2 or #3 starter. Raved about his curve ball and make-up. Said he "has the potential to fly through the organization."

On Aaron Crow:
Rizzo referred to "budgetary constraints" and predicted (implausibly, I think) that he would get a player of the same talent level at 9a this year. Passed on the chance to take any credit for paying over slot for J.P. Ramirez, Adrian Nieto, and Destin Hood.

On the #1 pick next June:
Jim said nothing really except to brag that "no team in the history of baseball has had two picks in the top ten," as if failing to sign their #1 pick last year was some kind of historic achievement. Had to throw up in my mouth a little on that one. But he didn't tip his hand on who they had on top of their draft board or anything about how they intend to deal with the cost of signing two top picks while having the aforementioned "budgetary constraints."

Baseball Prospectus's Top 11 Nationals Prospects

BP is the last major publication to post their Nationals top prospects list. To get all the comments you have to be a subscriber, but here's their list:

Four-Star Prospects
1. Jordan Zimmermann, RHP
2. Michael Burgess, RF
3. Ross Detwiler, LHP
Three-Star Prospects
4. Derek Norris, C
5. Jack McGeary, LHP
6. Chris Marrero, 1B
7. Destin Hood, LF
8. J.P. Ramirez, OF
9. Esmailyn Gonzalez, SS
Two-Star Prospects
10. Rogearvin Bernadina, CF
11. Adrian Nieto, C

Just Missed: Garrett Mock, RHP; Colton Willems, RHP; Terrell Young, RHP

Before You Ask: Unsigned 2008 first-round pick Aaron Crow would sit atop this list

Notably, Marrero has dropped a category. BP seems to be dropping him farther than others have. Seems odd that he would fall and Detwiler would hold most of his ranking. They too like J.P. Ramirez, but I'm still skeptical. There's a story about Don Slaught using Ramirez's swing as an example of a really good MLB swing, and I think the hype started there and is now overblown. I think Garrett Mock is rated too low here.

McGeary Commits to Baseball Full-Time

This is great news. Fans just can't underestimate the extent to which his part-time arrangement was stunting his growth. All reports indicated that he stuck to his off-season regimen diligently and really impressed with his maturity. But it's just not the same. The fact that he as a part-time pro still ranked as high as #5 in the Baseball America prospects ranking is a real statement about his talent (as well as the relative weakness of the Nationals farm system--sorry). Getting him into a full-time gig means that we can actually start thinking about seeing him at Nationals Park perhaps not this year but maybe at some time in 2010, assuming things go well and he doesn't get hurt (which of course is a Dmitri Young-sized IF).

Notable Links

Tim Kurkjian reports on the Nationals off season on ESPN's Hot Stove report. Notable excerpt: "The 2008 Nationals became the first team since the 1986 Cardinals to have a team leader with as few as 14 homers and 61 RBIs."

John Manuel and J.J. Cooper at Baseball America rank the minor league systems in the NL East. The Nats rank 21, down from 9 last year. The full rankings won't be available till the prospect handbook comes out, but they reveal the rankings in their latest weekly podcast, which you can hear here (the Nationals part is the last 6-7 minutes or so). Notable excerpt: "Everyone else (other than Jordan Zimmermann), if you were highly touted last year, you are a little less highly touted this year."

Keith Law ranks the talent on all 30 teams organization-wide. The Nats rank 29. Notable excerpt: "Jim Bowden's reign of error."

Eric SanInocencio's Baseball Digest Daily Internet radio show will interview Stephen Strasburg this Saturday at noon.

Note--this post was originally made with some pretty basic factual errors, corrected by Brian in the comments. That's what I get for posting while feeding the baby while late for work while reading the paper while listening to the radio while drinking coffee while talking on the phone. Damn modernity!!!

Should We Schedule Saul for an Appointment with Dr. Andrews Now?

In 2006, Luis Ayala blew out his elbow while pitching for Mexico in the World Baseball Classic. He had thrown 161.1 relief innings the previous two seasons and was leaned on heavily by the Mexican team. He hasn't been the same since.

The last two seasons, no pure reliever in baseball has thrown more innings than the 177 Saul Rivera has pitched. We just learned today that he'll be throwing for the Puerto Rican team in the WBC.

Other Nationals participating are Daniel Cabrera, Shairon Martis, Roger Bernadina, Pete Orr, Jose Castillo, and Jorge (not to be confused with alleged dirty bomber Jose) Padilla. But the one who really makes me nervous is Rivera. People tend to take RPs for granted, but Saul has been a rock for us. If he breaks down, a weak bullpen will become a disaster waiting to happen.

Hitters, Luck, BABIP, and the Nationals

There's some really interesting research being done looking on BABIP--batting average on balls in play (not to be confused with Bay Area Blacks in Philanthropy).

The basic skinny is that there's a lot of randomness involved in what happens when a ball is put in play. Fielding, park effects, weather, dumb luck... all these play a part in how often hit balls are converted into outs. Research shows that pitchers really have no repeatable ability to affect BABIP.

Hitters are different. While there's a lot outside their control that affects BABIP, they can affect it with "true" skill. This analysis by Chris Dutton and Peter Bendix at The Hardball Times finds that hitter’s eye, line drive percentage, speed score and pitches per plate appearance all correspond with a higher BABIP, while there's a negative correlation between BABIP and pitches per extra-base hit, fly ball/ground ball ratio, spray and contact rate. All this I think fits what you'd imagine, but Dutton and Bendix did the fancy math to confirm.

Once Dutton and Bendix were able to quantify the extent to which each of these stats influence BABIP, they were able to create a "luck-neutral expected BABIP" for every player in baseball with a certain number of plate appearances. Here are the Nationals players from most to least lucky in their 2008 BABIPs:

NAME	BABIP (actual)	x-BABIP	x-BABIP dif
Felipe Lopez	.324	.287	.037
Elijah Dukes	.313	.291	.021
Ryan Zimmerman	.306	.285	.020
Cristian Guzman	.333	.315	.018
Jesus Flores	.309	.293	.016
Ronnie Belliard	.320	.317	.003
Lastings Milledge	.287	.297	-.010
Jose Castillo	.290	.313	-.022
Josh Willingham	.273	.297	-.024
Willie Harris	.268	.306	-.038
Austin Kearns	.242	.284	-.042
Corey Patterson	.210	.262	-.051

Because most people aren't used to looking at stats like BABIP, I took the Dutton and Bendix xBABIPs and crunched the numbers on what the Nationals' OBPs and BAs would have been in 2008. Again, from most to least lucky, here's what our guys would have done if luck hadn't been a factor in BABIP:

NAME	Actual OBP	xOBP	Actual BA	xBA
Felipe Lopez	0.343	0.315	0.283	0.252
Elijah Dukes	0.381	0.369	0.264	0.250
Ryan Zimmerman	0.333	0.317	0.268	0.218
Cristian Guzman	0.345	0.330	0.316	0.300
Jesus Flores	0.296	0.285	0.256	0.244
Ronnie Belliard	0.372	0.370	0.287	0.285
Lastings Milledge	0.330	0.337	0.268	0.276
Jose Castillo	0.292	0.309	0.246	0.264
Josh Willingham	0.364	0.379	0.254	0.272
Willie Harris	0.344	0.371	0.251	0.281
Austin Kearns	0.311	0.340	0.217	0.251
Corey Patterson	0.238	0.279	0.205	0.248

Just a few observations here:

• As I've noted before, Kearns had a lot go against him in 2008, and he almost surely wasn't as bad as he looks at first glance. A .340 OBP would have been more respectable, but really the biggest problem for Kearns was his total lack of power. And a .340 OBP isn't all that good, especially for a corner OF who's strength is supposed to be his on-base skills. I don't think there's a ton of evidence for a big bouce-back for him, though probably there will be some.
• As good as Willie Harris was in 2008, it's pretty stunning to consider that he really "deserved" a .371 OBP. I can't quite shake the feeling that maybe I'm missing the boat not calling for starting Willie in left in 2009, and this is another bit of evidence that he might be better than Willingham.
  
• There's nothing here to offer encouragement on the Jesus Flores front. Next year will be a very big year for him. I'm still hopeful, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're looking ahead to Derek Norris or Adrian Nieto by this time next year.
  
• Cristian Guzman was very, very lucky, and I really think we ought to have traded him to one of the contenders in need of a shortstop.

Bowden Officially Becomes the Uncontested, #1 Most Incompetent Executive in DC

Happy Inauguration Day!

Hitters, Luck, BABIP, and the Nationals

There's some really interesting research being done looking on BABIP--batting average on balls in play (not to be confused with Bay Area Blacks in Philanthropy).

The basic skinny is that there's a lot of randomness involved in what happens when a ball is put in play. Fielding, park effects, weather, dumb luck... all these play a part in how often hit balls are converted into outs. Research shows that pitchers really have no repeatable ability to affect BABIP.

Hitters are different. While there's a lot outside their control that affects BABIP, they can affect it with "true" skill. This analysis by Chris Dutton and Peter Bendix at The Hardball Times finds that hitter’s eye, line drive percentage, speed score and pitches per plate appearance all correspond with a higher BABIP, while there's a negative correlation between BABIP and pitches per extra-base hit, fly ball/ground ball ratio, spray and contact rate. All this I think fits what you'd imagine, but Dutton and Bendix did the fancy math to confirm.

Once Dutton and Bendix were able to quantify the extent to which each of these stats influence BABIP, they were able to create a "luck-neutral expected BABIP" for every player in baseball with a certain number of plate appearances. Here are the Nationals players from most to least lucky in their 2008 BABIPs:

NAME	BABIP (actual)	x-BABIP	x-BABIP dif
Felipe Lopez	.324	.287	.037
Elijah Dukes	.313	.291	.021
Ryan Zimmerman	.306	.285	.020
Cristian Guzman	.333	.315	.018
Jesus Flores	.309	.293	.016
Ronnie Belliard	.320	.317	.003
Lastings Milledge	.287	.297	-.010
Jose Castillo	.290	.313	-.022
Josh Willingham	.273	.297	-.024
Willie Harris	.268	.306	-.038
Austin Kearns	.242	.284	-.042
Corey Patterson	.210	.262	-.051

Because most people aren't used to looking at stats like BABIP, I took the Dutton and Bendix xBABIPs and crunched the numbers on what the Nationals' OBPs and BAs would have been in 2008. Again, from most to least lucky, here's what our guys would have done if luck hadn't been a factor in BABIP:

NAME	Actual OBP	xOBP	Actual BA	xBA
Felipe Lopez	0.343	0.315	0.283	0.252
Elijah Dukes	0.381	0.369	0.264	0.250
Ryan Zimmerman	0.333	0.317	0.268	0.218
Cristian Guzman	0.345	0.330	0.316	0.300
Jesus Flores	0.296	0.285	0.256	0.244
Ronnie Belliard	0.372	0.370	0.287	0.285
Lastings Milledge	0.330	0.337	0.268	0.276
Jose Castillo	0.292	0.309	0.246	0.264
Josh Willingham	0.364	0.379	0.254	0.272
Willie Harris	0.344	0.371	0.251	0.281
Austin Kearns	0.311	0.340	0.217	0.251
Corey Patterson	0.238	0.279	0.205	0.248

Just a few observations here:

• As I've noted before, Kearns had a lot go against him in 2008, and he almost surely wasn't as bad as he looks at first glance. A .340 OBP would have been more respectable, but really the biggest problem for Kearns was his total lack of power. And a .340 OBP isn't all that good, especially for a corner OF who's strength is supposed to be his on-base skills. I don't think there's a ton of evidence for a big bouce-back for him, though probably there will be some.
• As good as Willie Harris was in 2008, it's pretty stunning to consider that he really "deserved" a .371 OBP. I can't quite shake the feeling that maybe I'm missing the boat not calling for starting Willie in left in 2009, and this is another bit of evidence that he might be better than Willingham.
  
• There's nothing here to offer encouragement on the Jesus Flores front. Next year will be a very big year for him. I'm still hopeful, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're looking ahead to Derek Norris or Adrian Nieto by this time next year.
  
• Cristian Guzman was very, very lucky, and I really think we ought to have traded him to one of the contenders in need of a shortstop.

Pinto on "Intangibles"

This post from David Pinto's excellent Baseball Musings blog had me nodding vigorously, and I thought I'd share:

Ignoring Intangibles

Lone Star Ball links to a story summing up the Michael Young situation in Texas. I love description of seamheads (emphasis added):

"One side held that the Rangers owed Young more respect than to simply order him to move. The other said Young is a highly compensated employee who needs to simply do what he's told. That group was bolstered by the 'seamheads' -- ardent fans of baseball statistics -- who judge things almost strictly by the numbers, and thus tend to disparage Young because of his lack of range at short, and ignore the intangibles he brings to the organization."

Maybe seamheads should take a course is quantifying things that aren't capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value. Here's the syllabus:

1. Guessing.
2. Defending the guess with anecdotes.
3. Adding smugness.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

A Modest Proposal

I've been ruminating over the salary cap debate and the MLB labor wars in general as I'm reading Brad Snyder's excellent book on Curt Flood's fight to end the (in my view unfair and exploitative) reserve system in baseball, "A Well-Paid Slave," and I think I've figured out what I think would be the fairest way to compensate players.

First, players would be paid by the league, not their team. A fair share of the league's overall income (something on the order of 55% would be typical for pro sports leagues, although personally I would argue that the players are entitled to at least two-thirds of the value of their labors) would be automatically dedicated to player salaries. If league revenues rise, then the overall pool for player salaries would rise too; similar, if the league struggles, players overall take a pay cut. You have an independent accounting firm crunch the numbers and there's never any negotiating to do at all. This would ensure both that the players are getting a fair share of the league revenue (and not more) while also eliminating the competitive imbalances once and for all.

Then, players would be paid annually based on their performance. There would be some base salary that every player would get (currently it's a little under $400k, which seems probably in the ballpark), and then players would get assigned a "value rating" based on their performance. You play better, you get a bigger check at the end of the year. It's that simple.

In today's era of statistical analysis, there are very good metrics that would provide accurate, fair, reliable measure of player value. For hitters you could simply do wOBA x PA. For pitchers you could do tRA* or FIP x innings, and maybe add a leverage value. Or WPA for relievers. Or you could just use VORP for everyone. Fielding is probably the one area where the stats still are pretty hit-or-miss, but you could negotiate a system based on Dewan's plus-minus, Rate2, UZR, and/or PMR that would be reasonably fair to all. You could build in some additional bonuses for team record as well.

Let's not debate which stats are best or even the validity of statistical analysis in general--the union and management would just have to agree on something. It doesn't really matter, as long as everyone's reasonably satisfied that an objective system for player valuation exists. And if these people are satisfied with Elias's free agent types, then their expectations for reliable player valuation ain't so hard to meet.

Once you have your value rating set, paying salaries is just a matter of doing the math and divvying up the earnings at season's end. No one's ever underpaid or overpaid. If you are a rookie and play great, you get a big paycheck. If you're an aging vet and crater, you don't. All the inefficiencies in the system are wiped out in one fell swoop, and the perverse incentive to drive profits by fielding cheap and inexperienced teams is done away with.

All that's left for GMs is to evaluate players well, and all that players have to do is play well.

This might seem totally foreign, but it's actually pretty similar to golf or tennis, where if you win the tournament you get a big cash prize. Only team sports have this system where you determine a player's salary up front, which is really a relic of the days when players had virtually no say in their salaries at all.

So that's my proposal. Tell me why it's dumb.

Bleacher Report Reviewing the Bowden Record

In case you haven't bookmarked him yet, Farid over at Bleacher Report is cranking out some regular product on the Nationals. He's also put Bowden under the microscope lately with a move-by-move review of Bowden's biggest trades in Cincy and a look at the Nationals we inherited from Montreal. Check it out.

Right Track / Wrong Track Results... And New Poll!

This month's right track / wrong track poll has 45% of Nationals fans happy with the direction of the team with 212 people voting.

It's noteworthy that around Christmas as the team went after Teixeira the poll was running 65-35 "right track." Since then support has plummeted.

So now we have a new poll. It's time to weigh in again on whether the team is on the right track or not. Wait, you think, the same question again? Well, as any politico in town can tell you, the real value of the right track / wrong track poll is the linear tracking of the mood of the country over time. That's what we're going for here. The new poll will be up till Feb. 15.

Time to Stick Up for Dukes (Again)

Elijah Dukes apparently is behind on his child support (which is bad--Dukes should pay his child support). So it's time for another round of breathless, one-sided stories about Dukes and his past.

From Nationals Journal we get this brief summary:

When the Nationals acquired Dukes on Dec. 3, 2007, from Tampa Bay, the team that drafted him, they knew they were taking a risk. Dukes had talent; Washington saw that much last year, when he smacked 13 home runs, batted .264, and led all regulars in slugging percentage. But Dukes was also known for a history of legal troubles. He has been arrested three times for battery, once for assault. And in the spring of 2007, as Nishea Dukes filed for divorce, Dukes left her a voice mail that threatened her life and the lives of her children.

A few things they left out:

• Two of his battery arrests happened when he was 13 and 14 years old. Because he was a minor, the details of these arrests aren't public, but we do know that 'battery' could mean that he got in a fight on the playground. And we do know that the first of these arrests happened about a year after his father was sentenced to life in prison for murdering Elijah's mom's cocaine dealer. Can't imagine why he might have been a troubled teen.
• Dukes's "assault" arrest was for throwing a remote control at Gilbert. Charges were never filed.
• Nishea Gilbert was once arrested for battery against Dukes--she apparently scratched his back.
• He's never killed anyone, tried to kill anyone, or been associated with anything remotely close to an attempted murder or gun crime.
• When Gilbert received the supposed 'death threat' text message, she didn't call the police. She called the St. Pete Times (which is what you do when you want to embarrass your ex-husband, not when you're afraid for your life).
  
• Being arrested isn't the same as being convicted.
  

You can check out all the gory details of these incidents here and here.

It's important to note that he has been convicted of a violent crime in his life--just one, but a serious one nonetheless. He pleaded no contest to a battery charge for punching and choking his sister. I don't at all mean to minimize the severity of that crime by pointing out the bogus nature of the other incidents listed.

Whenever these stories get written, I wonder why the media is so bent on casting Dukes in the worst possible light. Why go so far out of your way to omit mitigating circumstances? Why present information in a way that it implies more than actually happened? Why is the word "JAIL" screaming in every headline when he obviously isn't going to jail? It's slanted, sensationalistic journalism.

Is Dukes a good guy? I don't know--never met the guy. But given his background and family situation as a child, the statistics would say he's beaten the odds just to be alive and out of jail. Watching him on the field and listening to his rare press appearances, he doesn't seem like a sociopath. I read these stories, and it reminds me of the knuckleheads on Springer, not Rae Carruth. Really, I think this kind of smut doesn't belong in the papers at all. Just leave the guy alone.

Nationals Best and Worst Pitching Values

Fangraphs have added win value ratings for pitchers to their player pages. There's a whole series of "Pitcher win values explained" posts on the Fangraphs blog, but the basic idea is to quantify a player's contributions in dollar terms. That way, you can get a very clear sense of how effectively teams are using their resources. For pitchers, it's notable that they are basing pitcher value on FIP (fielding independent pitching, a metric that measures run prevention minus a set of factors outside the pitcher's control, like the quality of the fielding behind him).

(I had a similar post when Fangraphs added a similar stat for hitters, which you can read here.)

By not spending on basically anyone, they guaranteed themselves that no pitchers would cost them much. But here were the Nationals best values in 2008:

• Saul Rivera: $6.4m value; $436k actual salary
• Odalis Perez: $5.9m value; $900k actual salary
• John Lannan: $5.2m value; $400k actual salary
• Tim Redding: $4m value; $1m actual salary
• Joel Hanrahan: $3.2m value; $400k actual salary

Also notable were Scott Olsen, who was a $4.8m value each of the last two years but is likely to get maybe half that in arbitration. Daniel Cabrera was a $6.1m value and signed for $2.6m.

All that looks good, but while you're feeling good about your team, let me remind you about these guy:

• Armando Gallaraga: $12m value; $400k actual salary
  

Derek Lowe Takes Tim Hudson's Place as the Braves Pitcher the Nationals Can't Hit

Sinkerballers give the Nationals fits. Who knows why. Maybe it's a lack of plate discipline, or a lack of power to punish the occasional cookie left up in the zone.

Here are the Nationals' career numbers against some prominent sinkerballers:
Tim Hudson (86 IP, 1.57 ERA)
Brandon Webb (52 IP, 2.77 ERA)
Aaron Cook (34 IP, 3.63 ERA)
Derek Lowe (48 IP, 2.77 ERA)

OK so I'm cherrypicking a little. We hit Kyle Kendick ok (32 IP, 5.06 ERA). And lots of teams struggle with Brandon Webb. But anyone who's watched the Nationals flail away at Huddy can tell you that something about that heavy, two-seam fastball solves us.

Sinkerballer extraordinaire Derek Lowe's signing with the Braves means at least 3-4 more shutouts for the opposition this year.

Where the 7000 Viewers Can Find the Game in 2009

So long, My20. Hello, CW!

Look for the Nationals on channel 50 for their 20 or so broadcast games a year. Channel 50 will also show the pre- and post-game shows, which was not the case on channel 20. Also, when games are on channel 50, they'll also be shown on MASN (or MASN2).

This should make it a little easier for fans to find the games, since you'll only now have to check MASN and MASN2. And you'll never have to flip from channel 20 to MASN to see the post-game.

I still think it would be easier if they'd just decide that the Nationals go on MASN2 and the O's go on MASN and be done with it, but I don't even have cable, so what do I know?

I do like the CW, but I must say that it really was much better back when they had Blind Date and Elimidate on every night. I miss Roger Lodge. But Gossip Girl keeps the station going strong--what kind of trouble is that dastardly Chuck Bass going to get into next?

No word on whether they'll be able to upgrade at all from those inane commercials. Take a seat, Albert Pujols--Chad Cordero's on the mound (even though he isn't).

The broadcast games it seems will be mostly on Sunday. Last year they were mostly on Friday. Personally, I liked Friday night better. Sunday afternoon games are the games I most often go to, and they're the only games I ever get $5 tickets for (yes, I'm that cheap). So just for me personally Friday night was better.

On the other hand, Washington Sports Club, where I'm now a member, carries MASN on their treadmill TVs, while Results didn't. So I'll be able to see games while I do my cardio, which is nice. Though I still miss the fluffier towels at Results. And it was always nice to know I could sit in the jacuzzi, even though I almost never did.

One other big factor which affects only me is that last year for some reason MLB.tv wasn't blacked out on my laptop at home. So I was able to see every game on my computer. Actually, it was blacked out for the first week or so, and then I called the MLB.tv customer service line and sweet-talked the guy. He said he couldn't help me, but then the next day the game was available. Who knows if that was related, but I promise if anyone at MLB is reading this you have a much better chance of getting me to spend money on attending games, buying t-shirts and hats, etc., if you just let me keep watching the games the way I want to. What are you afraid of, that people might become interested and consume more of your product?

Finally, watch for the Redskins schedule when it comes out, because if there are any games scheduled at the same time as the Nationals, then the Nats will be blacked out in all local sports bars.

Cubs f/x Looks a Pitching and Luck

Harry Pavlidis, who writes the excellent Cubs f/x blog and provides similar analysis based on pitch f/x data on other pitchers around the league at Beyond the Boxscore, has a post looking at the Cubs' staff using my methodology for measuring pitching "luck." Good stuff--it's fun to see this stuff picked up by other team blogs, and I hope others will do the same.

Probability of Nationals Wins Graph

For your visual pleasure, the graph below shows the probabilities of the Nationals winning 0 to 162 games. This is using a binomial distribution based on my wins above replacement projections using Bill James's individual player projections, which give a win percentage of .472. The worst season with greater than zero chance of occurring is 118 losses.


Hat tip to Brewers blog Right Field Bleachers.

Who Was Mr. Clutch in 2008? Not who you Think...

There's much debate about whether clutch ability exists as a repeatable skill or if it's just a function of sample size randomness and fan favoritism. A lot of statheads discount it greatly, if not dismiss it entirely. I'm not going to worry about that, because regardless it definitely makes for good barstool chatter.

Baseball-Reference has a function on it's batting splits page where you can see how players performed in high, medium and low-leverage situations. (Leverage is simply a measure of the relative importance of a game situation--two outs in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game is a much higher leverage situation than leading off the game, for instance.) Just click on the Nationals team batting splits page, scroll down to leverage, and then click on the orange highlighted "High leverage" link and each player's performance in those situations pop up. Or just click here if you just want to skip to the full results.

Here are the Nationals ranked by OPS in high leverage situations in 2008:

	PA	High Lev. OPS
AHernandez	22	1.12
AGonzalez	13	1.084
RBelliard	69	1.015
NJohnson	30	0.95
JFlores	89	0.835
EDukes	73	0.822
DYoung	44	0.79
AKearns	86	0.784
KCasto	40	0.767
JEstrada	8	0.75
RLangerhans	34	0.744
CGuzman	108	0.655
ABoone	57	0.646
PLoDuca	32	0.629
LMilledge	131	0.593
WHarris	85	0.588
RMackowiak	8	0.583
RZimmerman	86	0.555
POrr	13	0.462
FLopez	81	0.454
RBernadina	17	0.45
WNieves	49	0.436
WPena	45	0.367
EBonifacio	24	0.308
LMontz	8	0.25

Wow, not what I expected. Go AHern! The AG rocking it. And Ron Belliard (who I would have expected to see) tops the list among players with anything you could possibly consider a meaningful sample size (although really none of these samples are meaningful, but I digress--back to the barstool). Certainly the names on the bottom of this list can't surprise anyone. Pena, Lopez, Bonifacio all near the bottom, and poor ol' Luke Montz is the caboose.

OK, but really if you were going to say, "who was the most clutch," it's not really fair to look at it this way, just based on raw performance in clutch situations. That's because you're mixing in basic hitting ability with the ability to elevate performance in the clutch. To find out who's the most clutch, we should look at the difference between a player's overall performance and their performance in clutch situations. That way we can see who's best able to elevate his play with the game on the line.

By subtracting season-long OPS from OPS in clutch situations, we get this list:

	PA	High Lev. OPS	08 OPS	Clutch Diff.
JEstrada	8	0.75	0.37	0.38
AHernandez	22	1.12	0.789	0.331
RBelliard	69	1.015	0.845	0.17
AKearns	86	0.784	0.627	0.157
KCasto	40	0.767	0.61	0.157
AGonzalez	13	1.084	0.938	0.146
JFlores	89	0.835	0.698	0.137
RMackowiak	8	0.583	0.462	0.121
NJohnson	30	0.95	0.846	0.104
PLoDuca	32	0.629	0.581	0.048
DYoung	44	0.79	0.794	-0.004
RLangerhans	34	0.744	0.776	-0.032
ABoone	57	0.646	0.683	-0.037
EDukes	73	0.822	0.864	-0.042
RBernadina	17	0.45	0.544	-0.094
POrr	13	0.462	0.589	-0.127
CGuzman	108	0.655	0.786	-0.131
LMilledge	131	0.593	0.731	-0.138
WPena	45	0.367	0.509	-0.142
FLopez	81	0.454	0.619	-0.165
WHarris	85	0.588	0.761	-0.173
WNieves	49	0.436	0.65	-0.214
RZimmerman	86	0.555	0.774	-0.219
EBonifacio	24	0.308	0.649	-0.341
LMontz	8	0.25	0.593	-0.343

So there you have it. The Washington Nationals' Mr. Clutch 2008: Johnny Estrada. And if it wasn't for the brief appearances by Montz and Bonifacio, Mr. Choker would have been none other than Ryan Zimmerman.

Wow. Who would have guessed that? Not me. Does it matter, and should we expect these performances to continue? No and no. But danged if it doesn't make you go hmmmm... Another round, bartender!