Fungoes: Need for Left Feilder...

by Zubin on Nov 9, 2006 8:43 PM EST Comment 6 comments

There is a great analysis over at Fungoes I think everone here should read.

Pip breaks down win shares above bench by position as shown below. The two tables below show win shares by position (left) and win shares above bench (right) by position. His analysis is enlightened. I quote him below.

"So the platoon of left fielders was the team's best investment in 2006. The unheralded bunch led by Chris Duncan, Scott Spiezio and John Rodriguez produced the third-most WSAB of any position (behind 1B and 3B, naturally) but cost less than $4 million. That amounted to a better buy than the team's first basemen, which essentially was the best player in the game, who isn't exactly overpaid.

In this light, it's indeed strange that the cacophony of voices in the blogosphere and online media have zeroed in on the Cardinals' perceived need of a leftfielder and/or dealing Chris Duncan, who, bad leather and all, stands to provide the bulk of value again in 2007. In addition, given what we know from Bill James:

*The chance of getting a good player with a high draft pick is substantial enough that it is clearly a disastrous strategy to give up a first round draft choice to sign a mediocre free agent.

*True shortage of talent almost never occurs at the left end of the defensive spectrum (read: LF).

... signing an A-class free-agent leftfielder -- including Bonds, Catalanotto, Dellucci, Floyd, Luis Gonzalez, Carlos Lee and Soriano -- would be an unwise move for this Cardinal team this winter. Duncan and Rodriguez can get the job done well enough, and at a cost that makes an FA alternative not worthwhile."

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i disagree

at least a little bit. either dunc made a wonderful adjustment when he got to the majors or he played way over his head. people see that and think fluke. i don't at all think that signing a lf, especially consider the market, should at all be priority #1, but the reasons to be a little wary about dunc are there. also, win shares ain't predictive. Eck has 14 win shares above bench, the 2 seasons in between were a combined -1 win share and he was a huge bargain.

"Go Crazy, Folks! Go Crazy!"

by erik on Nov 9, 2006 10:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

er

huge bargain the first year i meant. this last year, not so much. just trying to say a person could have a career year and create the feeling that there may not be a need, when there is one

"Go Crazy, Folks! Go Crazy!"

by erik on Nov 10, 2006 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

teams no longer lose draft picks

when they sign free agents; that changed in the last collective bargaining agreement, which took effect in (i think) 2002. the team that loses the F.A. gains an extra pick, a so-called "sandwich" pick that comes between round 1 and round 2 (or betw rd 2 and rd 3), but the signing team doesn't lose anything. otherwise, the cardinals would have lost picks for signing looper and encarnacion. . . . . which they didn't.

that doesn't mean it's a good idea to sign a mediocre free-agent, but it doesn't cost you a draft pick.

by lboros on Nov 9, 2006 10:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

Teams still do get compensation picks for losing Class A free agents. In the case of Encarnacion, he wasn't classified as an A last year. Looper was, but the Mets failed to offer him arbitration, which is the condition that I forgot to mention in my article. That's why the Cardinals didn't have to compensate.

Thanks for the link, btw.

by pip on Nov 9, 2006 11:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

While it's great that they're producing value

for what the Cards are spending on them, the problem is that you don't get any credit for "bang for your buck" in the standings. You only get credit for overall production. I would venture to guess that comparing the overall production of the LF and RF positions for the Cards versus other postseason contenders would demonstrate a large disparity.

Take a look at where the money is being spent. The corner outfield spots are traditionally big production areas, and I suspect that their overall production for the Cards lags far behind what it is for most other contenders.

Now admittedly St. Louis gets some SERIOUS production from traditional power spots 1B and 3B, and likely well more than average at CF as well. It just seems to me that looking at the corner OF spots and saying "hey, we're getting a good deal for what we're spending" ignores reality. What you need from at least one, and usually both of those spots is big time numbers. Raw production, not proportional value.

by Zack Morris on Nov 10, 2006 9:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs