Showing posts with label A.J. Ellis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A.J. Ellis. Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Exploring some trade ideas involving the Dodgers and their outfielders

The Dodgers outfield situation has gotten a lot clearer. There's Yasiel Puig, Matt Kemp and everybody else. Scott Van Slyke is proving he can hit Major League pitching (really well) and is surprising everyone with his above-average defense. Joc Pederson continues to be the best-performing player in the minor leagues - he has a 1.125 OPS after 38 games in Triple-A, 11 stolen bases and numerous highlight catches. What more do you want the guy to do? Well, hit lefties, but that's what Van Slyke is for.

Carl Crawford and Andre Ethier are each doing about what you might expect, given their age. They're unfortunately similar right now. Neither can hit lefties at all, but are OK 400 plate-appearance/year outfielders getting paid a lot of money through 2017 ($66 million for Ethier, $77 million for Crawford). Ethier offers positional versatility and a little more on-base percentage. Crawford has way more speed, and that's about it. While Ethier is perceived as having more power, that's from people having a looooong memory. Their isolated slugging (ISO) has been about identical the last five years. Both are now firmly below the average Major League position player in ISO and they're unlikely to reverse the trend at age 32. With performance-enhancing drug testing in place, the vast majority of 32-year-olds are firmly on the downside of their MLB careers.


The Dodgers should feel comfortable now moving one (or both) of Ethier and Crawford for whatever they can get. Kemp's defense has been atrocious in center field, although maybe improving lately as he gets confidence in his health back. So I'd line up (LF-CF-RF) vs righties: Kemp/Pederson/Yasiel Puig and Van Slyke/Kemp/Puig vs. lefties.

So, what could they get for Crawford or Ethier?  Well, nothing, given the contracts. Either one could go on waivers and not be claimed. But if the Dodgers ate some money or threw in some other pieces, what could they get? Still not much, but that's more fun to think about than nothing.

Would the Dodgers be a better team just by getting rid of one? It's debatable. It opens a spot for Pederson, which is the only positive. But consider Miguel Olivo also had an 1.100 OPS at Albuquerque this year, which translated to .544 in the bigs. Ethier and Crawford are both serviceable role players on a first-division team, or the Dodgers would be tempted to just cut them.

Someone else's problem is what you could get. Best case, that's a small-market team with a good player due for a big payday. For example, Baltimore decides not to re-sign Matt Wieters ($12M-$15M in arbitration next year, then free agency). They need an outfielder and a starting pitcher (hey, the Dodgers have extra of those too!). But Wieters' elbow issue would likely preclude any deal this season, as he's already on the disabled list, but won't likely need Tommy John surgery.

Houston (Crawford's hometown team) could decide they have enough catching prospects that they can let Jason Castro go before his bill comes due. If the Dodgers pay basically all of Carl's salary, and throw in a prospect of our own, they'd oblige.

I focus on catchers because A.J. Ellis is getting old too, and given the starting point for his skills, a little decline makes him a backup pretty quick.

But more likely, it's just some other overpaid, not-very-good-anymore guy. That can work out just because the Dodgers have too many outfielders and someone else needs an outfield but has too many relief pitchers or something. Rafael Soriano, Jonathan Papelbon, Heath Bell, Jonathan Broxton all fit that bill.

What do the Dodgers need besides more overpaid ex-closers or young catchers? Backup infielders.

Wouldn't you know it, an expensive backup infielder got designated for assignment on Wednesday. Jeff Keppinger is a decent second baseman/not very good third baseman/emergency everything else who is owed about $7.5M this year and next, and might be expected to get on base at a .310 clip and slug .360. Not much of a fit. The White Sox also have reliever Matt Lindstrom earning $4M, and they'd probably like to get rid of him too. That's the kind of "why bother" package the Dodgers could probably get in trade. You have to really believe in Pederson to go down that road.

The Diamondbacks probably want to get rid of Didi Gregorius and probably want hometown, high-grit Ethier, if they can get over their seething resentment of all things Dodger. The Dodgers do not have a credible MLB-ready replacement shortstop right now, so that's a need they could fill.

It's hard to make a match, but the Dodgers have shown a willingness to get creative. If they give up on re-signing Hanley Ramirez, for example, there's some blockbusters to be put together. The Tigers and Yankees would very much like to have that conversation with us and that's a situation where you can make them take an albatross contract if they want to get the deal done (poor Crawford, shuffled as an unwanted throw-in from one rich team to another!). Of course, that gets back to the Dodgers not having a credible MLB-ready replacement SS right now and neither do those teams. So, even in this sad fantasy world where Ramirez doesn't see us anymore, it's still hard to get a match without a third team.

Photo credit: File photo

Monday, March 10, 2014

New fielding metrics provide surprising, positive results for Dodgers' fielders

Fielding metrics have advanced a lot in the last few years. Beyond simple fielding percentage and range factor, today's metrics are based on comparing how many plays a fielder made to how many an average fielder would have made given the same exact chances.

Based on the speed, angle and trajectory of the ball, they can say, for example, 75 percent of Major League second basemen make a particular play. So if you make it, you get credit for an extra quarter play, but if you don't, you get docked three quarters. That's the basic idea and then systems enhance it in different ways.

But most of the low-level play-by-play data has not been available, just a high level summaries (like the annual total per player per position). Well now, at FanGraphs, you can get Inside Edge data with just enough bucketing of results to actually be helpful.

The data say per player, per position, per year, how many chances did they convert on each level of play difficulty. So you can see if a player excels at making the routine play consistently or has trouble with that but can make some athletic plays that few players would make. The caveat is, 80 percent of plays are routine. That not only dominates any overall evaluation, it means you have few legitimate chances to make amazing plays.

For example, if you only get 10 chances a year at web gem-type stuff, can we really say anything meaningful based on the fact that you converted two instead of one of those 10 chances? But it's kind of like field goal kickers -- you can see one is 20-for-20 inside 30 yards, 8-for-10 between 30 and 50, and 1-for-4 at 50-plus yards, you get a sense of what kind of kicker you have.

Anyway, it's fun to look at and gives you some kind of insight, so let's look at how this year's Dodgers did last year. I rate each player's performance at the position for the type of play compared to the rest of the league at that position for that type of play, via the color coding.


Name
Pos
Inn
Remote
Unlikely
Even
Likely
Certain
Scott Van Slyke
LF
211
0/0
0/3
1/1
2/2
37/37
Matt Kemp
CF
576
1/3
0/5
3/4
3/5
126/126
Andre Ethier
CF
645
0/3
0/2
1/3
3/4
128/128
Andre Ethier
RF
443
0/3
0/2
1/3
3/3
101/101
Carl Crawford
LF
835
1/4
2/6
4/5
3/4
155/156
Yasiel Puig
RF
773
0/3
5/10
3/4
3/3
137/138
Juan Uribe
3B
900
0/7
3/5
9/12
17/19
249/254
Adrian Gonzalez
1B
1291
0/6
1/3
3/9
13/15
222/230
Hanley Ramirez
SS
651
0/2
1/6
4/9
20/23
221/231
A.J. Ellis
C
972
0/6
12/30
1/2
6/6
27/29
Dee Gordon
SS
206
0/5
1/3
1/1
3/5
74/80
Tim Federowicz
C
374
1/3
4/14
1/2
3/4
11/12

Dee Gordon has not done a good job at SS. A really bad job, actually. Juan Uribe and Yasiel Puig are legitimate plus defenders. Scott Van Slyke is actually quite reliable, although he will not make the highlight reel. Adrian Gonzalez does surprisingly poor here (compared to his reputation) while Hanley Ramirez does profile as just a tick below-average (certainly not bad). As most suspected, Andre Ethier was a serviceable backup CF in a pinch and OK in right. Carl Crawford can still go get 'em. Catchers don't get to make that many plays (outside of catching the pitch) but A.J. Ellis and Tim Federowicz are both OK or a tick below. Matt Kemp is not killing you out there, although he should have made a couple more plays than he did.

By the way, you know who's really good? Nick Punto, that's who.  Here's how he looked at shortstop at age 35 last year:

Nick Punto
SS
309
0/2
0/3
3/4
5/5
103/105


It's a cool new data stream, and will actually be updated nightly during the season. Although given the paucity of legitimate opportunities to do something spectacular over a full season, I don't know how much I'll look at in-season numbers. But at least it starts to shine a bit of a light in the black box of modern fielding metrics, which is always a good thing.

Photo credit: SD Dirk, Flickr