“The Brett Gardner Skillset” sounds like an indie-rock band name.  I’ll read the post now.

Brett Gardner = Willy Taveras?
He has had solid value in about half his pro seasons.

In other words, we should hope Melky remembers how to party like it’s 2007.

I like Gardner and think he has a chance to become an asset.  That said, I don’t think it will happen unless he develops SOME power, if only to avoid the problem you noted of pitchers’ challenging him.

Personally, I could see Gardner developing into Jacoby Ellsbury. I don’t see him as Kenny Lofton, obviously. But I also don’t see him as Callix Crabbe.
What kind of name is Callix Crabbe anyway? I kind of like it!

On the other note, how long before someone says that without PEDs, A-Rod’s career would have been derailed by chronic cysts?

That said, I don’t think it will happen unless he develops SOME power, if only to avoid the problem you noted of pitchers’ challenging him.

I don’t think that’s true.  What he has to do is start K’ing less; maybe a little, maybe a lot.  There seems to be this idea that if pitchers challenge Gardner with fastballs they’ll “knock the bat out of his hands”.  Alternatively, if they start challenging him with fastballs he could start hitting line-drive singles to left-field (esp. if the third-baseman is in to protect against the bunt).  At that point he’ll probably start seeing more breaking-balls; if he strikes out on those, he won’t be successfull.

somebody needs to introduce Brett to Yuri Sucart.

On the other note, how long before someone says that without PEDs, A-Rod’s career would have been derailed by chronic cysts?

Maybe the PEDs caused the cysts, like Giambi’s growths.

i have to think that if the Yankees suspected the cyst was a result of steroid use, they wouldn’t have announced that he had a cyst.  they would have just announced that he was seeing a hip specialist, no more details. 

but who knows…

It’s not that those of us who aren’t on the bandwagon we want him to fail. We are all Yankees fans and would be thrilled if he could hold down the job and be an average MLB player. However some of us are very aware (as this post points out) that players with Gardner’s skill set almost never stick in MLB as starters so we know there is little chance of that happening. Nothing Gardner does in spring training will ever change that fact. Given that, and given that Melky is out of options, I can’t see anything over the next month changing the fact that Melky should be the opening day CFer and given one last chance to hold onto the job.

“The Brett Gardner Skillset” sounds like an indie-rock band name.

speed metal?

Given that, and given that Melky is out of options, I can’t see anything over the next month changing the fact that Melky should be the opening day CFer and given one last chance to hold onto the job.

i agree with everything you said up to this point.

i have to say that if Gardner completely blows Melky away for all of Spring Training, i think you have to hand him the job.

you can’t tell two players they are in an open competition for a job and then give the job to Melky no matter what happens.

i agree that if they are close, or Gardner is only slightly better, Melky should get the chance to lose the job.  but if Gardner hits .400, shows power, steals bases, etc. and melky doesn’t do much, Gardner should get the job for at least the first month or two of the season and they should keep Melky on the roster as well.

I can’t see anything over the next month changing the fact that Melky should be the opening day CFer and given one last chance to hold onto the job.

I definitely think that Cabrera will be the opening day CF, but I’m not sure I agree that he should.  I don’t particularly want to see the team waste five or six weeks worth of regular season PAs waiting for Melky to definitively prove that he is no longer a major league caliber player.  So if he’s going to be the guy who gets the opening day job, I’d rather see him actually deserve it.

And on further reflection, “The Gardner Skillset” sounds more like a bad action/adventure spy thriller.

For a similar number of PA he has a slightly higher K rate and a significantly better BB rate. I don’t know what was said about a young Lofton, but I think it’s an interesting comp nonetheless.

I can’t see it happening but if he could have a 100 OPS+ his speed would make him decently valuable.

I don’t know what was said about a young Lofton…

“He should have stuck to basketball.”

i agree with everything you said up to this point.

you can’t tell two players they are in an open competition for a job and then give the job to Melky no matter what happens.

I just don’t take spring training numbers seriously at all.  I don’t think any permanent personnel decisions (and I think giving the job to Gardner and putting Melky on waivers is a permanent choice) should be made based on spring training stats. 

Going into this spring training Melky has a better chance of sticking in MLB.  If you go with Melky you can change your mind.  If you go with Gardner you can’t go back to Melky, you have to move onto Damon/Swisher (who are my first choice anyway).

I can’t see anything over the next month changing the fact that Melky should be the opening day CFer and given one last chance to hold onto the job.

Not sure I agree, sd2528, but I think you hit on an interesting question:  Should Melky be given the job no matter what Gardner does in Spring Training?  This implies that Melky’s upside is significantly higher than Gardner’s and/or that Gardner’s chance of becoming a useful everyday player like Lofton or Castillo or even Pierre are significantly small.

Let’s say that Melky and Gardner are roughly equal defensively, the question then seems to be whether Melky’s power, or power potential, outweighs Gardner’s speed on the basepaths.

I’d be interested to see more analysis on all of this.

Just a random note: according to the announcers on MLB 2K9 - Gary Thorne and Steve Phillips - the Yankees have the best defense in the American League, because they commit the fewest errors. Yay?

I just don’t take spring training numbers seriously at all.  I don’t think any permanent personnel decisions (and I think giving the job to Gardner and putting Melky on waivers is a permanent choice) should be made based on spring training stats. 

i agree that ST numbers don’t mean that much.

but as long as there is room for both of them on the 25 man, and there may be depending on Posada, they could take both of them north and make Gardner the starter.  if he fails, Gardner can be optioned back down to AAA. 

if Melky has to otherwise be put on waivers, then yes, i’d let Brett start the season in AAA.

i just think we are forgetting there is a chance that both make the team.  12 pitchers, the starting 9, Molina, Swady, Beransom, and…player X.  player X could be Melky or it could be Cervelli….or it could be ??  Miranda?

This implies that Melky’s upside is significantly higher than Gardner’s and/or that Gardner’s chance of becoming a useful everyday player like Lofton or Castillo or even Pierre are significantly small.

It mostly means Melky is out of options.

Brett not only have to perform well in spring training, he has to be much better than Melky. Which is not totally unfair.

If the Yankees like what they see in Brett, it probably is better to send him to AAA anyway, rather than split time with Melky (and/or Damon/Swisher) while pinch running a bit. Even with a solid spring training, Brett could still develop and play regularly in the minors.

The original post is really interesting, but another table with only outfielders would have eliminated some of the noise. Speedy, light hitting infielders can’t be in the same comp group.

What it does look like is the players that end up good is that through their MLB career, their MLB SLG% improved over their minor SLG%.  And the players that are viewed as not so good saw lower SLG% in the majors compared to minors.

If the Yankees like what they see in Brett, it probably is better to send him to AAA anyway, rather than split time with Melky (and/or Damon/Swisher) while pinch running a bit. Even with a solid spring training, Brett could still develop and play regularly in the minors.

The problem then becomes what to do in the minors?  Gardner is *probably* a better defensive CF than Jackson.  Maybe not by much - like Gardner is +5 and Jackson is +3 - but I think it’s there.  So do you keep Gardner in CF and play Jackson in LF?  Or switch them?  If you do that also, are you then having to jettison a “traditional” LF (lot of power mediocre defensively) that you may want available in AAA in case say Matsui goes down?

I think either way you keep both of them - assuming Posada is ready to catch and you don’t keep 3 catchers - and go from there.  Either one can be a defensive replacement in any OF position (Gardner may not have the arm to be an asset in RF but isn’t a liability), both have enough speed to pinch-run, and both are probably better than anything else in AAA right now if one of Damon/Nady/Swisher need to miss a few games.  Ideally then both play very well in the time they have, and either work themselves into the 2010 picture or can be valuable trade-chips at the deadline.  If one fails they can be sent down; if Melky isn’t playing well enough to be a bench-player by then I doubt he’ll be claimed, and if so will anyone care?

“The Gardner Skillset” sounds more like a bad action/adventure spy thriller.

I’ll begin writing this immediately.

Still on my hobby-horse.  Gardner’s MiL #s show a clear pattern of compensating to each new level.  In his second year at each level he slugged over 0.4 - 0.418, 0.419, 0.422.  Either one needs to show that this is a statistical artifact or otherwise entirely non-predictive at the ML level (i.e., find a sample of players with this pattern and demonstrate that the average was more predictive than the end-points/level), or one needs to throw out the pre-compensation data.

I think either way you keep both of them - assuming Posada is ready to catch and you don’t keep 3 catchers - and go from there.

Well… probably, but…

Is carrying five OF + a DH who can only play LF if he ever does pick up a glove, while carrying only one backup IF really the best roster construction?  I guess Swisher’s ability to backup 1B mitigates this somewhat.  I guess the ideal would be to have at least one super-versatile guy on your roster—someone who could play all four corner positions, or a middle infielder who could also cover CF in a pinch, or a backup catcher who was credible at first or third.

Either one needs to show that this is a statistical artifact or otherwise entirely non-predictive at the ML level (i.e., find a sample of players with this pattern and demonstrate that the average was more predictive than the end-points/level), or one needs to throw out the pre-compensation data.

Are those really the only options?  Is it possible that he can compensate at the MLB level too, but that he will still be inadequate post-compensation owing to starting at a much lower performance level?  After all, he’s slugged .299 in his limited MLB sample to date.  That’s twenty points lower than he ever slugged in the minors (and his MLB BA was thirty points lower than he ever hit in the minors).  Seems to me that he could improve dramatically and still suck.

Also, if you want to judge his power potential, it might be better to look at his improvement in ISO rather than SLG on repeating a level, so that you’re not double-counting any improvement in BA.

Oh, and finally a nit-pick—most people consider short season A and full season A to be different levels.  The .418 was in his first crack at the FSL.

Is carrying five OF + a DH who can only play LF if he ever does pick up a glove, while carrying only one backup IF really the best roster construction?

According to TheBaseballCube Gardner did play 3rd once in the minors…

Actually, I did give that some thought.  But the loser of the Berroa/Ransom derby I’m guessing is more likely than not to be released/waived, regardless of what happens in CF.  And I don’t think they’re ready to promote any of AAA players yet.  So I’m just figuring that the other backup IF isn’t in the plans at all.

I suppose one option would be if Melky has a decent spring and Gardner just outplays him, see if Melky could bring back a decent backup.  E.g. if a team that isn’t going to contend this year has a starting IF with a big contract or something.

Seems to me that he could improve dramatically and still suck.

There ARE different levels of suck of course.  I mean, replacement-level with the bat sucks, but with Gardner’s other skills (speed and defense) still deserves to be on a Major League roster.  OPS+ of 80 sucks too, but if Gardner does that in 500PA with 30-40 steals (80% or better success rate) and plays +5 defense in CF, I think that would be okay.  Maybe not award him the starting-spot next year OK, but probably sufficient.

That list wasn’t NEARLY as bad as I feared it would be.  Yes, there are a bunch of guys on that list who clearly couldn’t hack it in the majors, but there are also a large number of guys who got hundreds of plate appearances and actually contributed. 

I won’t bother hoping for Brian Roberts or Kenny Lofton… but I will quietly wish for Orlando Palmiero.  With sick speed and plus D in center.

The original post is really interesting, but another table with only outfielders would have eliminated some of the noise. Speedy, light hitting infielders can’t be in the same comp group.

Aren’t speedy CF with + defense more comparable to middle infielders than corner outfielders?

Is carrying five OF + a DH who can only play LF if he ever does pick up a glove, while carrying only one backup IF really the best roster construction?.

i think the question is, who is this mystery player that gets that spot?  i can’t really think of anyone unless they sign a FA. 

that doesn’t mean there won’t be more players that get waived during the season, or released at the end of ST. 

it SEEMS like the Yankees have an extra roster spot to play with b/c for the first time in 5 years, 1B is covered by one player.  the Yankees have been forced to burn a spot on a Phelps /Phillips / Mientkiewicz/ Olerud / Clark / Sexson/ Tino.v2/ etc to caddy for old man Giambi.  Teixeira is going to play 150+ games this year. 

but you are right, a Chone Figgens would be an ideal guy to give that last spot to.

the loser of the Berroa/Ransom derby I’m guessing is more likely than not to be released/waived, regardless of what happens in CF

I don’t think the loser needs to be waived.  Berroa is an NRI and Ransom has options left, right?  Anyway, I only mentioned it because it seems that they’ve carried a backup corner IF at the start of each of the past several seasons.  Of course, that was probably dictated to some extent by Giambi’s presence on the team.

I won’t bother hoping for Brian Roberts or Kenny Lofton… but I will quietly wish for Orlando Palmiero.  With sick speed and plus D in center.

Yeah, Palmeiro seems like a pretty close match and not an unreasonable goal. 

Brian Cashman once said something like “Juan Pierre with more walks” in reference to Gardner.  I’d be pretty happy with that as well.  For all the crap he gets, Pierre’s been a decent player overall (offense plus baserunning plus defense), even if he’s ridiculously overpaid now.

Brian Cashman once said something like “Juan Pierre with more walks” in reference to Gardner.  I’d be pretty happy with that as well

me too, except Pierre doesn’t strike out.

to me, that’s where the comparison falls apart. Pierre is a career .300 hitter and has averaged around 200 hits per 162 season.  for Gardner to add those hits, he’s going to have to put more balls in play, which is going to mean fewer walks.

I don’t think the loser needs to be waived.

No, I don’t think they *need* to be waived, I just think it’s likely, especially if Berroa is the loser.  That’s just a feeling.

to me, that’s where the comparison falls apart.

Well Gardner obviously walks more; so do the extra walks and extra K’s balance out?  Or at least close enough, given that I think Gardner has a (slight) edge in baserunning, and maybe even in defense?  Don’t know; I expect we’ll find out over the next several months.

Fascinating study/ Of course, it doesn’t prove anything.  Gardner will be judged on his own performance.  I’m hoping he will hit righties adequately enough to be platooned in CF—more likely with Swisher than with Melky.

for Gardner to add those hits, he’s going to have to put more balls in play, which is going to mean fewer walks

Wait, what?  You mean he can’t just decide to put more balls in play only in those PAs where he otherwise would have struck out? 

do the extra walks and extra K’s balance out?  Or at least close enough, given that I think Gardner has a (slight) edge in baserunning, and maybe even in defense?

But it’s still where the comparison falls apart though, because the players are qualitatively different even if they end up having quantitatively similar value.

FWIW, Gardner’s ISO in AAA, first time: 0.072.  Second time: 0.126.  ML, first time: 0.071.  What does one expect here?  Lofton was 0.124 for his career.  Of course as noted earlier I’m not concerned about his power per se.

I think the best estimate of his MiL performance is his compensated level.  One can still argue about how compensating vs non-compensating players do in the ML - I’ve asked here about this of course.  It’s not obvious to me that the former shouldn’t do better relative to innate talent.

I just think it’s likely, especially if Berroa is the loser.

You missed my point.  You don’t need to ask for waivers on a player who isn’t on your roster; in fact, I’m pretty sure that you can’t waive a player who isn’t on your roster.  What would be the point, when you can just assign him to the minors (assuming he’ll go if he’s a veteran) or release him?

Ransom is on the 40-man and he would have to be waived if he is out of options.

IOW, I was talking about whether the rules would require the player to be waived, not whether organizational issues would require the player to be released.

Ransom has a 62-inch vertical leap (I take it not measured the standard way).

I would want Brett on the team just for his D and pinch-running abilities, if nothing more.  However, to be a worthwhile starter, it seems to me he needs to hit for more power.  If you look at his minor league and major league numbers, Brett always strikes out over 20% of the time.  When he was in the minors, he drew a lot of walks, which largely offset the Ks.  In NY, however, his walk rate dropped to the 5% range, suggesting that opposing pitchers decided not to throw him a lot of pitches outside the strike zone.  When he swung at pitches that were IN the strike zone, Brett made contact 96.5% of the time.  If he had played something like a full season, that rate would put him in the top 1% of hitters in making contact. 

It just seems to me that a guy who sees that many strikes and can hit them, but who nevertheless can only manage a BA of .228 and a SLG of .299, just isn’t hitting the ball hard enough.  Maybe that’s overly simplistic, and someone can enlighten me with a better interpretation of the numbers. 

On the other hand, just intuitively, it seems that Brett could make a better showing this year simply by adjusting to the fact that he’s never, ever going to see a pitch outside the strike zone.  That way, he will stop trying to draw a walk—a big part of his game in the minors—and swing at a higher percentage of the pitches he sees.  Apparently as a result of trying to work a walk, he only swung at 48.5 percent of pitches in the zone during his time with the big club.  At that rate, he would be dead last in the majors in the category of getting the bat off his shoulder.  Just putting the ball in play a lot more would improve his OBA, if he can see fit to make that adjustment rather than trying to draw walks against pitchers who will never throw him a pitch outside the zone.

Gardner is going to be an interesting case study, and for mostly larger reasons (i.e. the team will be great), i am hoping that Posada/Swisher/Cano/Matsui all have solid years so that they can afford to give Gardner 500 ABs.

i’m pretty curious what will happen.

You missed my point.

Yes, I did.  I was using waive/release synonymously, which of course is not correct.

also, how likely is it that Cody Ransom can actually hit a little??

he’s a total enigma, b/c his minor league number are not terrible (caveats about his age apply, etc) and his major league numbers are also pretty good (caveats about the sample size, etc.)...

not looking for miracles, but is something like .260/.320/.400 out of the question?  for a utility IFer, i think we’d all take that.

we’re all assuming they need an upgrade at utility IFer, but i wonder if Ransom gets 200 ABs if he could pleasantly surprise.

probably not, i admit, but he has shown enough pop in the minors to be interesting.

but you are right, a Chone Figgens would be an ideal guy to give that last spot to.

They could have grabbed Miguel Cairo. I think he’s on an ML deal with the Phillies. He offers the 2B/SS/3B as well as some OF in a pinch. Maybe Cashman is done with Cairo because of how Torre used him way too much, but for the spot you’re talking about, Cairo fits in nicely.

not looking for miracles, but is something like .260/.320/.400 out of the question?  for a utility IFer, i think we’d all take that.

Ransom also ran into a few last year. He’s got nice short power stroke.. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could put up that line. I think the issue with Ransom is that his defense doesn’t work as a BUI.

it seems that Brett could make a better showing this year simply by adjusting to the fact that he’s never, ever going to see a pitch outside the strike zone

The problem with this is that it sort of assumes the outcome.  Gardner will never, ever see a pitch outside the strike zone as long as he remains an easy out on pitches in the strike zone.  Swinging at more pitches won’t help unless he is hitting those pitches with some authority.  If he does hit the ball with authority, then he will indeed start to see pitches outside the strike zone with greater frequency, and swinging at more of those pitches won’t be a good idea.

BTW- All this talk about Gardner stealing 30-40 bases if he were given 500 PA’s seems a little too conservative. I’d expect him to be an absolute terror on the bases ... 60-70 SBs.

I think the issue with Ransom is that his defense doesn’t work as a BUI.

i’m not saying you are wrong, but is that the concern? 

i seem to think that most people want an offensive upgrade, regardless of defense.  that is why everyone is suggesting the Yankees make every FA infielder the utility guy regardless of whether or not they actually play more than 1 position.

i’m not saying you are wrong, but is that the concern? 

Well to me, the purpose of the BUI, BUC, 4th (5th) OF is primarily plus defense.  They become an asset as late game subs.

BTW- All this talk about Gardner stealing 30-40 bases if he were given 500 PA’s seems a little too conservative. I’d expect him to be an absolute terror on the bases ... 60-70 SBs.

Of course, this gets back to stealing first base (ie—OBP).  It also gets to having the base in front of you open to steal, and to some extent, game situation considerations (ie—everybody’s going to get a red light sometimes).  Gardner had eleven non-PR SB attempts in 141 PA of .283 OBP (sadly, I have those numbers memorized).  500/141=3.5; .340/.283=1.2; 1.2*3.5=4.3; 4.3*11=47.  You can’t steal 70 bases in 47 attempts, even with Gardner’s speed.

what if he keeps running all the way to 3B? is that 2 steals per 1 attempt?  kindof like when Willie Mays Hayes scored from 2B on a bunt in Major League.

sadly, I have those numbers memorized

Imagine what you could do if you used your powers for good instead of inane?

500/141=3.5; .340/.283=1.2; 1.2*3.5=4.3; 4.3*11=47

I did say 500 PA’s, but this kind of proves me point a bit, no? Using Gardner’s rates in his 2 MLB stints - the first when he was just called up and another when the Yankees were basically out of it - and you get 47 SB’s.  Maybe Gardner wins the job out of ST and keeps it and ends up closer to 550-575 PA’s, gets a little better picking his spots when runs and all of a sudden you’re closing in on 55-60 SBs instead of the 30-40 that other folks have thrown out there.

FWIW, the worst projection of Gardner’s OBP from Fangraphs .322. Bill James has him at .367, probably just to mess with all of us.

Man I haven’t been posting enough. My grammar and typing is terrible. Sorry.

It seems that if Gardner’s OBP is .283 he won’t be getting to 550 PA (hopefully).  If Gardner can get on base enough to justify being a starter, I think 50+ steals are very realistic.  No need to talk about picking his spots better.

Also, your subject-verb agreement could use some de-rusting as well.

you get 47 SB’s

No, you get 47 attempts.  You “only” get 43 SB, and that assumes that he steals at a 91% rate (10/11).  It’s probably wise to figure on a success rate closer to 85%, which would give you 40 SB, which is in the range you were calling “too conservative.”  Again, in case it wasn’t clear the first time, I excluded his 3 for 3 in SB as a PR.

gets a little better picking his spots

Well, it’s not like he picked very many bad spots.  He was 13/14, after all.  He needs to pick more spots if he’s going to steal more bases.  Seems to me that means he’ll actually have to get a little “worse” at picking his spots if he’s going to get up into the 60+ range in SB.  Even 650 PA with a .360 OBP only gets him to ~65 attempts, unless he attempts to steal at a higher rate (relative to times on base) than he did in 2008.

What’s the rate of getting to 1st on forces at 2nd?  Gardner should better that rate.

FYI—Jacoby Ellsbury 2008: 609PA, .336 OBP, 50 SB, 11 CS.

Also, Willie Taveras 2008: 538PA, .308 OBP, 68 SB, 7 CS.

What’s the rate of getting to 1st on forces at 2nd?

I don’t know where to find FC rates, but it’s also not as if I’ve excluded attempts that followed reaching via FC.  Those attempts are captured, albeit hidden.  Also, presumably some fraction of any increase in OBP would come at the expense of a few FC.

Sure, but 2008 is a small and (if he’s a regular) uncharacteristic sample.

More generally I wonder about the gets-to-first-w/<2-outs rate is for a fast guy low in the Yankees batting order.  One really wants a base stealer in front of a singles hitter.  Basically he should hit in front of himself.

<3…

Aren’t speedy CF with + defense more comparable to middle infielders than corner outfielders?

I don’t think so as there are often much less options for middle infielders than CF. Or I think an organization is more willing to sticky to a can’t hit but slick fielding infielder because the only other option is can’t hit and can’t field infielder. At CF, at least you can go with a good masher but poor fielder.

And is the consensus here Ransom is better than Berroa?

Melky being out of options means nothing imo.  The only reason he got a 1.4 million dollar contract was for insurance against Gardner failing.  Ask yourself if Gardner could be a league average AL CF would you want Melky on the team over say Kapler or Baldelli?  Remember league average AL CF production is .269 ba, .334 obp, .412 slg for an ops of .746 with 16 home runs.  Brett will not get 16 home run but could get 5-8 with 50+ sb when the league average Center fielder got 9 sb. 

Melky didn’t come close league average last year.  Melky has gotten worse each season so that says to me the league knows how to pitch him.  Does anyone believe he would be claimed if DFA’d?  I don’t so off to AAA Melky and enjoy the bus rides.

Well, it’s not like he picked very many bad spots.  He was 13/14, after all.

I think you misunderstood me.. I was thinking more in terms of his number of attempts per times on base. The 13/14 is almost meaningless because of the sample size. Qualitatively, I’m talking about Gardner being a good base stealer instead of just a fast guy.

Remember the one time Gardner got picked off he still made it to second safely.

FYI—Jacoby Ellsbury 2008: 609PA, .336 OBP, 50 SB, 11 CS.
Also, Willie Taveras 2008: 538PA, .308 OBP, 68 SB, 7 CS.

Yes, exactly. Thi is what I would expect Gardner to do, which would make him pretty valuable in 550-600 PA’s. Hopefully he’s more Ellsbury and less Taveras.

I was thinking more in terms of his number of attempts per times on base.

So am I.  Why exactly should we expect that to increase?

Qualitatively, I’m talking about Gardner being a good base stealer instead of just a fast guy.

He already is a good base stealer as opposed to just a fast guy.  A very good base stealer, in fact.

Does anyone believe he would be claimed if DFA’d?  I don’t so off to AAA Melky and enjoy the bus rides.

I could see Cabrera getting claimed.  $1.4M ain’t going to break anybody’s bank.  And being out of options would still matter even if he cleared waivers at the end of ST.  You can only be outrighted to the minors once, so if they bring him back up at any point, he either stays on the 25-man roster from then on or they have to release him.

Ask yourself if Gardner could be a league average AL CF would you want Melky on the team over say Kapler or Baldelli?

Why should I ask myself that?  Those guys aren’t available.

Remember the one time Gardner got picked off he still made it to second safely.

This happens more often than you might think.

2008 is a small and (if he’s a regular) uncharacteristic sample.

Oh it’s small, alright, but I’m not sure why it’s uncharacteristic.  In his first stint, Gardner played in 17 of 20 games, starting 16 of those and entering in the third inning once (and finishing that game).  He was pinch-hit for once.  He was used as a regular.  In his second stint, he played only 25 out of 41 games starting 16 of them.  That is more sporadic usage, but it still projects to almost 300 PA over a full season, which isn’t exactly rotting on the bench.  Again, why exactly is it that we should think that his SB attempts per time on base were suppressed by his usage pattern?

Yes, exactly.

No.  Not exactly.  609 PA is 20% more than 500.  So how do we get Gardner more SB attempts in less playing time?  As for Taveras, his SB stats are utterly amazing considering his low PA and low OBP.  But Gardner ain’t going to get that many PAs if he’s putting up a .308 OBP, and he’s not going to get as many SB attempts per time on base playing for a high OBP team in a DH league (the next base will be occupied more often).  Believe it or not, Taveras was usually Colorado’s leadoff hitter.  When you follow the pitcher, the chances that there’s someone on second when you’re on first are significantly lower.

His rate of reaching first in that sample is lower than supportable for a starter on the Yankees; in a scenario where he gets 500+ PA he would have more opportunities to steal/PA.  Also I suspect he needs or needed to establish his reliability stealing before being allowed to take more risks.

“Taveras was usually Colorado’s leadoff hitter”

Sounds like he would have done well hitting 8th - a single would score him if he reached base, allowing a lot of production from a pitcher.

And is the consensus here Ransom is better than Berroa?

I certainly am not convinced.

I think the consensus is that it’s hard not to be better than Ransom, but that it’s also hard not to be better than Berroa.

I think the best estimate of his MiL performance is his compensated level.  One can still argue about how compensating vs non-compensating players do in the ML - I’ve asked here about this of course.  It’s not obvious to me that the former shouldn’t do better relative to innate talent.

Ordinarily, I’d say that removing any data from a sample is counter-productive, but Dan Szymborski (ZiPS projection guy over at Baseball Think Factory) had an interesting post somewhere about how removing pinch-hitting stats from a player’s line when doing projections increases the accuracy of the projection.  I’m not sure we’d see the same effect if we remove first exposure to a level data, but it may be worth at least investigating.

Oh, and regarding Berroa vs. Ransom, Berroa’s average projection is .246/.290/.354,  58 BR/650 PA.  Ransom’s average projection is .228/.300/.410, 70 BR/650.  I’d imagine defense shrinks the gap somewhat, although I’m not sure how much.  I’d assume that the difference between the two in the role of utility infielder is minimal as long as they’re not pressed into full-time duty.

“Ordinarily, I’d say that removing any data from a sample is counter-productive”

We do this all the time when we discount data because a player was injured, or hadn’t learned a dominant pitch he now commands.  You don’t project using spring training ABs.  If you asked whether Rilkekind speaks English, I could annoyingly report his time-averaged vocabulary over his lifetime, having taken the data.  If one asked before last season, how well will Gardner do in the ML, it would have been sensible to look at his first-season/level stats and discount or anyway down-weight his second-season/level stats. [/hobby-horse]

The problem, I think, is that choosing what data to ignore or discount often amounts to assuming one’s conclusion. Learning a new pitch (or new words) is a clear example of a change in true talent level, but how often do we see those in anything but retrospect? In the particular case of Gardner, when we talk about what he’d have to do to be successful (cut down on Ks, have a high BABIP, more or less maintain walk rate, etc) what we’re doing is guessing about his ability/likelihood to have a change in talent level.

I’m not willing to say that there’s no predictive value in doing the selective-data-prediction rilkefan is advocating, just pointing out that it’s much easier to describe cases where it’d be useful in the abstract.

[81] See [24] for a gesture at a less bias-fraught procedure.  In [high-energy-particle] physics one tries to set up the complete analysis without actually looking at [any features of] the data [which might indicate the answer] but here I have to ask about control samples.

I should acknowledge the nitpick in [26], which weakens my argument.

Came across this article on HBT today.  Interesting, and of particular note (something I think most of us have accepted):

My original reason for looking this data up was to see how likely it was that almost all the Yankees’ woes in 2008 were due not to pitching or drama or Joe Girardi, but Jorge Posada (drop of 21, from 26 to five) being “replaced” by Jose Molina (7) and Ivan Rodriguez (0 with the Yankees). As no team has survived a catcher injury like that and made the playoffs in almost the last 80 years, I’d say that had far more to do with the problems than any big news item. You just can’t replace a good catcher; if you had two, you’d trade one for pitching or something.

Yeah, the Posada injury was devastating.

I’d imagine defense shrinks the gap somewhat, although I’m not sure how much. 

i thought Berroa was terrible defensively?  is Handsome Cody Ransom worse?  we probably have no way of knowing without relying on minor league defensive metrics.

i thought Berroa was terrible defensively?  is Handsome Cody Ransom worse?

Really tough to tell.  Berroa for his career looks like about a half-win below average per 150 games at SS (UZR).  And at his age he’d probably be worse.  He has no significant time at other IF positions.  Ransom has only played around 300 defensive innings at the ML level (about half those at SS).  On a rate-basis, he’s about a win below average at SS, and a little better at the other positions.  But obviously there are extreme SSS issues with his data.  FWIW, Chad Jennings thinks highly of Ransom’s defense; I know I’ve seen him play in SWB a few times but I don’t have any recollection of him “looking” good or bad.