Tuesday, November 10, 2009
2009 Yankees Season in Review: Brett Gardner
While we've apparently already kind of moved into off-season mode, I'm going to try and do a quick retrospective on the key players for the 2009 Yankees, which also should also help us think about what we should expect from them going forward where applicable.Since we've started talking about Brett Gardner in the prior thread, I'll start off with him.
Despite putting up respectable numbers in the minors, particularly in terms of OBP, there was a lot of concern about how Gardner's game would translate in the majors. If you looked at the track record of players similar to Gardner(high OBP, low SLG, high K rate) it was a somewhat valid concern.
So here's a look at Gardner's 2009 projections, pro-rated to what his actual PAs ended up being.
| brett gardner | PA | AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | SB | CS | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | BR/650 | wOBA | -2 Std | -1 Std | +1 Std | +2 Std | % |
| 2009 chone projection | 284 | 252 | 65 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 19 | 5 | 31 | 59 | .258 | .341 | .345 | 73 | .305 | .247 | .276 | .334 | .364 | 98.3% |
| 2009 marcel projection | 284 | 253 | 65 | 13 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 22 | 52 | .257 | .311 | .386 | 74 | .295 | .237 | .266 | .324 | .352 | 94.9% |
| 2009 pecota projection | 284 | 245 | 62 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 5 | 31 | 56 | .253 | .334 | .351 | 72 | .300 | .242 | .271 | .329 | .359 | 96.8% |
| 2009 tht projection | 284 | 251 | 63 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 17 | 3 | 31 | 54 | .251 | .338 | .349 | 74 | .305 | .247 | .276 | .334 | .364 | 98.3% |
| 2009 zips projection | 284 | 253 | 63 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 23 | 5 | 30 | 57 | .249 | .331 | .321 | 69 | .294 | .236 | .265 | .323 | .352 | 94.7% |
| 2009 cairo projection | 284 | 252 | 64 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 3 | 31 | 56 | .254 | .338 | .334 | 69 | .301 | .243 | .272 | .331 | .360 | 97.1% |
| 2009 bill james projection | 284 | 249 | 69 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 28 | 6 | 35 | 45 | .277 | .365 | .375 | 86 | .328 | .268 | .298 | .358 | .388 | 105.7% |
| 2009 average projection | 284 | 251 | 64 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 17 | 4 | 29 | 56 | .254 | .332 | .348 | 72 | .300 | .242 | .271 | .329 | .358 | 96.7% |
| 2009 actuals | 284 | 248 | 67 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 26 | 5 | 26 | 40 | .270 | .338 | .379 | 80 | .310 | .252 | .281 | .340 | .369 |
BR/650: Linear weights batting runs pro-rated to 650 PAs
wOBA: Weighted on-base average, a rate version of linear weights scaled to OBP
n Std: Standard deviation of wOBA using the formula SQRT(wOBA*(1.1-wOBA)/PA)
%: Percentage of projected wOBA compared to actual (less than 100 means the projection was worse than actual, greater than 100 means the projection was better than actual)
Aside from the Bill James projections, which were a little too bullish, the rest of the projections all missed low. The Hardball Times came the closest in terms of projected wOBA as a percentage of actual wOBA.
They were all generally low on the average, although with this type of playing time we're talking about a handful of hits. The biggest thing that I see here is that Gardner struck out 16 fewer times than his average projection expected, which meant more balls in play which surely meant a better chance of getting a few more hits. That he was able to do that while not walking much less than expected was a key factor in him being able to exceed his projected OBP.
Gardner hit for a little more power than expected, with an ISO (SLG - AVG) of .109 compared to a projected ISO of .097. He actually hit fewer doubles than projected, but made up for it with an extra 3B and an extra HR. DNYS suppressed non-HR extra base hits, which may have contributed to Gardner hitting a few less doubles than expected, but obviously when we're looking at the sample size we're looking at here, we shouldn't really make the assumption that Gardner blew away his projections. If a few batted balls had a different result his performance would have looked a lot different.
That being said, it's tough to consider Gardner's overall 2009 as anything but encouraging in my opinion. Yeah, he wasn't so good when he came back from injury or in the postseason, although his irregular playing time may have contributed to that. While his triple slash stats may or may not have benefited from some good fortune, if he can maintain the lower K rate without affecting the rest of the game, he has a good chance to hit for a decent enough average (.270-.280) or so to approach league average offensively (AL average CF has hit .269/.334/.410) over the last three seasons, especially if he sees a little uptick in his power as most players do moving from their mid to late 20s.
A league average CF is around two wins above replacement level if he's an average fielder and baserunner, but Gardner should be better than that in both areas, maybe +10 or +15 in total. You probably have to assume that he should not play full-time against lefties if he's going to maintain that type of rate of performance, but TSBG looks like an asset in CF, maybe 2.5-3 WAR if he can do what he did in 2009 over 500 PAs.
Page 1 of 1 pages: