Perfect Papi

Elias’ player rankings are out.

This means we now know what our respective teams can receive if they fail to sign their free agents.

For the Red Sox, Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling each would net two draft picks — the first rounder of the signing team, plus a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds. Mike Timlin, Eric Gagne and Tim Wakefield would be worth one sandwich pick each.

For the Yankees, Andy Pettitte, Bobby Abreu, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera and, of course, Alex Rodriguez would be worth two picks each. Luis Vizcaino would be worth a sandwich pick.

This assumes the teams wouldn’t pick up whatever options they have (Abreu, Wakefield) or vice versa (Pettitte). We all know how much these teams prize the draft. The Red Sox in 2005 drafted Jacoby Ellsbury, Craig Hansen, Clay Buchholz and Jed Lowrie with the glut of picks they received in return for letting Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe walk, for example. It wouldn’t be surprising for the Sox to decide the draft picks they’d get for Schilling to be more valuable than the year they’d get from re-signing him. Similarly the Yankees with Bobby Abreu.

Also of note is the bizarre and unclear way in which Elias computes the player rankings — put on a 100-point scale that measures performance over the last two seasons. After the jump are the top 10 scores in the American League.

  1. David Ortiz 100.0
  2. J.J. Putz 96.041
  3. Vladimir Guerrero 95.063
  4. Johan Santana 95.040
  5. Magglio Ordonez 94.937
  6. C.C. Sabathia 93.452
  7. Justin Morneau 92.222
  8. Roy Halladay 91.567
  9. Joe Nathan 91.552
  10. Jorge Posada 90.756

Alex Rodriguez is sixth among all second- and third-basemen and shortstops, behind Young, Tejada, Cano, Jeter and Lowell. Say whaaaa?

19 comments… add one
  • the ranking system is most certainly antiquated. My understanding is that the values are computed using an agreement from 1981. Things have obviously changed considerably since then as far as applying statistics to evaluate performance.
    My understanding of the situation is that A-Rod is ranked lower bc of his defense. Im not sure how they calculate it but clearly it needs updating if Jeter is ranking above him. Also, Alex was at worst average at third but IMO much better than average. So if defense is able to bring him so far down pointswise, it clearly has both a high level of impact and an antiquated form of caluculating its value.

    Sam-YF November 1, 2007, 2:40 pm
  • I noticed this and thought that perhaps their system is flawed. And this isn’t a bitter yanks fan who thinks that if anyone deserved a 100 it was A-rod in 2007, not Big Papi. Wang is ranked higher than Beckett. Huh?

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • oh, well I’m an idiot. I didn’t realize it was a 2-year sample. That makes a little more sense.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 2:42 pm
  • Paul Konerko and Bobby Abreu both have higher point values than A-Rod. Neither of these guys are exactly defensive specialists…

    Sam-YF November 1, 2007, 2:43 pm
  • I can see from an offense standpoint Ortiz being No. 1 in the AL. His last two seasons have been amazingly dominant.
    But if defense is involved, how is he not docked points? And how again have either of A-Rod’s last two seasons been not as good as Lowell’s? Or Cano’s? Just bizarre.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 2:44 pm
  • I take it Big Papi has a higher defensive point ranking than A-Rod because he doesn’t play the field?

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 2:44 pm
  • I’ve been skimming Alan Schwartz’s The Numbers Game and I guess it doesn’t surprise me that the Elias people aren’t exactly putting forth a truly accurate value system. A lot of the people there sound pretty reactionary.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 2:46 pm
  • If I remember correctly, 2B and SS has a huge defense bonus, regardless. Still though.
    Beckett’s pretty high up there, considering his 2006 year..

    Lar November 1, 2007, 2:47 pm
  • DHs arent docked for not playing defense. In fact, it would seem that they have perfect defense as this is the only way to get a 100.

    Sam-YF November 1, 2007, 2:48 pm
  • Oh ya, it’s renormalized, so the #1 is always 100.. which means everyone that’s #1 was perfect.. =P

    Lar November 1, 2007, 2:49 pm
  • It’s really a travesty. These rankings actually have merit in determining how the draft is ordered. The difference between having a first-roounder or not, in some cases, and thus the difference between potentially having a franchise-changing player or not.
    Seems like MLB would at least want those rankings to make sense.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 2:51 pm
  • I read somewhere that Big Papi is only the third player to get a 100. Mattingly was one of the other two.

    Nick-YF November 1, 2007, 2:51 pm
  • Lar- I dont think thats correct. I read an article saying that Oritz was only the 7th guy who had received a 100 since the rankings began.

    Sam-YF November 1, 2007, 2:51 pm
  • Oh ya, it’s renormalized, so the #1 is always 100.. which means everyone that’s #1 was perfect.. =P
    Heh, I never noticed that. Must have just forgotten.

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 2:52 pm
  • Let me look it up again. Maybe I was thinking of another stat.. if so, my bad!

    Lar November 1, 2007, 3:00 pm
  • Ya, my bad, I must’ve been thinking of something else. Papi was the 7th indeed, though Nick might be thinking of AL.
    The problem is that the formula was based on some formula came up with in the 80s, so it’s probably outdated..

    Lar November 1, 2007, 3:04 pm
  • i was just reading about how these were calculated. They use fielding % as the defense component which we all know is very problematic for a variety of reasons. Defense is even considered for 1b/DH/OF.
    Here is the link to the page that describes this…

    Sam-YF November 1, 2007, 3:17 pm
  • The use of wins, wins+saves and RBI are all pretty unfortunate. No use of slugging percentage seems to be a major mistake. Wins + saves is awful because you don’t want your closer to have a lot of wins. It usually means he’s blowing saves and getting lucky…

    Paul SF November 1, 2007, 3:37 pm
  • I can’t believe how many pitchers there are that are less ranked than Carl Pavano!

    batty November 1, 2007, 10:51 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next post:

Previous post: