I’m rooting for Giambi as well.  Considering all the possible options for 1st this year, it’d be amazing if we got nothing offensively out of the position again.  I’m anticipating a conglomerate solid seasons from our 1B (plural).

“solid season”, rather

The optimist in me hopes that Giambi gets a contract-year boost (if such a thing exists). That same optimist hopes for the same thing from Abreu & Mussina, too. That’s a lot of optimism, I guess.

Offensive production at 1B by someone(s) who can field decently and stay healthy has been a problem that has taken too long to fix. Perhaps Cashman is waiting to pounce on Mark Teixera, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility with all the money coming off the books after 2008.

Checked BR, and it’s as bad as we thought:

sOPS+ (Split OPS vs rest of league) for 1B: 88
sOPS+ for DH: 88

Ouch.

Mix in the fact that Giambi actually made the most money on this team last year, and thats really a kick in the nuts. Let’s hope this talk of Giambi being in great shape is true, and the guy has another 2006 type of year left in him.  I don’t think it’s impossible to see the 2nd-half-2005 Giambi show up either, but who really knows.

sOPS+ (Split OPS vs rest of league) for 1B: 88
sOPS+ for DH: 88

This is for 2007.

They should just DH him, rotate the 4 OFers again, (should help save Damon / Matsui from going down early) and only occasionally throw Giambi at 1st when / if you need Wilson Betemit somewhere else.

I would prefer to see Giambi and Matsui compete for playing time at DH, and let Betemit get a bona fide shot at 1B.

I think Betemit can be an effective hitter, at least against RH pitching, if he is given enough at bats.

I’m no statistician, but I don’t think 37 is an age when you can realistically expect your chubby DH to improve dramatically from the previous year.

Plank: improve as in improve on career highs? yup your right that’s basically impossible.

improve as in bouncing back from career lows? that’s still reasonablly possible. see Frank Thomas. who at the age of 36 and 37 essentially looked finished, but over the last two season he’s average over 140 games and a OPS+ over 130, that’s pretty impressive, I’ll take 130 ish games of 120 OPS+ from Giambi .

RollingWave,

The Thomas comparison sounds nice, but I don’t think it’s particularly realistic. 

On Giambi’s list of comparable batters, most were toast by 37. 

Here’s the comps:

  1. Albert Belle (889)
  2. Jim Edmonds (889)
  3. Dick Allen (887)
  4. Mo Vaughn (885)
  5. Tim Salmon (876)
  6. Norm Cash (869)
  7. Kent Hrbek (869)
  8. Carlos Delgado (866)
  9. Johnny Mize (861) *
  10. Rocky Colavito (861)

They all were either retired or sucked after 36.  Only Norm Cash and Johnny Mize had a decent year after age 36. 

An important distinction to make with Frank Thomas’s 2 “sucky” seasons was that when he played, he still raked.  He was just injured.  Last year Giambi was injured a lot and when he played he blew.

I’m no statistician, but I don’t think 37 is an age when you can realistically expect your chubby DH to improve dramatically from the previous year.

Well, it’s not really correct to assume that a player’s performance in a single season, especially one marred by injuries, is their new baseline going forward.  No, he won’t be as good as he has been in the past, but it’s probably more likely he will outperform 2007 than get worse.

I’m no statistician, but I don’t think 37 is an age when you can realistically expect your chubby DH to improve dramatically from the previous year

what if he isn’t chubby anymore?

I for one love Giambi but now even more as Jeters defense falters I think Giambi will be more of a liability.Some of the throws Minky saved last year would definately end up in the dugout with Giambi at first.

RollingWave,

On Giambi’s list of comparable batters, most were toast by 37. 

BB-ref comps are pretty useless, they don’t make any sort of adjustments, so it really doesn’t matter who is on his comp list.

I for one love Giambi but now even more as Jeters defense falters I think Giambi will be more of a liability.Some of the throws Minky saved last year would definately end up in the dugout with Giambi at first.

Giambi has poor range at first, he is perfectly fine at getting to errant throws.  That said, he should still DH.

Some of the throws Minky saved last year would definately end up in the dugout with Giambi at first.

I *think* - without going to the video so to speak - that most of Jeter’s bad throws are short.  One of the few things I think Giambi is particularly good at is scooping low throws at first.  Now of course Eyechart was as well, but over Duncan or Betemit this may give Giambi an edge.  Big enough to offset the other plays he doesn’t make?  Probably not, but the main thing will be if Giambi hits enough.  If Giambi hits is 65% projection, the Yankees can live the the defense, and use replacements in the late innings, or a different 1B if Wang is pitching, etc.

Here’s one of the things I think a lot of us (those critical of Torre the last few years) are hoping: If Giambi didn’t hit (or field) for Torre, Torre would keep running him back out there.  We don’t know yet what Joe G. will do, but we hope that he’ll recognize Giambi is hurting the team and give a more deserving player a chance.

I was just reading the interview of Mark Feinsand by the guys at Nomaas:

http://www.nomaas.org/dailynews2.html

... so, here’s the names of guys that I’ve heard are showing up to spring training in shape .. or, I should say, that normally show up out of shape (or have in the recent past) and are showing up in the shape this year:

Damon - 4 pounds lighter, interview about his offseason workouts on LoHud
Giambi - Check LoHud as well
Abreu - Feinsand and Pete Abe have comments on this
Bruney - Lost 20 pounds
Britton - Lost weight (Feinsand says he looks noticeably thinner around his midsection)
Joba - Lost a little weight according to Feinsand

So it looks like these guys are taking Girardi’s orders seriously.. which is definitely a good thing.

If Abreu has a great year I wonder whether the Yanks will make an effort to re-sign him in the right deal.  I suppose that depends on how Austin Jackson and José Tabata perform in AA this year.  If one of both of them put up great seasons, the Yanks may cut bait - although trusting a prime, everyday position to a rookie is very un-Yankeelike and has only happened in 1996, when Jeter was a rookie and in 2005 with Cano, when the team was in crisis mode.

<i>The Thomas comparison sounds nice, but I don’t think it’s particularly realistic.

On Giambi’s list of comparable batters, most were toast by 37.

BB-ref comps are pretty useless, they don’t make any sort of adjustments, so it really doesn’t matter who is on his comp list.<b><i>

I think the only thing we learn from these lists is that <b>most players are toast by age 37, and that includes a lot of the great ones.

Crap.  Well, at least I didn’t leave any of the tags open.

test
test
<u>test</u>

OK, it was supposed to look like this:

The Thomas comparison sounds nice, but I don’t think it’s particularly realistic.

BB-ref comps are pretty useless, they don’t make any sort of adjustments, so it really doesn’t matter who is on his comp list.

Not only that, a quick glance at the players on Thomas’ comp list undermines the original point.  Three of those guys were also done by 37.  Then there’s Stargell, who could still hit when he was 40 put couldn’t stay in the lineup past the age of 34.  And Willie McCovey, who played until he was 42, but only had one good year in his last five.

Getting back to Giambi, three of his top five BBR comps were done early because they suffered devastating injuries.

I think the only thing we learn from these lists is that most players are toast by age 37, and that includes a lot of the great ones.

Mike K. and mike:  I would love to be able to make the same argument you make regarding the saving of Jeter’s errors by slick-fielding 1st basemen. Could you point to to someplace where you get the evidence for that?  Thanks!

Also, who is going to save Jeter from all those ground balls that sneak past him?  That’s the crux of the problem far more than his (and A-Rod’s) intermittently errant throws.

Right, but errant throws are like spectacular-looking plays—they’re a lot more likely to stick in the memory than a field-able ball that gets through or a difficult play made easily.  The reality is that Jeter’s arm is by far the best part of his defensive game.

Hey SG, regarding the baserunning—do you have a link to where Panas did the calculation?  I’m curious to see the components that went into it.  Giambi is slow for sure, but he actually strikes me a decent baserunner.  One thing I think I’ve seen a lot is that he’s not bad at going first to third on a single.  But I’d like to know what the actual numbers are, maybe I just remember the good times and forget about the bad.

fgas, here’s the link to the last article in Lee’s baserunning work which lists all his chapters.  He emailed me the Yankees #s directly, I’m sure if you shoot him an e-mail he’d be glad to oblige with more detail.

FWIW, I think Giambi rated as above average in 2006, but I can’t remember where I read that.

fgasparini gets to the 1->3 question before I do.  I thought he was a heady, slow runner.

It would be also good if Jeter would hit the 1st baseman in the chest instead of throwing it in the dirt.This way we wouldnt have to play an offensive zero like Minky or Phillips to cover for him.

If Jason can stay healthy I can deal with the glove.If hes healthy he will drive in 100+ and blow away the 80% projection.

The RBI column probably isn’t the best place to focus.  I’m assuming that these projections don’t take into account the OBP of the other batters in the lineup, so an identical batting line will produce more RBI in the Yankee lineup than an “average” lineup.

If Giambi can “blow away” a 1.000+ OPS, then I’m all for it.  Chances of that happening aren’t fantastic though.

SG, rilke, I emailed Lee Panas asking him for more data on Giambi.

DaPuj, I’m not exactly sure where the break-even line for Giambi’s offense vs. defense, but I bet it’s lower than a 1.000 OPS+.  Like in the 875-900 range, maybe lower if he’s deployed more against flyball pitchers.

Although I guess if Giambi’s down around an 850 OPS+, you hope to do as good or better than that with a clever platoon, and get better defense into the bargain.

By “all for it”, I meant I was in favor of Giambi doing better rather than him doing worse.  I wasn’t making any pronouncements on what level he would have to play to be worth it on the field. 

SG - Any chance you could thorw up a paragraph for the rest of these with the projections going into 2007 versus reality, just to get a little perspective on these?

Y’all see the great A-Rod quote about Pettitte?

“Andy is one of the greatest human beings I’ve ever met,” Rodriguez said. “I have two daughters—well, I have one and one on the way. If I had a daughter, I would want ‘em to marry Andy Pettitte. The age difference might be a little awkward, but in today’s day and age anything is possible.”

Brian: aintcha glad Nimrod isnt pimping out our daughters? I am.
They are both very strange lads.
I would be much happier having dinner with Jorge or Mo.

I think dinner with Duncan or Giambi would be pretty fun…

giambi looks good:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/photo?slug=r3062453478&prov=reuters

From Lee Panas:

“Here are [Giambi’s] component numbers:
BGAA hits -9.1
ground outs 0.5
air outs -1.0
other (SB, WP, etc) -0.6
So, he was not good at taking the extra base on a hit. He was about average on the other 3 components.”

So go figure.  What the blah-blah people say on TV is true—Giambi clogs the bases.

Also:

“I have not translated these numbers to runs yet because it involves looking at base out states and location of balls hit which is tedious. Dan Fox is supposedly doing that in the Baseball Prospectus Annual.”

SG, what led you to translate -10 BGAA as three runs?

The Yankees should sign Bonds! He could take attention from everyone else! :D

37 - what year(s) does(do) that cover?  If it’s just 07, then whatever, he was hurt.

I have a pretty strong sense of having seen a couple of games when Giambi did a good job going 1->3 in the not too distant past.  That and Jeter making several extremely uncharacteristic mistakes are my first thoughts about recent Yankee baserunning (also something about Posada I’m trying to continue to repress).  Of course it’s small-sample, black-sheep-spotting, anecdotal reporting.

Does, no do.

What defensive metric are you using? I can’t really see how Giambi is -11 runs in ‘08. He will be batting as the DH, mostly! And UZR and Justin Inaz’s fielding translations have him as average in ‘07, but certainly not -1 Win on defense. The Fans have Giambi as below average in ‘06, but not 11 runs below average.

Mike K. and mike:  I would love to be able to make the same argument you make regarding the saving of Jeter’s errors by slick-fielding 1st basemen. Could you point to to someplace where you get the evidence for that?  Thanks!

Most of the evidence is my increasingly faulty memory!  I think I was responding directly to the post talking about how the team needed a slick-fielding 1B to cover for Jeter’s errant throws.  I personally don’t think that Jeter makes any more bad throws than an average SS (and no, I’m not sure if there is any evidence), but I do believe that most of his “bad throws” end up in the dirt in front of first.

As for Giambi being good at scooping throws…I’m pretty sure “The Fielding Bible” (initial version) gave him a plus in that.  If I think of it tonight I’ll look it up.

And speaking of Jeter/poor defense, anyone catch this article in the NY Post today?  There was a similar one I think yesterday.  I’m not personally familiar with the Penn study (I’m sure I could look it up), but it sounds similar to what “The Fielding Bible” does, which is also similar (though more subjective) to what UZR does.  Or basically, advanced statistical reasoning.  Of particular note I found Gene Michael’s comments…interesting.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) It’s sad that there is still such animosity against analytical thinking.  I’m not sure if the U of Penn study is right, but I AM sure it shouldn’t be dismissed with such vitriol.
2) If the NY Sports Media, apparently a number of (vocal) NY fans, and one of the Yankees’ top scouts/talent evaluators simply don’t believe in the stats, and say that their eyes tell them Jeter is a great defensive SS, why should any of us expect him to volunteer to move to a different position?  People in his own organization are telling him he’s as good or better than about any other SS in the game.

SG, what led you to translate -10 BGAA as three runs?

I use the average linear weights value of an extra base, .28.  Lee is correct if we want to retroactively look at 2007 we should look at context like base/out state, but for projecting the average value is what we should use.

What defensive metric are you using?

I use standard zone rating.  I know it’s not perfect, but it’s freely available and easy enough for me to calculate myself.

He will be batting as the DH, mostly!

Well, that’s the most likely scenario, but right now he’s being considered the 1B with Matsui at DH.  I am just putting the defensive numbers out there since they’re probably going to at least try him out there. 

And UZR and Justin Inaz’s fielding translations have him as average in ‘07, but certainly not -1 Win on defense.

That’s -1 run saved above average, not -1 win.  In the defensive chart, PM = plays made, CH = fieldable chances as defined by Stats for zone rating, PMAA = PM - CH times the average ZR for a fielder at the same position in the same league, and RSAA = runs saved above average. RSAA/162 is RSAA pro-rated to 1440 defensive innings.  If you mean in the value chart, yeah, we can probably remove that -1 win from his defensive value projection depending on his role.

Any chance you could thorw up a paragraph for the rest of these with the projections going into 2007 versus reality, just to get a little perspective on these?

Love the idea.  I’ll incorporate it going forward.

37 - what year(s) does(do) that cover?  If it’s just 07, then whatever, he was hurt.

Lee’s #s are just for ‘07, so at the very least I should regress them some since I don’t have earlier seasons.

He might be -1.0 Win on defense if he played 162 games (which is your projection). But using RSAA/162 Games makes no sense, because there is zero chance he plays 162 games at first base. The offensive projections have Giambi playing around 90 games, so for the sake of fairness, his defense should be weighted similarly.

1) It’s sad that there is still such animosity against analytical thinking.  I’m not sure if the U of Penn study is right, but I AM sure it shouldn’t be dismissed with such vitriol.
2) If the NY Sports Media, apparently a number of (vocal) NY fans, and one of the Yankees’ top scouts/talent evaluators simply don’t believe in the stats, and say that their eyes tell them Jeter is a great defensive SS, why should any of us expect him to volunteer to move to a different position?  People in his own organization are telling him he’s as good or better than about any other SS in the game.

Fair points, but….

How exactly would you expect Gene Michael to respond to something like this?  Is it realistic to think he’d say, “Yeah, we’ve known this for years, but the sonofbitch just won’t move off of shortstop and he’s got pictures of me and Cashman naked with farm animals.”?  Of course he’s going to slam the computer guys and defend Jeter, regardless of what he does or doesn’t really believe.

The offensive projections have Giambi playing around 90 games, so for the sake of fairness, his defense should be weighted similarly.

Oops, you’re right.  I should have used the -5 projection (around 70 games at first), not the -11.  Add 6 runs back to Giambi’s value then.

How exactly would you expect Gene Michael to respond to something like this?

For #1, I was being more general about who was dismissing it.  Michael was of course, but also the NY papers (two different articles on different days), and the fans they interviewed (though I don’t doubt the author was selective about whose opinions he published).  Sure, I understand him defending Jeter, but I would have liked Michael to be more diplomatic about it.

My point for #2 is that this off-season (and last, and I think the last before that), there has been *some* Jeter bashing about the fact that he, “refused to move off of SS when there is a better defender on the team”, “he’s so poor”, etc.  If the GM who drafted him and is still part of the organization is telling the world Jeter is a defensive whiz, why in the world would Jeter want to move?

And - and I have no idea if this is true or not - if Cashman/Girardi were looking to move Jeter to another position in the near future, Michael’s comments certainly won’t help the argument that DJ’s defensive stats show he isn’t helping the team.

Like I already said, those are fair points you’re making.  All I’m saying is that I don’t see any way that Michael (or Cashman or Girardi for that matter) can publicly respond to something like this with anything other than a complete dismissal of the validity of the study.  If and when they do manage to move Jeter to another position, then they’ll be able to be a bit more frank about these kinds of stats (if they choose to).  But as long as he’s the shortstop, they’re not going to publicly admit that he isn’t the best available option.  Nor are they ever going to publicly justify keeping him at shortstop by arguing that he’d be even worse somewhere else.  And in case you’re wondering, I keep bolding the word “publicly” because I’m hoping that they’re all saying something rather different in private.

All I’m saying is that I don’t see any way that Michael (or Cashman or Girardi for that matter) can publicly respond to something like this with anything other than a complete dismissal of the validity of the study.

Sure they can.

NYPost: “Gene, what do you think of the study that says Jeter is the worst defensive player in baseball?”

Michael: “Well, I haven’t read the study myself, so I can’t comment too much on it.  I know that Derek is our SS, and we’re happy with his work there.”

(One of) Michael’s actual quote(s) was, “It’s disgraceful. You have to use a scout’s eye to determine range.”  That was one of the more flattering ones I think.  He’s completely dismissed statistics - not just this study but ZR, UZR, etc. - during this response.  And you’re right that Cashman and Girardi CANNOT now respond to this, to refute it at all.  By not refuting it, they lose a lot of credibility going forward, if they want to use stats to convince anyone that Jeter should move.  But of course if they refute Michael, then they are bashing Jeter.

My problem with Gene was he either should have said, “no comment”, or supported Derek w/o bashing the study.