Blog retraction?
Posted: December 8th, 2007 | Filed under: Baseball | 13 Comments »
We will soon have a big ol’ BBWAA post up here which, I hope, will include an extended interview with my friend and coworker Bob Dutton, the prez of the BBWAA. In the meantime, I want to finish up on Emil vs. Guillen.
* * *
One of problems of making any argument is that people will sometimes, as Bill James says, take a secondary or supporting point and make that into the actual argument. Bill calls this a “discussion drift.†There’s really no way to stop it from happening, and it ain’t easy getting the discussion to drift back on track.
Yesterday, I posted numbers the last three years of Jose Guillen and Emil Brown. There was one and only one point there, and I may not have made this clear. In fact, it’s quite obvious I did not make this clear. This is my fault. My one and only point was: The numbers of Jose Guillen and Emil Brown are startlingly and frighteningly similar. That’s all. I extended the point, because this is what I do, and said that I would wildly predict that Emil would, given the same opportunity, put up similar numbers to Guillen — (much in the same way that I predicted last year that Todd Helton would hit .400).
I wish I hadn’t done that because — even though I do believe that — it’s the point many have chosen to argue. Jose Guillen vs. Emil Brown. The fact that this is even an ARGUMENT should get the point across.
Anyway, I owe it to you to clarify that Guillen vs. Brown is not my point. My point is that Jose Guillen just got $12 million a year, and many people think Emil Brown sucks and they want him non-tendered. Yet look at how close their numbers are.
Several people commented and also emailed me about this, and I think this comment today is fairly representative:
So is Joe going to print a blog retraction? No mention of Guillen’s injury-hampered 2006 season. No mention of the significance of the fact that Brown is 1 1/2 years older. No mention of the predictions of various projection systems for Brown. I put Bill James prediction above. I’ll add his ZIPS projection now: .268/.332/.392. That is amazingly similar to James’s projection for Brown. And it is absolutely horrible for a corner OFer.
Even though the Guillen signing does not preclude other big moves both this year and next year when the FA class is better, one can argue that it was not a move for the Royals. But the weakest, absolutely worst argument against the Guillen signing is that the Royals already had a decent option in Brown. His likely .720 OPS isn’t was never an acceptable option.
What can you do? You can argue these points individually (Guillen’s injury-hampered 2006 is part of the story — health is a big factor where it comes to baseball, especially for a guy who was, apparently, taking steroids and HGH; Brown also lost a lot of at-bats and regular playing time in 2007 because his manager lost faith in him; Brown being older has no bearing whatsoever on the point; the Bill James projection for Guillen isn’t especially appealing either; I was NEVER arguing that they should not have signed Guillen because they had Brown — quite the opposite, I was arguing that they have Brown, and they don’t like him, and Guillen’s predicted .795 OPS ain’t too great, etc. etc. etc.)
But you can’t get anywhere breaking things down like that because then people may turn THOSE secondary points into the argument, and suddenly you find yourself really arguing whether or not Emil Brown is better Juan Guillen.
So, here’s my point: Most people would contend that Emil Brown is not an everyday major league outfielder. Emil Brown’s numbers the last three years are very similar to the numbers put up by Jose Guillen. The Royals just gave Jose Guillen $12 million per for three years and hope that he will be a real boost for the team. I think from a pure baseball standpoint this was a bad move. Also, I hope I’m wrong.
Loading ...
Interesting stuff as always. I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming BBWAA post(s), especially since I know you’re good friends with Rob Neyer.
Oh Joe, please don’t tell me you’re going to defend the BBWAA. Please, I’m begging you. They’ve taken what should have been two slam-dunk positive steps and horribly botched each of them in the past week. Don’t go there Joe. Just don’t. I might have to post a 2,000-word rebuttal comment if you defend those guys.
Well, Joe Posnanski is one of “those guys” so I’d be careful about generalizations …
I don’t believe Joe was one of “those guys” who made the wretched decisions of the past week. That was a subset of “those guys”, and Joe’s name wasn’t mentioned among them. Now, if it turns out he was involved, my rebuttal might have to be 3,000 words.
But the point is that there is no reason to believe that Guillen’s numbers will be similar to Brown’s in 2008. Not similar, not close. If you are using past stats to argue how well they would do in 2008, then their ages are extremely important. Their ages tell whether and how much you should expect them to improve or decline. At his age, Guillen should be declining slowly. At his age, Brown should be declining more quickly. And, by the way, the “fact that we’re discussing Brown vs. Guillen” doesn’t tell us anything. You brought up this comparison. Some of us pointed out how you very inaccurately compared them as “similar”. Guillen is still in the peak plateau of his career (at least for one more year), while Guillen is falling off the wrong end of the decline curve.
Joe, in short, your “Guillen was a bad signing because he isn’t much better than Brown” is a poor argument because Guillen will be much better than Brown in 2008. By the way, the Zips and James predictions for Guillen are with him playing half of his games at Safeco, an extreme pitcher’s park. Put him in a moderate hitter’s park like Kauffman Stadium and his projections go up. I think 100 points of OPS is a significant difference between Brown and Guillen.
Jose Guillen 2008 = Reggie Sanders 2006
It seems to me that Guillen’s SGL #s will benefit, he’s younger, and Emil Brown just isn’t very good. The Reggie Sanders comparison is pretty apt-though Guillen won’t steal any bases to speak of like Sanders typically did. This trade does seem silly, though. So, in all likelihood, this is a small upgrade, and not “wasted money.” But it’s not a smart investment either. It’s important to consider that Guillen’s numbers might shrink if this drug suspension has any teeth to it. Either way, Guillen’s not going to do much for this franchise in any lasting way, and they’re a year away from the “Young Braves Got Good Really Fast” comparison (and that’s only apt if Greinke can finally get it together, and Meche doesn’t regress). So why sink the $$$ at this point…? Why not see what one of the young guys can do? Why not trade an extra part for a AAA guy who is undervalued by his organization (one of those Jack Cust types), and see what happens? There are more inventive ways to get Guillen numbers than to sink 36,000,000 on Guillen.
You say tomato, i say duck Karen Kornacki!
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=law_keith
Did someone actually write “Jose Guillen 2008 = Reggie Sanders 2006″ or did I hallucinate that? If you don’t understand the difference between a 37 year old and a 31 year old, then I don’t even know where to begin. And, that 37 year old had been a part-time player in the seasons leading up to his signing with KC. Apples…oranges.
Riddle me this Joe. Why does Emil keep getting overlooked? I’ll buy the numbers, but Jose Guillen was considered by everyone to be a good FA. They might not like the contract, but they agree hes a productive bat. But yet the Orioles were the only team to poke around on him, when he was making 3.5 or something.
This whole signing is making up for the Raul Ibanez loss to Seattle.
Maybe this one could take up another thread… I’m just confused by why so many folks hate the idea of DeJesus in the leadoff slot. Here are his stats.
His OBP skills are goo, he takes a few walks, his Batting Average last season looks like a fluke, and he even chips in with about 15 hit by pitches, meaning he “grits” his way on base (for all those “gritsters out there”…). His OPS is a minimum of 750, and since it’s OBP heavy, it’s worth a little more. What’s not to like…?
As for the Guillen/Sanders comparison, of course there’s a huge discrepancy in age. But as far as the statline Guillen will likely produce, Sanders’ seasons with KC aren’t the best comparison. I was too lazy to look it up, so, yeah, that was a silly comparison. Sanders’ “Man ‘O Glass” problems ate him up in KC. His age 32 season with the Padres looks like a nice comp (In fact, aside from steals, Sanders’ 3-year run from age 32-4 looks about right as a “prognosis” for what Guillen might do). I still have to wonder about this signing…
Wondering why the media is over-emphasizing Guillen as a “power hitter,” most recently emphasized by Hillman’s projection of him as a cleanup hitter. Is he really a power hitter? How many times has he slugged .500? I’ll look it up right now…hold music….he slugged .500 once. About 4 years ago when he was mid-cycle on the juice. Not to hate on Guillen too much (despite the club record 12 mil per) can we please refrain from using the words “power” and “cleanup”? Who’s a power/cleanup hitter? I don’t know, how about Aaron Rowand? Guy slugged .515 last year with 45 (FORTY-FIVE!?!) doubles. Veterans Stadium is a bit of a band box, but that doesn’t usually explain doubles. I don’t hear anyone saying “power” and “cleanup” in association with him…
On the other hand, we only had to sign Guillen for 3 years, which I think was the deciding factor.