March Madness: The 40 Greatest NCAA Cinderellas
March 27, 2015WFNY’s 2015 NFL Draft Coverage: Joe Gilbert’s Top Five Tight Ends
March 27, 2015I still do not know much about the Cleveland Indians, and I want to continue to change that. Tribe season is fast approaching, and I want to be able to talk about the team without people looking at me like they looked at Donald Trump when he said he was running for president.
You see, I’m awfully baseball-dumb. I once knew a thing or two about MLB, but I also once knew a thing or two about how to best arrange my MySpace friends. I was socialized into one version of baseball, loaded with fun things like homers and steroids, and I feel lost in this more pitcher-friendly PED-free world.
Things change. Sometimes it’s for the better. There’s no sense in fighting it.
And so once again, I have called upon WFNY’s Jacob Rosen to help me understand how baseball has evolved, and how the Indians have evolved with it. We explored the pitching staff last week, and today we look at the Tribe’s position players, with most of the attention devoted to the offensive side of things.
As before, the questions I asked are in bold and marked by a general lack of familiarity with the content, with Jacob’s answers marked by facts and research and stats and stuff. Footnotes are my snarky asides.
I miss the steroid-fueled baseball of the ’90s, but I have to accept that 50-plus home run seasons are a thing of the past. What should I, a relative baseball dunce, pay attention to in lieu of MOAR DINGERZ?
Strikeouts and situational hitting. Strikeouts have never been higher. This is somewhat due to the specialization of bullpens (and also partly due to a changing strike zone, but I digress). If you want to cheer for counting stats, getting excited about the Indians racking up 12-to-15 strikeouts in a game as a pitching staff is a pretty neat thing to see regularly.1
With lower run scoring comes fewer blowouts and more opportunities for situational hitting. The Indians love to bunt, for better or for worse. Get excited for those times when Brantley or Gomes come to the plate in the late innings with the game on the line. Those are the great moments that should get you cheering like mad.
I loved Kenny Lofton when I was younger, and so I loved stolen bases as well: the speed, the excitement, the anticipation. Is this team likely to steal many bags? Has the steal fallen out of vogue in general?
Steals, on the whole, have kinda plateaued league-wide over the last 10-15 years. The crazy speed-happy days of players like Vince Coleman and Kenny Lofton are way gone. Only a small handful players (Dee Gordon and Billy Hamilton top the list) are a lock to steal 50 bases in a given year. That being said, the Indians are still an above-average base-stealing team in the American League.
The Indians and Royals (the league leaders) each had five players with double-digit steals. Michael Brantley and Jason Kipnis are perennial threats for an efficient 20. Who knows if Michael Bourn’s decline is in full effect, but he should nab about that many, too. Mike Aviles and especially speedster Jose Ramirez provide nice legs as well. So the Tribe are a decent threat at this. They also led the American League―by far―in sacrifice bunts.
Carlos Santana led the majors in walks last year and hit 27 homers, a top-12 mark in the AL. That seems darn good. He leaves me a little lukewarm because his batting average is rather low (.231 last year), but is batting average even relevant in a world with stats like on-base percentage and OPS?
Ugh, I really want to pass on this question and just direct you to this link right here. I wrote that article over a year and a half ago but this topic never seems to go away (also: ignore the straight-up Michael Brantley hate in that post. Nobody expected his 2014 outburst).
I don’t understand the outrage about players like Santana and Joey Votto drawing so many walks. They’re elite players in today’s MLB.
Fine, here’s a fact: Carlos Santana has been one of the 15 best offensive players in the American League since making his MLB debut. He turns 29 in a couple weeks, just tied a career-high with those 27 homers, and out-paced his already impressive walk rates in the past. So yes, batting average is relatively meaningless. Santana’s .367 on-base percentage is quite good.
I don’t understand the outrage about players like Santana and Joey Votto drawing so many walks. It’s just illogical. Would you rather them swing, and, more often than not make an out? I want my player reaching base as often as possible. Both these guys also slug a ton of doubles and home runs too, if you didn’t know.2 They’re elite offensive players in today’s MLB.
Simple question: Is there anything that Michael Brantley can’t do? (On a baseball field, I mean; don’t get cute and talk about his subpar aircraft repair skills or anything like that.)
Remember how I just said nobody saw his 2014 season coming? Really, I meant it. Through 2013, Brantley was “just” an average-ish offensive outfielder. There were legitimate concerns over whether the Indians actually over-paid in guaranteeing him $25 million over four years (covering his three arbitration seasons and one free agency season). Average-ish outfielders can be found at cheaper rates than that. That deal, which includes an $11 million team option for a fifth season, now looks like an incredible steal―perhaps one of the best in baseball.
So yeah, as any statistically inclined person would say, I’d be intrigued to see if this can actually continue and to what extent. We had a 514-game MLB sample of Michael Brantley as a 100 OPS+ guy.
I don’t know what OPS+ is. A lil’ help, please?
Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.3 That stat plugs the well-known OPS stat and adjusts for league and ballpark; an OPS+ of 100 is league-average. So for more than three seasons, Brantley was perfectly average! He had 26 career home runs total! That was followed by a 156-game sample of a 154 OPS+ and 20 homers. That’s just insane. More likely than not, he’ll regress somewhat. I just don’t think he can be that elite again.
I’ve written before about how the metrics don’t like Brantley’s defense. Terry Francona and others have gone on assault this offseason to defend his defensive strengths. But that’s one thing to watch. Outside of that, and based on his 2014 success alone, yeah, it’s kinda crazy that we stumbled upon an MVP candidate quite like this. Many thought he’d be a fine, average player. But not like this. Not like this.
(Cue “All You Had to Do Was Stay” by Taylor Swift.)
I will not cue that song up. Stay focused, Jacob. Let’s get back to baseball. Is Brandon Moss the power bat folks have been yearning for? Are “power bats” all they’re cracked up to be?
Brandon Moss is a fine offensive player. He’s fine. He’s pretty good, but not like some Messiah that will save all of the Indians woes. Nick Swisher isn’t/wasn’t like that. Same with Michael Bourn. So chillax for a minute and lemme explain Moss, “power bats” and how the Indians offense looks a bit.
I can do that. I’m awesome at chillaxing. Go ahead, do your thing.
Moss is a 31-year-old lefty (notice all the lefties? It’s a good thing) batter who only has 2,130 career plate appearances. Note that that’s fewer than Brantley (2,838) and fewer than Santana (2,761). He’s only had three MLB seasons with more than 90 games played. So he’s somewhat of a career journeyman, with just about as many Triple-A plate appearances as big-league plate appearances. But he turned into a very solid hitter in Oakland.
The concerning trendline is obviously the 162 OPS+ in 2012, 136 OPS+ in 2013 and 119 OPS+ in 2014. Even still, that last mark is (as defined) above average! That’s quite valuable. More likely than not, he’s best used in a role that has him play 120 games, not 145 like the past two seasons. So yeah, the Indians will certainly use his versatility and offensive production.
The A’s were willing to give him up because of his increasing arbitration price tag. He made $4.1 million last year and will make $6.5 million this year. Recall the 40/60/80 rule?4 So that means, at his current career trajectory, he should make around $8-9 million next year. Oakland felt they could get a better return for their money, as evidenced by all of their wheeling and dealing this offseason. He’s then eligible for free agency after the 2016 season.
Overall, the Indians offense was pretty much league average last season. That’s despite the terrible collapses from Jason Kipnis, Nick Swisher, and Ryan Raburn. If those players can revert a bit back to their means, and even withstanding possible Brantley regression, the Indians are set to be better this season. Moss helps with that even more, joining David Murphy, Swisher, and Raburn in a potential-laden mega-platoon system.5
When will we see Francisco Lindor in the big leagues? Why haven’t we seen him already?
Fun fact about Francisco Lindor: He’s only 21 years old. His birthday was in November. What were you doing when you were 21 and change, Will? Huh? I think I was just wrapping up my undergrad thesis on minor league baseball attendance. So take that.
I was chillaxing, mostly. That’s why I’m so awesome at it now. Remember, kids: practice, practice, practice.
But seriously, Lindor’s biggest drawback now in the majors is the offense.6 He’s not going to be a totally sexy offensive player, but more of a .260-.270 hitter with good on-base skills and limited power. He’s only played 38 games in Triple-A. He really could genuinely use more time with the Clippers to get used to the legitimate pitching in the bigs. I’d expect to see him sometime in June or July, after the Super Two arbitration deadline.
Everyone is excited about Lindor. Meanwhile, Jose Ramirez is a 22 year-old shortstop who seems to have played well in almost half a season last year. What can we expect from him this year? Could he, Lindor, and Jason Kipnis all play in the same infield one day?
The issue with Ramirez v. Lindor v. Kipnis v. Lonnie Chisenhall v. Erik Gonzalez (another 40-man roster middle infield prospect) v. Dorsyss Paulino (another middle infield top-15 organizational prospect) comes down to pedigree. For Lindor, that’s unquestionable. He’s a top-10 prospect in all of baseball and was a high first-round pick. For Kipnis, that’s the case too, as he was a second-rounder out of Arizona State. Chisenhall was a first-rounder, as well. But of the three other guys, Ramirez clearly has the lowest-grade pedigree.
He burst onto the prospect scene suddenly by hitting .325 in 48 rookie-ball games in 2011 and .354 in 64 Single-A Lake County games in 2012.7 That was clearly unexpected. He ran like mad all over the minor leagues and accumulated a batting average over .300. That’s pretty impressive in today’s day and age. Since nobody saw this coming initially, however, it’s a matter of whether he’s really going to be a future .300 hitter.
He’s only 22, of course, which is still darn young for a guy with as much MLB experience. But the Indians were fine rushing him up because of that pedigree. And oh, that unprojectable 5-foot-8-inch frame. What you see is what you get with Jose Ramirez, a bit. And a 90 OPS+ with good speed and solid defense at shortstop has been just fine. The potential for the other guys just seems higher long term.
So I’m not certain yet of what will be the decision on Chisenhall, who is now 26 and coming off a career-best offensive season. Nor with Kipnis, who is soon 28 and coming off a career-worst offensive season. But I do know concretely that Francisco Lindor is the shortstop of this organization’s future. Any other arrangement―including moving some of the other guys to the outfield―could realistically happen soon.
Thanks again, Professor. And know that I tried really hard to find a YouTube video of that Taylor Swift song. It seems that she has very litigious management vis-à-vis copyrights. This is the best I could do; you’ll notice that there’s no sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXjwAqtJ2OA
- MOAR
DINGERZPUNCHOUTZ! [↩] - I knew that. No need to be condescending. [↩]
- Rude. [↩]
- Here it is from last week, if you don’t: A player is likely to receive about 40 percent of his free market salary in year one of arbitration, then 60 percent and 80 percent. This isn’t the end-all-be-all, but it’s a nice rule of thumb. [↩]
- Mega Platoon is what the movie would have been called if Michael Bay replaced Oliver Stone halfway through production. [↩]
- Fine, don’t even acknowledge my chillaxing skills. [↩]
- Hey, I grew up in Lake County! Big shout to Classic Park! Go Captains! [↩]
11 Comments
“PED-free world.”
If only.
Also, may I provide some suggested reading for the 101 student – http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-preview-al-central-indians-tigers-white-sox-royals-twins/
Though I’m still not a fan of that projected lineup with the two weakest hitters batting first.
I think Joe Posnanski has my favorite critique of batting average. Cause when you lay it out, it’s actually a pretty silly, arbitrary statistic. Much more so than many of the new ones.
http://joeposnanski.com/my-guide-to-stats-offense/
My issue with that article: are we really waiting for Swisher to come back so he can play RF? No, we are not. He hard played there when he was healthy in 2013.
ignore the straight-up Michael Brantley hate in that post. Nobody expected his 2014 outburst
TD would like a word with you (not I though as I was right there with you).
But didn’t TD, and the like, think that Brantley had already broken out before 2014? I would like to get a ruling from that crowd on how much better they think Brantley was in 2014 than 2013.
But that’s also partly because Stubbs was clearly the better choice, providing almost all his value from his defense. I don’t expect Swisher to play RF in 2015 either though, Moss is going to be the guy they try to squeeze in there.
https://waitingfornextyear.com/2013/10/2013-cleveland-indians-power-rankings/
That is TD’s column. Yes, he ranked Brantley top on the team, indicating that he thought he had already broken out to some degree, but there’s the word value that plays into things that grays the line. I think it’s fair to give TD some credit for seeing the consistency in Brantley as a window into him being one of our main assets.
But Brantley’s 2014 wasn’t consistent with his pre 2014 work. That’s part of what made his 2014 such a big deal. He was a previously two to three win player putting up a seven win year, not a five win player getting a few more good breaks than usual to get to that seven win level.
his consistent approach and ability to put up consistent numbers throughout the year were the reason that TD valued him so highly as a present (in 2013) and future guy. I argued with him (consistency is great, but I also want the high production), but as future projecting, I will honestly say that it has made me think he could be on to something (at some point will need to check it out statistically).
I’m just saying that part of the article gave me pause. It shows how a national writer just isn’t as in-tune with what is going on. How minor or major of an oversight that is in the eye of the beholder.