… And He Can Range to His Left!

Everyone went comparison-happy last week. So, in the spirit of catching up:

  • Player A, Age 23: 370 AB, .324/.395/.449, 40 BB, 31 K, 7.07 RC/27, 15 WS, .839 RZR
  • Player B, Age 33, 499 AB, .323/.391/.441, 46 BB, 72 K, 6.10 RC/27, 19 WS, .775 RZR

Maybe THAT’S why YFs hate Dustin Pedroia so much!

44 comments… add one

  • Heh, you don’t want to see the comparison between left fielders.

    AndrewYF August 20, 2007, 6:40 am
  • We have a left fielder?

    SF August 20, 2007, 7:19 am
  • And if he does it for 11 years, you guys really have something.

    AW YF August 20, 2007, 8:31 am
  • Ha!
    And Cano is still better than Pedroia! Better offensively and better defensively.
    Meanwhile, if you’re going to go crazy with the comparisons (in 2007), the Sox “win” exactly two positions – 1B and DH.

    Anonymous August 20, 2007, 8:52 am
  • Maybe this is a stupid question, but if Pedroia has fewer Ks, more runs created, better defensive stats, and similar offensive stats, shouldn’t he have more win shares than Jeter? Is the discrepancy because Jeter plays a harder defensive position (albeit badly)?
    One other relevant stat:
    Player A: $380,000 for ’07
    Player B: $21.6 million for ’07 (ESPN)

    Andrew F (Sox Fan) August 20, 2007, 9:45 am
  • Great season for the young 2Bman. Now all he needs to do is continue to put up these numbers over the next 11 seasons or so and win 4 WS rings. Then we can have this discussion.
    Andrew I find it hysterical that you would even bring up the $ (especially because DP is a rookie, I would hope Jeter makes more at this point otherwise you need to have a talk with the guy who negotiates your ML contracts!) At just over 8 million a year how is Lugo working out? You can criticize DJ all you’d like, compare him to rookies and point out his well earned salary, but don’t even try and tell me you wouldn’t take him on your team any day of the week?

    John - YF (Trisk) August 20, 2007, 10:10 am
  • I’m not sure how range stats are relevant for players who play different positions. I haven’t subscribed to the “hate Pedroia” threads here; he looks like a solid young player, and he’s having a fine season. It’s a fun comparison, as well. But he’s not nearly as valuable as Jeter, who plays short, has played far more often, and single-handedly (okay, with Alex) kept the Yanks alive for long stretches earlier this year. One player plays in a hitter’s park, another in a place that makes it hard on a righty. But to get caught up in a comparison is pointless. SFs always seem to be looking to bring Jeter down, and every year he keeps pounding away. Think about this: with another 5 years of production at his current pace (and is there any reason to believe he can’t continue this?), Jeter will be #9 in the all time hit list, behind Honus Wagner. It is not hard to see him slotting into the top 5 all time, behind only Rose, Cobb, Aaron, and Musial. That would lift him over a pair of former Red Sox: Tris Speaker and Yaz.

    YF August 20, 2007, 10:10 am
  • While we are at it lets compare Abreu’s stats to Doug Mirabellis. One plays for the yanks the other for the sox, seems fair.
    Prefer two infielders? how about Youk vs A-Rod.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 10:28 am
  • I’m really just poking the bear a bit. Obviously, there’s all sorts of holes in the comparison — not least of which is rings and future Hall of Fame status, let alone position differences.
    I also was curious about Win Shares, but Pedroia’s stats in the clutch are pretty poor compared to Jeter’s (I nearly threw up in my mouth writing that sentence), so that could explain it.
    I’m actually pretty surprised Pedroia’s having a season that’s arguably better than Jeter’s. I started doing the comparison expecting it to fall apart at some point, but Pedroia holds up very well — especially when you consider he’s a rookie putting up terrific numbers at what I’ve always assumed to be the weaker offensive position. At this point, I think he’s the ROY.

    Paul SF August 20, 2007, 10:45 am
  • The reason I bring up the money difference is that on teams not named the New York Yankees, such pedestrian concerns matter. To get similar production at a rookie’s salary is a tremendous value. It allows the Sox to allocate their financial resources elsewhere (more posting fees, drive up the price for ARod, hold onto future free agents, etc.).
    John YF, I think Jeter is an excellent offensive player, and a sure-handed defender. He’d definitely help the Sox out. But I wouldn’t take him at 21.6 million a year. Manny Ramirez barely deserves that sort of money, and Boston already has a million lead-off men. While the Sox could absorb Jeter’s salary, nearly any other team in MLB would be handicapped long-term by his presence. On the White Sox or Angels he’s around a fifth of payroll; moving to the Marlins would more than double their total payroll. If the Yankees tried to move Jeter now (unimaginable, natch) they’d have to heavily subsidize his contract.

    Andrew F (Sox Fan) August 20, 2007, 10:45 am
  • Paul- I agree that Pedroia is one of the top ROY candidates and Id certainly pick him off of the sox
    Andrew-
    Rookies help the yankees allocate their resources to higher priced free agents as well – see Cano, Cabrera, Hughes, Chamberlin, etc. We have a deep pit of money but its certainly not bottomless. I really think that the financial arguement against the yanks holds alot less water these days when coming from sox fans. Yes we have lots of money, but the Sox arent hurting by any means. There is no need to rehash this past off-season’s spending but there arent many teams (maybe 3 others?) that could doll out the type of cash the sox did this winter.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 11:11 am
  • “The reason I bring up the money difference is that on teams not named the New York Yankees, such pedestrian concerns matter.”
    I wonder how the Red Sox squeek by on their paltry budget. I once heard that they spent twice the Royals entire payroll to sign one Japanese pitcher, but since from this thread it is clear that only the Yankees have a preposterously high budget ceiling I realize that that must have been just an ugly rumor.
    The NYY outspend all and the system is not fair to small-market teams (though revenue sharing and the WC have certainly help). We all know that, but there are few things more tiring than being accused of being somehow beyond the pale by fans of a team that spends more than 28 other teams in baseball, just because they don’t spend as much as the Yankees.
    Yes, because the Yankees spend (according to USA Today) 189 million, they clearly aren’t constrained by money while the RS at 143 million clearly are.
    Yawn…

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 11:14 am
  • “The reason I bring up the money difference is that on teams not named the New York Yankees, such pedestrian concerns matter.”
    include the Red Sox as a team that can afford to take on big salaries.
    “To get similar production at a rookie’s salary is a tremendous value.”
    Cano and Wang do this despite the Yanks’ attempts to raise their salary to a gazillion dollars.

    Nick-YF August 20, 2007, 11:16 am
  • Up The Middle
    Posada
    Cano
    Jeter
    Melky
    They’re not only all home-grown — does any team have a stronger 4 up the middle?
    And you can throw in Pettite, Mo, Joba, Edwar, Hughes and the Wanger.
    When you win 4 WS, you get paid plenty.

    ugh August 20, 2007, 11:39 am
  • “Manny Ramirez barely deserves that money…”
    When Manny wins 4 WS rings (that’s 3 more before he retires) then we can use him as the measuring stick of who deserves and who “barely” deserves that kind of $.
    I am out of this discussion fellas, my blood pressure is rising.

    John - YF (Trisk) August 20, 2007, 11:57 am
  • the only offensive categories manny is in the AL top 5 in this year are IBB and GIDP. worth every penny of the $20 mil, esp when you throw his defense and “intangibles” in.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 12:37 pm
  • The “we’re better because we have more home-grown talent” is a cudgel used against the “you have the biggest payroll and nobody can spend like you” claim, somewhat reflexively. Both lines, in the end, are somewhat irrelevant when decontextualized. Rich teams, like the Sox and Yanks, are both stronger when they develop talent in-house, whether those players end up on the field in pinstripes or crimson tights or elsewhere. Both the Sox and Yankees should never have teams over-laden with homegrown talent, for good reason — they ought to be in the business of leveraging that talent. Right now we SFs could be bragging about how much better Hanley Ramirez, a homegrowner, is than Derek Jeter were Ramirez not traded for Josh Beckett, who happens to be a far more expensive player right now though not homegrown, but who could not have been acquired without growing those leveraged goods at home, if that makes any sense. In other words, I’d rather have one fewer homegrowner and not be able to brag about how much homegrown talent we have on the field and be in first place with Josh Beckett in the rotation than not, hypothetically speaking. So the “homegrowner” ticker is silly, in a vacuum.
    That being said, I enjoyed watching Buchholz pitch, and hope he isn’t leveraged. But that’s my position in a romantic’s vacuum.

    SF August 20, 2007, 12:45 pm
  • SF:
    What’s a cudgel?
    I thought it was something a parakeet chews on…

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 1:07 pm
  • Though I’m not SF:
    Cudgel is a kind of heavy club or stick (to beat people over the head with).
    Or were you being sarcastic?

    yankeemonkey August 20, 2007, 1:11 pm
  • Sarcasm…but there is something similar that a parakeet chews on. I think it is called a cuttle though, not a cudgel

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 1:15 pm
  • Dunno…My sarcasm-o-meter is off today, I guess.
    *slinks away*

    yankeemonkey August 20, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • “Yes, because the Yankees spend (according to USA Today) 189 million”
    That’s not including Roger Clemens, who I believe pushes them up towards $210.
    http://tinyurl.com/37wn6d
    Just saying.

    Tyrel SF August 20, 2007, 1:40 pm
  • After Drew and Matsuzaka, SFs can’t whine about Yankee spending. Certainly, it’s a legitimate thing to discuss, though. I’m with SF on this subject. But worth noting, as I did in a recent thread, that the influx of (cheap) Yankee starting pitching from the farm will give the team leeway to spend on it’s big 3/4 FAs this winter: Alex, Jorge, Mo, Abreu. I don’t think the Yanks have a bottomless pit of cash to work with, despite the argumentative crap we hear from some in the bonehead contingent, so the “savings” netted from running out so many players from within the organization allows for the spending of the very great resources the team does have on some things that are very important to keep, at high cost. Like A-Rod.

    YF August 20, 2007, 1:57 pm
  • the sox 143 mil payroll is also a bit lower than it actually should be. Thats what they are paying the players who have been on this team this year, but doesnt include payments for traded players such as to atlanta for Renteria. Also, lets not forget the posting fees, adding Gagne, etc.
    To show you the type of payroll flexibility that only the sox and yankees have. The sox released $5.6 mil worth of RPs in piniero and romero this year, thats 15% of the nationals total payroll!
    Ill say it again for SFs to complain about yankees spending money is like the Astors complaining that the Rockefellers are too rich! The two teams are in a league of their own.
    Just saying myself.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 2:05 pm
  • I wasn’t flaming, I was just correcting a figure that had the Yanks payroll at about 10% less than it actually is.

    Tyrel SF August 20, 2007, 2:21 pm
  • After Drew and Matsuzaka, SFs can’t whine about Yankee spending.
    Look, we basically agree, but this example you use is just not right. You can’t use random expensive signings as a basis for not allowing fans of one team to criticize the spending ways of another.
    If you own four Ferraris and I complain that four Ferraris are gratuitous, you’re not on strong ground with a retort of “but you own one Ferrari, you can’t complain!”. This is just poor logic, YF.

    SF August 20, 2007, 2:25 pm
  • Agreed with YF and SF on this one. The Sox and Yanks both have plenty of money AND plenty of homegrown talent. I certainly did not intend this thread to become a pissing match over those tired (and specious, to boot) arguments.
    Just saying. :-P

    Paul SF August 20, 2007, 2:28 pm
  • Sam, it’s vaguely true, but surely the Yanks also have those kind of deals. The math gets fuzzy very quickly, so it’s probably best to leave them out.
    SF – the 4-1 ratio is grossly misrepresenting!
    I do believe this conversation comes up from time to time, and everytime way too often though.
    Can we discount “home-grown talent” on the salary meter? I know DJ and Posada and Mo gets paid a truckload, but (IMHO) I think they were overpaid at some point by the Yanks (on pure numbers). Not sure where I’m going with this, just throwing this out.

    Lar August 20, 2007, 3:59 pm
  • Most rational people can agree that the Yankees have the biggest advantage budget-wise and that the Sox have the second. After all, these are verifiable facts.
    I think at least some of the argument comes down to whether the analogy is Yankees’ 4 Ferraris vs. Boston’s 1, as SF suggests, or 4 Ferraris vs. 3 Ferraris and a Porsche, as I would suggest.
    There are teams that only have one, (I translate roughly 1 Ferrari = 2-3 marquee players in their prime and 1 Porsche = 1 such player). Boston just isn’t one of them. Neither incidentally are the Mets.
    Of course, I am not a rational person anyway, so all of the above doesn’t matter to me…I just don’t want to give in.
    More importantly, can anyone project starters for NYY/RS – if I am correct (and barring injury), NY will have Pettitte, Clemens, Wang (no Mussina…thank the lord). That would be just fine with me. What about Boston?

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 4:13 pm
  • I believe the Sox will be throwing Beckett/Mats/Schill.

    SF August 20, 2007, 4:16 pm
  • Can we have Tavares and Wakefield instead?
    If it turns out as you and I project, those are great matchups. Can’t wait.

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • Lar-
    mo has been paid 10.5 mil per year for the last 4 years and posada and avg of 10 mil per year over this same time. Id hardly consider this overpaying for two of the most (perhaps THE most) important players on the yankees. Jeter’s contract does seem a bit large but for the amount of money he brings in (plus his skills) I dont think the yanks are really losing much on this one either.
    Also, I was making the point about additional costs added to the total salary amount in response to the earlier post about adding clemens to the yanks salary. I was just pointing out there are many areas that need to be included when considering total money spent on a team. We havent even touched how the sox and the yankees really flex their financial muscles when it comes to the draft.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 4:31 pm
  • Some day I’d like to see an income statement of all baseball owners next to the total payrolls of their ballclubs. This would get into the other side of this whole issue – which is that there are certainly those who have the resources to spend more than Boston and even New York but who simply don’t because it is not their priority. And then they whine about disparity.
    Steibrenner simply is not the richest owner out there and he definitely was not when he bought the Yankees over 30 years ago.

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 4:46 pm
  • Sam – I’m talking about pure numbers. I loved that they stayed, and would loved for them to stay after this year. Mo is damn good, but is he worth 10 mil good?
    I don’t know how to analyze that number properly (or at least, not right now because I’m lazy) because I’m sure there’s some inflation-adjusted number, but then again, the baseball market was different back then. But it still feels like We’re paying them a premium.
    And DJ is damn good. 15 million dollars good, maybe. 20 mil is kind of insane.
    But ya, there are intangibles (heh) but I’m just saying..

    Lar August 20, 2007, 4:59 pm
  • Lar,
    id say Mo is $10 mil good then and now. we paid a premium on him because he is a premium pitcher. Someone else would have given him that money for sure.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 5:01 pm
  • Oh ya, and you can also definitely make the argument that the current baseball market is as expensive as it is now _because_ of the Yanks, with them as the pacesetter.
    A 10 mil Mo vs a 10 mil 4/5th starter in this market is a no brainer, so Mo became “cheap” by comparison. But would the market turned out this way otherwise?
    Now I’m not pinning it all on the Yanks either, *cough Hicks cough* but just saying _at the time_ it might’ve been a bit much.
    Then again, even ARod is “cheap” by today’s standards, so whoever signed that contract might’ve even looked smart by comparison, except for the opt out clause. Ah well.

    Lar August 20, 2007, 5:02 pm
  • Speaking of which — I think Cash is telling the truth when he says he won’t sign A-Rod if he leaves.
    Yanks pay him around $16 million, which is a bargain. A-Rod wants $35 million, which is too much even for him. $35 million pays for 3 excellent players at full market value.

    ugh August 20, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • I totally disagree that the yankees set the current market. They were one of many teams responsible for raised prices. Lots of teams gave big contracts out now and back then. The Yankees didnt give Mike Hampton, Manny, Juan Gone, Kevin Brown, and many many many others their contracts. These decisions are based on the amount of money floating around the game. There is lots now and they can spend more on players. Granted the yankees success brings more money into baseball but the same can be said for the Sox, the cubs, the dodgers etc.

    Sam-YF August 20, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • Actually Lar, as much as I hate to say it, I think Hicks looks pretty smart on the opt-out clause (in fact, he looks especially smart on it) since, if A-Rod exercices it, Texas no longer has to swallow 1/3 of A-Rod’s salary every year as they are doing now.
    He may have had some sense that they wouldn’t carry A-Rod to full-term and could get great young players for him a few years down the road so it might not have been such a big deal for him to agree to Boras’ demand on that point. Regardless, it works better for him now than if A-Rod had no opt out.

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 5:42 pm
  • I know I will get killed for this, but it isn’t really right to call the Yanks the pace-setter in salary-hiking. Sam is right.
    It has almost never been the Yanks who have signed the record-breaking pace-setting deals. Steinbrenner never liked signing -and has pretty consistently avoided – record-breaking annual-salary contracts, which are the ones that then drive up salaries for all other players at whatever position the record-breaking contract-recipient plays. But he and the Yanks have been willing to take them on (and have been among few teams financially able and willing to do so for multiple players simultaneously, especially since 2000) when the teams that have signed those deals have wanted to unload those same players years later.
    In other words, once the pace is set, the Yanks will play at that level, but they don’t like being the ones to land the mega-deals because they don’t want to get gouged by every player’s agent with whom they negotiate.
    Admittedly, the Yankees have taken on several of those mega-deals from other teams in recent years: Giambi, A-Rod, Sheffield, Abreu, K. Brown (gag), etc. And judging by results, they have gotten worse in the process.
    Look at the history of highest paid players as compiled by ESPN in 1999, in the thick of the Yankees most recent glory-days (http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/highsalaries.html) Of 13 contracts of $50 mill or more, the Yankees had one (Bernie). Of 17 annual contracts averaging $10 mill/year or more, NY had two.
    From ’89 – ’99, 20 different players held the crown of highest annual salary – the Yankees accounted for only one (Donnie Baseball).
    This is why the statement that they bought those champioships is, in my view, BS. On the contrary, the more they have tried to buy them, the worse the results have been.
    If you look at team payroll stats throughout the 90′s up to 2000, the Yankees were usually (not always) on top, but by no more than $2-7 million most years. In ’95 the highest team payroll belonged to Toronto – in ’98 to Baltimore: (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1994)
    The Yankees now own the three largest annual-salary contracts in the game (Giambi, A-Rod, Jeter), two of whom they inherited/took over.
    I don’t think the Yankees would have agreed to 25-mill/year for A-Rod when that deal was done even if they didn’t have Jeter and they never would have broken new ground in giving Clemens the family-plan (this kind of stuff by he way is, in my view, at least as pernicious to the game then the total dollar amount).
    Do the Yankees contribute to inflationary salary-spending? Yes. And they do it most often by taking on and extending the deals that others have made, lately to the detriment of their own player-development and ultimate results as a team.
    They simply are not solely or eve mostly responsible for pace-setting salaries.

    IronHorse-YF August 20, 2007, 6:05 pm
  • “Speaking of which — I think Cash is telling the truth when he says he won’t sign A-Rod if he leaves.”
    I imagine Cashman will push really hard to sign Arod to an extension – say four years at $35 million. That way Texas still contributes for the next three years, and Arod still gets, on average, $30-plus for the next seven years.

    Tyrel SF August 20, 2007, 6:34 pm
  • The Yankees are the only team that can extend the contract and continue the Texas payments. That’s a big bonus IF Boras doesn’t convince A-Rod he MUST go out on the free market, and that’s obviously a very strong possibility.

    ugh August 20, 2007, 7:45 pm
  • Nitpicking, but Giambi wasn’t inherited.
    I don’t think though, in any interpretation, that ARod’s opt-out clause can be good, except for in something like this. Which you really can’t plan for.. =P
    I wonder how much money the Yanks can make off HR 600-700-755+. Not sure though.
    I’m still wondering – are the Angels/Mets really that “crazy” enough to go 30+ for ARod? I’m still having trouble understanding that, though Zam just went for 18 per the other day, so maybe it isn’t..

    Lar August 20, 2007, 7:45 pm
  • Also, you would think (and I could be wrong) he would be taking a paycut elsewhere in terms of advertising potential.. even the Mets. But I’m not sure on this though.

    Lar August 20, 2007, 7:46 pm

Leave a Comment