Free Agent Catchers

Now it is the end of the baseball season, and all that is left is the World Series. After that is decided we enter the off-season. The season where free-agents must be resigned by their former teams, or must sign with new teams.

Everybody knows there are alot of high-value free-agents out there, and many teams will covet their services. For this article I want to take a look at the ones that I believe can have a positive impact on any team next year.

This will be the first article of many in a series reviewing free-agents by position.

What these articles will be, is basically a small scouting report on each free-agent, that you can refer to in the future, to know how valuable each player is.

This article, as can be seen in the title, will look at this years crop of free-agent catchers.

Before I get started I would like to point out that this year's crop of free-agent catchers is very sub-par. There are only a few catchers available that have the capability to make a noticeable difference for any team.

The free-agent list consisted of 31 catchers. I cut this list down to ten, based on which catchers I believe can possibly make an immediate positive impact on whatever team they sign with.

The ten catchers on my new list were Jason Varitek, Doug Mirabelli, Todd Greene, Gregg Zaun, Damian Miller, Mike Redmond, Mike Matheny, John Flaherty, Todd Pratt, and Javier Valentin.

My opinions on these catchers were based on their age, recent performance, ballpark factors, career numbers, and translated statistics.

Translated statistics are player's numbers adjusted for ballpark factors, quality of competition (pitching), and league offensive level.

In the scouting reports, these translated statistics will be followed by Equivlent Average (EqA). Equivalent Average is a measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EqA considers batting as well as baserunning, but not the value of a position player's defense. The scale is deliberately set to approximate that of batting average. Average is .260.

--Definition of EqA provided by Baseball Prospectus.

Here is a small scouting report on each of those free-agents. Each player will be listed by ranking of which catcher I believe is the best available. Players age for 2005 season in parenthesees.

Actual statistics and translated statistics are present in scouting reports. Translations are performed by Clay Davenport at Baseball Prospectucs.

1. Jason Varitek (33)- Signed with Red Sox, 4 years ($40 million) 2004 #'s- .296/.390/.482, .872 OPS, 18 HR, 126/62 K/BB, 47.3 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .292/.390/.485, .300 EqA////Coming of his career-best season according to OPS///Has spent his whole career in Fenway Park--a slight hitter's park///Career batting line of .271/.347/.451--///Translated career batting line of .269/.349/.456, .275 EqA////Career K/BB ratio is less than 2/1--///


2. Doug Mirabelli (34)- Signed with Boston (2 years-$3 million) 2004 #'s- .281/.331/.525, .856 OPS, 9 HR, 46/19 K/BB, 15.8 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .276/.366/.533, .299 EqA////Never has been a full time catcher////2004 represented his career highs in AVG/OBP/SLG and HR (tied-9 in 2001)///2.14/1 career K/BB////Career batting line of .242/.331/.426--good power///Translated career batting line of .243/.333/.431, .264 EqA////spent 4 of last 5 years in Fenway Park--a slight hitter's park///

3. Damian Miller (35)- Signed with Milwaukee (3 years-$8.5 million) 2004 #'s- .272/.339/.403, .742 OPS, 9 HR, 87/39 K/BB, 20.1 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .275/.344/.413, .263 EqA////Has hit between 9-13 HR every year since '99////Career 2.52/1 K/BB ratio/// Career batting line of .264/.331/.419--////Translated career batting line of .259/.325/.416, .256 EqA////'04 in Oakland in a neutral park, '03 in Wrigley Field--a slight pitcher's park, and '99-'02 in Arizona's Bank One Ballpark--a severe hitters park, and his SLG% in those years show it (.446,.446,.441,.424,.434)////

4. Gregg Zaun (34)- Signed with Bluejays, 1 year/$1.5 million 2004 #'s- .269/.367/.393, .760 OPS, 6 HR, 61/47 K/BB, 17.6 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .263/.368/.389, .267 EqA////Mostly a backup throughout career////Great career K/BB of 1.1/1, which surprisingly doesn't lead to high career OBP///Career batting line of .250/.331/.375--///Translated career batting line of .246/.336/.377, .252 EqA////Not alot of power, career high in HR is 7 (2000)////Spent 2000-2004 in moderate (Hou, Tor) to severe (KC, Col) hitter's parks////

5. Mike Redmond (34)- Signed with Minnesota (2 years-$1.8 million) 2004 #'s- .256/.315/.341, .656 OPS, 2 HR, 28/41 K/BB, 3.8 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .258/.316/.352, .237 EqA////Biggest question mark of all free agent catchers, look at translated career batting lines by year:

1998- .336/.374/.460, .286 EqA (118 AB)
1999- .299/.371/.351, .260 EqA (242 AB)
2000- .249/.308/.299, .218 EqA (210 AB)
2001- .314/.376/.438, .283 EqA (141 AB)
2002- .319/.386/.395, .274 EqA (256 AB)
2003- .242/.307/.325, .227 EqA (125 AB)
2004- ..238/.316/.352, .237 EqA (246 AB)

Ranked #5 because of possiblility of repeating either 2001 or 2002 as a backup////Very little HR power (Career High 4 HR (2001)///Great career K/BB of 1.61/1--////Possibly too old to even consider a repeat of "glory years"////Translated career batting line of .237/.287/.368, .254 EqA////Has spent entire career in severe pitchers park (FLA)///

6. Javier Valentin (29)- Signed with Reds, 1 yr/$450,000 2004 #'s- .233/.293/.381, .674 OPS, 6 HR, 36/17 K/BB, 1.9 VORP///2004 Translated Statistics- .237/.298/.381, .237 EqA////Ranked #6 simply because he is youngest of group and has improved in all categories over his 2003 campaign (.222/.254/.356, .610 OPS, 31/15 K/BB, 3 HR)////Career K/BB of 2.52/1--///Career batting line of .229/.283/.360--///Translated Career batting line of .237/.284/.361, .226 EqA////Out of Major League Baseball in 2000 and 2001///Since his return in 2002 has spent all his time in neutral parks (Cin, TB, and Min)

7. Todd Greene (34)- Signed with Rockies, 1 years ($750,000) 2004 #'s- .282/.325/.508, .833 OPS, 10 HR, 38/13 K/BB, 12.5 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .262/.305/.476, .263 EqA//// Strictly power as a backup his entire career (except '99 in Anaheim)////Horrible K/BB of more than 5.0/1 for his career (main reason for such low ranking)////Career batting line of .248/.279/.445--all power///Translated Career Batting line of .241/.273/.440, .240 EqA////spent last three seasons in hitter-friendly Texas and Colorado///

8. Todd Pratt (38)- Signed with Phillies, 1 year ($750,000) 2004 #'s- .258/.351/.367, .718 OPS, 3 HR, 38/18 K/BB, 4.9 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .258/.352/.355, .254 EqA////Has very little HR power (Career High 8 HR in 2000)////Career Backup//// Good Career K/BB of 2.03/1 which leads to high career OBP of .352--////Career batting line of .255/.352/.404--///Translated career batting line of .256/.351/.409, .267 EqA////going to be 38 next year///Last year was spent in new Philadelphia park, which turned out to be a slight hitters park///

9. John Flaherty (37)- Signed with NY Yankees (1 year) 2004 #'s- .252/.286/.465, .751 OPS, 6 HR, 25/5 K/BB, 3.8 VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .258/.293/.475, .253 EqA////Decent power (career high 14 HR in '99)////Career K/BB of 2.89/1////As a backup the last two years had great SLG% (.457 in '03, and .465 in '04) in slight pitchers park (NYY)////Career Batting line of .255/.293/.382--////Translated Career batting line of .256/.294/.390, .236 EqA////Going to be 37 next year////

10. Mike Matheny (34)- Signed with Giants, 3 years ($10.5 million) 2004 #'s- .247/.282/.348, .630 OPS, 5 HR, 83/28 K/BB, (-0.8) VORP////2004 Translated Statistics- .249/.294/.351, .225 EqA////Absolutely Horrible career batting line of .239/.293/.336--////Translated career batting line of .238/.292/.335, .222 EqA////Career high is 8 HR ('96 and '03)////Career K/BB of 2.42/1--////Great defensive catcher (only thing that must keep him around)////Since 2000 has played in moderate pitcher's park (StL)

After Varitek, there is a tremendous drop-off in the quality of catchers.

Another point to notice is that no catcher on this list, besides Valentin are on the good side of 30. They are all older, and can have a significant drop-off any time now. Another reason that this is a sub-par crop of free agent catchers.

Any of the free-agent catchers I left off this list can obviously have an impact on a team as well, but based on their age, career numbers, recent numbers, and translated numbers, they have a much smaller chance, and therefore weren't included in my scouting report.

For reference though, here is the complete list of catchers that are free-agents in 2004:

Einar Diaz
Robert Machado
Mike DiFelice
A.J. Hinch
Bobby Estaella
Gary Bennett
Pat Borders
Tim Laker
Ramon Castro
Jason Varitek
Sandy Alomar Jr.
Doug Mirabelli
Todd Greene
Gregg Zaun
Kelly Stinett
Mike Redmond
John Flaherty
Damian Miller
Dan Wilson
Brook Fordyce
Greg Myers
Brent Mayne
Todd Hundley
Todd Pratt
Mike Matheny
Chris Widger
Alberto Castillo
Keith Osik
Ken Huckaby
Paul Bako
Javier Valentin

If there are any catchers on this list that you think I should have prepared a scouting report for, please let me know by writing me an email at frnkbndy@yahoo.com. I will prepare a scouting report for any of these catchers if the complaint is reasonable.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

Hats Off, Redsox!!

I do this not because I am a die-hard Boston Redsox fan. I do this because what the Redsox accomplished last night (October 20, 2004) by defeating the New York Yankees 10-3 in Yankee Stadium, was absolutely, without a doubt, unbelieveable.

They not only made history by forcing a game 7 after being down 3-0 in a best of seven series, they made history by winning that game 7, and therefore winning the series. The first team to accomplish both feats.

So I have nothing else to say but:

HATS OFF TO THE REDSOX

P.S. The curse is not reversed until the Redsox win a World Series.

Palmeiro vs. other First Basemen of his Era.

In my last article "Rafael Palmeiro in Hall of Fame? Of course." I showed that Rafael Palmeiro can be mentioned in the same breath as Willie McCovey, and therefore is better than about half of the current Hall of Fame first basemen, which makes him an easy Hall of Famer.

To counter this though, I get arguments that Palmeiro wasn't the best first basemen in his era, and because of this, he should not get voted into the Hall of Fame. I decided to compare him to the other first basemen of his era, to see if this was true.

The first basemen I used in this comparison were:

Jeff Bagwell (through 2004)
Mark McGwire
Fred McGriff
John Olerud (through 2004)
Mark Grace
Will Clark

Here are their stats [AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS, HR, Hits (ranking in OPS)]

Jeff Bagwell: .297/.408/.542, .950 OPS, 446 HR, 2289 Hits (2)

Fred McGriff: .284/.377/.509, .886 OPS, 493 HR, 2490 Hits (4)

John Olerud: .295/.399/.465, .864 OPS, 248 HR, 2189 Hits (6)

Mark Grace: .303/.383/.442, .825 OPS, 173 HR, 2445 Hits (7)

Mark McGwire: .263/.394/.588, .982 OPS, 583 HR, 1626 Hits (1)

Will Clark: .303/.384/.497, .881 OPS, 284 HR, 2176 Hits (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Palmeiro: .298/.372/.517, .889 OPS, 551 HR, 2922 Hits (3)

According the the OPS ranking, Palmeiro is the third best first basemen of his era.

Now the question is, "Should his ranking in his era effect his bid to the Hall of Fame?" My answer is no.

Palmeiro still put up the numbers, and still hit 551 HR; both of which have nothing to do with Jeff Bagwell, and Mark McGwire (the two 1B ranked higher than Palmeiro).

A player with Palmeiro's career numbers shouldn't be criticized because there happened to be two first basemen playing at the same time as him, who were better.

Now I could understand the argument of not putting Palmeiro into the Hall of Fame because of him not being the best first basemen in his era IF he weren't better than about half of the current first basemen already in the Hall of Fame, but he IS. (see last article "Rafael Palmeiro in Hall of Fame? Of course.")

So again, it is clear that Palmeiro should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. And, of course, so should Jeff Bagwell and Mark McGwire, who were even better than Palmeiro.

Sidenote: I decided not to use Frank Thomas in the comparison because he WILL enter the Hall of Fame as a DH. If I did use Thomas, who did play some first base, his numbers looked like so:

Thomas (through 2004): .308/.429/.567, .996 OPS, 436 HR, 2113 Hits (1)

Thomas would have been the best player of them all.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

Rafael Palmeiro in Hall of Fame?? Of Course.

I don't know why, but there is some debate on whether Rafael Palmeiro should be inducted into the Hall of Fame when he is eligible. I do not know the reasons that people have to not induct him, but I am going to present you with reasons why he IS a Hall of Famer.

Throughout Rafael Palmeiro's storied career he was by-and-large a First Baseman. Since this is the position that he will be inducted under, let's compare him to the other, modern-era, non negro-league, first basemen already in the Hall of Fame.

I am going to look at the hitting lines of all the Hall of Famers compared to Palmeiro's.

***I was going to use K/BB ratio in this comparison, but I decided against it because it does not matter if a player struck out alot, or even walked a very small amount; all that matters is that the numbers presented on the hitting lines were put up by each player--regardless of how they did it.***

Hitting Lines go as follows: AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS, HR, Hits (Ranking in OPS)

Lou Gehrig- .340/.447/.632, 1.079, 493 HR, 2721 Hits (1)

Jimmie Foxx- .325/.428/.609, 1.037, 534 HR, 2646 Hits (2)

Hank Greenberg- .313/.412/.605, 1.017, 331 HR, 1628 Hits (3)

Harmon Killebrew- .256/.379/.509, .888, 573 HR, 2086 Hits (8)

Orlando Cepeda- .297/.350/.499, .849, 379 HR, 2351 Hits (9)

George Kelly- .297/.342/.452, .794, 148 HR, 1778 Hits (13)

Willie McCovey- .270/.374/.515, .889, 521 HR, 2211 Hits (6)

Johnny Mize- .312/.397/.562, .959, 359 HR, 2011 Hits (4)

Eddie Murray- .287/.359/.476, .835, 504 HR, 3255 Hits (11)

Tony Perez- .279/.341/.463, .804, 379 HR, 2732 Hits (12)

George Sisler- .340/.379/.468, .847, 102 HR, 2812 Hits (10)

Bill Terry- .314/.393/.506, .899, 154 HR, 2193 Hits (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Palmeiro (after 2004)- .289/.372/.517, .889, 551 HR, 2922 Hits (6)

The ranking at the end, OPS, is where I would rank Palmeiro within these Hall of Fame First Basemen.

OPS, in the Authors's belief, is the best all around stat for measuring exactly what a hitter is trying to do at the plate--get on base, get around the bases, and get others around the bases. This ranking system puts him sixth, tied with Willie McCovey, Palmeiro had more HR though.

Looking at that ranking, and combining it with Palmeiro's HR, it is clear that Palmeiro was a better first basemen than Willie McCovey; who is the sixth best 1B in the Hall of Fame now. That kind of puts this debate into perspective, huh?

The total Hits statistic used at the end of each player's hitting line is a stat I am not really fond of, but I used it because 3000 hits is seen as that magic number which equals an "automatic" bid into the Hall of Fame. And as can be seen, unless a tragedy happens, Palmeiro will surpass 3000 hits next year in 2005.

There is also another number which is viewed as an "automatic" bid to the Hall of Fame, a bid which Palmeiro already secured in 2003. This "automatic" bid is the number 500.

Five hundred Home Runs, that is.

So besides the fact that Palmeiro is already the sixth best First Basemen in the group of current Hall of Famers, he is going to have already secured the two "automatic" bids by next year--500 HR, and 3000 Hits. The only other 1B to do that was Eddie Murray.

Congratulations Raffy.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

Mistake on October 14, 2004 ("Sosa for Soriano??")

For those of you who read my post "Sosa for Soriano??" posted yesterday, October 14, 2004, let me apologize for that being a rough copy that I posted by accident.

In the middle of writing, and doing research for the article, I was forced to leave my computer for reasons beyond my control and I accidentally posted the article, instead of just saving it.

So if you read yesterday's post "Sosa for Soriano??" please read the latest version (directly below this post), posted on October 15, 2004. It is much different than the rough copy that was accidentally posted yesterday.

I apologize for this error.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggetions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com

Sosa For Soriano??

During my latest viewing of many baseball websites, blogs, and forums I happened to see some articles and comments about the Chicago Cubs trading their beloved hero, Sammy Sosa to the Texas Rangers for free-swinging Alfonso Soriano.

Now I am not sure of any other players in the deal. I've heard names like Chan-Ho Park, and Mark Grudzielanek, but for now I am just going to look at Soriano and Sosa.

I want to see if this trade would be a good or bad trade for the Rangers. At first glimpse I thought, a young Alfonso Soriano for the aging Sosa would be a bad trade for the Rangers. Let's see if my initial reaction was correct.

First I checked Sosa's numbers the last three years to see how bad his recent decline really is.

Here are his numbers the previous three years:

2004: .253/.332/.517, .849 OPS, 133/56 (2.37) K/BB, 0 SB, 0 CS, 35 HR, 30.0 VORP

2003: .279/.358/.553, .911 OPS, 143/62 K/BB (2.31), 0 SB, 1 CS, 40 HR, 44.5 VORP

2002: .288/.399/.594, .993 OPS, 144/103 K/BB (1.40), 2 SB, 0 CS, 49 HR, 70.5 VORP

Every single category on the previous lines, beside SB's and CS's--which aren't relevant for Sosa anymore--, are in a steady decline.

Let's look at the drop in each category (beside SB):

Difference in 2003 compared to 2002 (2002 #'s minus 2003 #'s)

AVG: (-.009)
OBP: (-.041)
SLG: (-.036)
OPS: (-.082)
K/BB: (+0.91) Positive numbers are, obviously, bad in this case.
HR: (-9)
VORP: (-26.0)

Now, a look at the drop from 2003 to 2004 (2003 #'s minus 2004 #'s)

AVG: (-.026)
OBP: (-.026)
SLG: (-.041)
OPS: (-.062)
K/BB: (+0.06) Positive numbers are, obviously, bad in this case.
HR: (-5)
VORP: (-14.5)

Now that we know the numbers, lets project Sosa's 2005 season using the average drop in his last two seasons, and prorating them for 2005.

The upcoming prorated season most likely WILL NOT happen, but I do this just to show a "Worst-Case Scenario" for 2005.

Sammy Sosa 2005 prorated Worst-Case Scenario Season:

2005: .232/.287/.469, 756 OPS, 128/33 (3.88) K/BB, 28 HR, ***Cannot figure out VORP for next year***

Now that we see the Sammy Sosa's Worst-case Scenario 2005 Season, lets have a look at his Best Case Scenario season.

To figure out a "Best-case Scenario Season" I used 3/4 of the difference between Sosa's best season (2001), and his last season (2004), and then added that difference onto his 2004 numbers.

Sammy Sosa 2005 Best-Case Scenario Season:

**Again, since Sammy Sosa does not steal bases anymore, his stolen base statistics will not be used**

2005: .312/.416/.690, 1.106 OPS, 148/101 (1.46) K/BB, 57 HR

Again, this season will probably not happen for Sosa in 2005.

So now the last step to figuring out a probable 2005 season for Sammy Sosa is to "split the difference" between his Best, and Worst-Case Scenario 2005 Seasons.

Sammy Sosa 2005 "split difference" season:

.276/.362/.593, .955 OPS, 138/67 (2.06) K/BB, 43 HR

Thats a very good season. Now let's compare this 2005 version of Slammin' Sammy to a "split the difference" 2005 season by Alfonso Soriano.

First, let's look at Alfonso Soriano's last 3 Seasons:

2002: .300/.332/.547, .879 OPS, 157/23 (6.83) K/BB, 41 SB, 12 CS, 77 SB%, 28 HR, 77.6 VORP
2003: .290/.338/.525, .863 OPS, 130/38 (3.42) K/BB, 35 SB, 8 CS, 81 SB%, 38 HR, 69.9 VORP
2004: .280/.324/.484, .808 OPS, 121/33 (3.67) K/BB, 18 SB, 5 CS, 78 SB%, 39 HR, 40.5 VORP

Now, using the same method I used to project Sammy Sosa's Worst-Case Scenario season, here is Soriano's Worst-Cast scenario season:

**Please note that even though Soriano's numbers have declined every year, he has actually improved his K/BB from his ridiculous 2002 season. Since his other numbers continue to decline in spite of the improvement in the K/BB, I will continue to project his K's and BB's on the same curve as his other numbers. Basically, what I am saying is that, in Soriano's Worst-Case Scenario season, his K/BB ratio will actually improve, while his other numbers will worsen--much like he has done throughout his brief career.***

Alfonso Soriano's 2005 prorated Worst-Case Scenario Season:

2005: .266/.318/.443, .761 OPS, 104/38 (2.74) K/BB, 7 SB, 2 CS, 78 SB%, 22 HR

Now, using Soriano's 2002 Season as his best year, I am going to use 3/4 of the difference between that season and this latest season (2004), to figure out Soriano's Best-Case scenario season; just as I figured out Sosa's.

Alfonso Soriano's 2005 prorated Best-Case Scenario Season:

2005: .295/.344/.533, 877 OPS, 148/41 (3.60) K/BB, 35 SB, 10 CS, 78 SB%, 36 HR

Now, let's "split the difference" between Soriano's Worst and Best-Case scenario 2005 seasons to find out his probable 2005 season.

Alfonso Soriano 2005 "split difference" season:

2005: .283/.334/.493, .827 OPS, 126/40 (3.15) K/BB, 21 SB, 6 CS, 78 SB%, 29 HR

Now let's look at Sammy Sosa's, and Alfonso Soriano's "split differences" seasons.

Alfonso Soriano
2005: .283/.334/.493, .827 OPS, 126/40 (3.15) K/BB, 21 SB, 6 CS, 78 SB%, 29 HR

Sammy Sosa
2005: .276/.362/.593, .955 OPS, 138/67 (2.06) K/BB, 43 HR

Sammy Sosa, according to this system, will have a much better year at the plate than Soriano will. Soriano will steal bases though, while Sosa will steal none.

While SB's are a huge part of baseball, I believe that they are not as meaningful as a player's performance at the plate (AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS, and HR), because "you can't steal first base."

It is clear to see that if the Rangers completed this trade, they would be looking to Sosa to pay dividends immediately, which might be a stretch because of his age. The problem is that they couldn't count on Sosa for too much longer after that.

If one were to take into accordance the fact that Sosa is going to be 36 years old next year, with Soriano only being 29 years old, then it is reasonable to believe that Sosa's 2005 season will be closer to his Worst-Case scenario season, while Soriano's season will be closer to his Best-Case Scenario Season.

One could also look at the fact that if the trade were to happen, Sosa would be moving into The Ballpark at Arlington, a "severe hitter's park"-according to Baseball Prospectus, and Soriano would be moving into Wrigley Field, a "slight pitchers park."

Now, I cannot make a projection on how each players season will be affected by their age, except for the fact that it is widely known--and common sense for that matter--that players abilities decline with age.

So, as stated earlier, Soriano's numbers have a better chance of ending up on the "better side" of his "split difference"season, while Sosa's numbers have a better chance of ending up on the "worse side" of his split difference season. As a matter of fact, since Soriano is only 29 next year, he actually has a chance to surpass his best-case scenario season; Sosa also has a chance to do the same--but a much smaller chance because of his age. For the sake of argument though, I will keep both player's best-case scenario season as is.

I can, however, project Sosa's and Soriano's numbers in their new ballparks if the trade were to happen by using the ballpark factors provided by Baseball Prospectus.

Here are Sammy Sosa's, and Alfonso Soriano's "split difference" season, park-adjusted:

***Note, only hitting numbers (AVG/OBP/SLG, OPS, and HR will be affected***

Alfonso Soriano
2005 (in Wrigley Field): .276/.327/.481, .808 OPS, 28 HR

Sammy Sosa
2005 (in Arlington): .290/.379/.625, 1.004 OPS, 45 HR

Wow, The Ballpark in Arlington really is a "severe hitter's park." Soriano's number did slightly dip in Wrigley field.

So now the question is, "Even though Sosa may decline because of age, will a 2005 in decline by Sosa, in Arlington, be as good as a better-than-average 2005 by Soriano, in Arlington?"

The answer to that question is that a declined season by Sosa, if only a slight decline, in Arlington, against a improved season by Soriano in Arlington, would still favor Sosa, except for Stolen Bases.

So my initial reaction wasn't wrong or right. If the Rangers are looking for a short-term answer, Sosa could be that answer--especially in Arlington. If they are looking toward the future, Soriano is the answer.

So now I must ask, "Are the Rangers willing to lose Soriano, when he is only 29 years old next year, in exchange for a possible great one season by 36 year old Sammy Sosa?"

Now I cannot answer that question, but I believe with the core of young players that Texas has on it's Major League Club now (Young, Tiexara, Blalock, Soriano, Nix, Mench, Drese...), they definitely have a close eye on the future, and look like they want to keep Soriano.

Then again, who's to say that maybe the Rangers wouldn't be willing to trade away one of their youngsters, since they have so many, for a veteran, proven leader.

It is also important to remember that by not trading Soriano, the Rangers would keep him in the the bandbox that they call home, The Ballpark in Arlington. So Soriano would stay the benefactor of the ballpark's small dimensions.

It is my belief that if the Rangers were to go through with this trade, all they would be doing is reducing their odds of having multiple above-average years turned-in by one of their players (either Sosa or Soriano) in the next three to five years.

Now that my initial question, "Is this a good or bad trade for the Rangers?" has no definitive answer, I will give my opinion on what I would do.

I think it would be a good trade for the Rangers organization because they have so many young players that they can afford to get rid of one of them and bring in a proven veteran whose numbers will only get better in Arlington. I would do the trade straight up, without looking at the money aspect. If I do look at the money aspect though, this is what I see:

"If Sosa were to stay with the Cubs next season, they would owe him $17 million for the year and face either an $18 million option in 2006 or a $4.5 million buyout.

If he's traded, however, the 2006 option is guaranteed and 2007 becomes a $19 million option year with a $4.5 million buyout."

-Courtesy of T.J. Quinn, writer for the New York Daily News.

So after looking at the money, of course I would not complete the trade. Even though I believe it is a good trade for Texas.

If other players are involved in this deal though, everything changes.

Also, it is important to remember that these numbers are just projections, and nowhere near fact. I do believe they are a good base though, for comparing these players.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

Question: Why aren't the Cubs in the Post-Season?? Answer: I have no idea.

What I am about to present is something I did not think was possible....before I conducted the research for the article.

What I did not think was possible, was for a team to improve basically every aspect of their game from one year to the next, and then have a worse team that very next year; than the respective team the year before. Man, was I wrong.

Sadly, the example of this is the 2003 Chicago Cubs vs. the 2004 Chicago Cubs.

While watching this post-season I wondered why the Cubbies weren't partaking in the festivities. I decided to figure the answer out on my own. There always IS an answer, right??

I did a comparison of each postional player on the 2003 Cubs, who advanced to the NLCS, to the 2004 Cubs that missed the post-season.

I used VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) as my comparison stat. I used this because it measures the amount of runs a certain player creates--over a replacement player--, which is what directly leads to team wins and losses.

Here is each positional player's VORP for both 2003 and 2004:

2oo4 1B- Derrek Lee-46.5 VORP
2003 1B- Eric Karros/Hee Seop Choi/Randall Simon- 27.7 VORP

2004 2B- Todd Walker/Mark Grudzielanek- 43.0 VORP
2003 2B- Grudzielanek- 34.5 VORP

2004 3B- Aramis Ramirez- 62.8 VORP
2003 3B- Ramirez/Mark Bellhorn/Jose Hernandez/Lenny Harris- 5.5 VORP

2004 SS- Ramon Martinez/Nomar Garciaparra/Alex Gonzalez- 13.6 VORP
2003 SS- Gonzalez- 13.9 VORP

2004 RF- Sammy Sosa- 30.0 VORP
2003 RF- Sosa- 44.5 VORP

2004 LF- Moises Alou- 55.0 VORP
2003 LF- Alou- 30.5 VORP

2004 CF- Corey Patterson- 30.9 VORP
2003 CF- Patterson/Lofton- 47.6 VORP

2004 C- Michael Barrett- 33.6 VORP
2003 C- Damien Miller/Paul Bako- 5.3 VORP

2004 Positional Player Total VORP- 315.4
2003 Positional Player Total VORP- 209.5

It is very, very easy to see that this year's offense was much better thank last years, by 105.9 runs. This was not even close.

So it must have been Chicago's pitching, right???

Here is the comparison of Starting Pitchers (Using 5 Starting Pitchers):

2004 SP Greg Maddux-33.2 VORP
2004 SP Carlos Zambrano- 61.3 VORP
2004 SP Matt Clement- 36.9 VORP
2004 SP Kerry Wood- 27.9 VORP
2004 SP Glendon Rusch/Mark Prior - 51.8 VORP
(I use these two pitchers--Prior/Rusch-- to combine as one because if this was not done, the 2004 Cubs wouldn't have had at least 4 pitchers over 160 IP like their 2003 counterparts. Also I did not want to use Rucsh as part of the 2004 Chicago Bullpen because he was used primarily as a starter this year.)

2004 SP Total VORP- 211.1

2003 SP Carlos Zambrano- 47.4 VORP
2003 SP Mark Prior- 66.7 VORP
2003 SP Kerry Wood- 56.5 VORP
2003 SP Matt Clement- 27.6 VORP
2003 SP Shawn Estes- (-16.6) VORP

2003 SP Total VORP- 181.6

Okay, so now we know it wasn't the starting pitching that worsened the Cubs this year, they prevented 29.5 more runs (211.1 - 181.6). So it had to be the bullpen, right???

Top six relievers each year by IP:

2004 RP LaTroy Hawkins- 25.0 VORP
2004 RP Kyle Farnsworth- 3.2 VORP
2004 RP Kent Mercker- 18.6 VORP
2004 RP Jon Leicaster- 6.4 VORP
2004 RP Mike Remlinger- 7.2 VORP
2004 RP Francis Beltran- 3.2 VORP

2004 RP Total VORP- 63.6

2003 RP- Kyle Farnsworth- 16.6 VORP
2003 RP- Mike Remlinger- 13.0 VORP
2003 RP- Joe Borowski- 19.6 VORP
2003 RP- Antonio Alfonseca- (-1.6) VORP
2003 RP- Juan Cruz- (-5.7) VORP
2003 RP- Mark Guthrie- 12.6 VORP

2003 RP Total VORP- 54.5

What?? The 2004 bullpen was actually better. They prevented 9.1 more runs (63.6-54.5).

So what made the 2004 Cubs worse than the 2003 Cubs? After looking at these numbers I figured it had to be some unknown factor, or player. I figured I can find this out by looking at the final 2003 and 2004 statistics, because these stats will account for all of the players that I did not include in my analysis.

Here are those numbers:

Offense

2004- .268/.328/.458, .786 OPS, 1080/489=(2.20) K/BB, 235 HR
2003- .259/.323/.416, .739 OPS, 1158/492=(2.35) K/BB, 172 HR

Pitching

2004- 3.81 ERA, 1346/545=(2.47) K/BB, 1.30 WHIP, 169 HR Allowed
2003- 3.83 ERA, 1404/617=(2.27) K/BB, 1.32 WHIP, 143 HR Allowed

These numbers do not provide an answer either.

The only category where last year's Cubs are substantially better are in HR allowed, they allowed 26 less HR.

Though this statistic is important, in my opinion, it is just a fragement of what is represented in ERA, and the 2004 Cubs are equal in that category.

It doesn't matter if your opponent, singles, doubles, triples, walks, or homers to get runs, all that matter is that they get runs. And opponents basically got the same amount of runs this year off the Cubs, as last year. (619 Earned Runs Allowed in 2003 vs. 621 Earned Runs Allowed in 2004)

So now, as a last resort, I checked Chicago's team pitching statistics for unearned runs to see if that was the cause for them not making the playoffs.

Here are those numbers:

2004- 665 Runs Against, 621 Earned Runs Against, 44 Unearned Runs Against(RA-ER Against)

2003- 683 Runs Against, 619 Earned Runs Against, 64 Unearned Runs Against.

No answer here, the 2004 Cubs were better again. Not just in unearned runs against, but total runs against.

There is no clear reason why the 2004 Cubs did not make the playoffs, and last year's team did. This makes no sense. So I have come to the conclusion that this must be just plain old bad luck for the 2004 Cubs.

To prove that they were cursed with horrible bad luck this year, I checked Baseball Prospectus for their Adjusted Standings.

To sum up what these adjusted standings show, they show how many games a team should have won and lost, based on their adjusted runs for and runs against. This report basically shows if a team is lucky, or unlucky.

If a team has won more games than their adjusted numbers suggest they should, the Delta (D3 in the standings) at the end of the report will be a positive number, indicating the number of games the team has won above what their adjusted record states. A team like that would be quote-unquote "lucky."

If a team (such as the 2004 Cubs) won less games than their adjusted record would show, the delta (D3) at the end of their report will show, with a negative number, how many games the team lost more than they should have. At team like this would be "unlucky."

Here is the Cubs 2004 Adjusted standings, and glossary, courtesy of Baseball Prospectus:

Team--W-----L
Cubs---88----73

RS------RA------W1------L1
779-----657-----93.2-----67.8

EQR---EQRA-----W2-----L2
799-----671------93.6-----67.4

AEQR-----AEQRA-----W3-----L3
784---------662-------93.1----67.9

--D1-----D2------D3
(-5.2)---(-5.6)---(-5.1)


Terms:

W, L : Actual team wins and losses.

RS, RA: Actual team runs scored and runs allowed.

W1, L1 ("First-order wins"): Pythagenport expected wins and losses, based onRS and RA.

EQR, EQRA: Equivalent runs scored and equivalent runs allowed (equivalent runs, generated from the opponent's batting line)

W2, L2 ("Second-order wins"): Pythagenport wins and losses, based on EQR andEQRA.

AEQR, AEQRA: EQR and EQRA, adjusted for strength of schedule: the quality of their opponent's pitching and hitting. If AEQR is higher than EQR,the team has faced better than average pitching; if AEQRA is higher than EQRA, the team has faced worse than average hitting.

W3, L3 ("Third-order wins"): Pythagenport wins and losses, based on AEQR and AEQRA.

D1, D2, D3: Deltas between actual wins and W1, W2, and W3. Positive numbers mean the team has won more games than expected from their statistics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. The Cubs lost 5 more games than they should have. (See D3) That's bad luck.

Usually, when comparing a team that did not make the postseason, to a team that did, there are defining statistics that will show why the first team was worse than the playoff team. For this year's Chicago Cubs though, there wasn't. As a matter of fact the 2004 Cubs were much better than the 2003 Cubs. They just had terrible, terrible luck.

I am sorry Cub fans. And I am sorry I cannot provide an answer.

I like to think of myself as someone who can come up with a better answer than "bad luck," but for this scenario, I cannot.

If any readers have a definite answer to this question, please write me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comment, concerns, or suggestions, or in this case, answers, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.

A look at all of the AL MVP candidates (Popular and Not)

Now that the season is over. Let's have a look at the final contenders for the American League MVP (not including pitchers). I will list all deserving candidates. The candidates will be broken down into two lists--Popular Choices and Not Popular Choices).

Popular Choices

Vladimir Guerrero(ANA) - .337/.391/.598, 15 SB, 3 CS, 83.3 SB%, 39 HR, 74/52(1.42) K/BB, .989 OPS, 93.2 VORP

Manny Ramirez(BOS) - .308/.397/.613, 2 SB, 4 CS, 33.3 SB%, 43 HR, 124/82(1.51) K/BB, 1.010 OPS, 70.0 VORP

David Ortiz(BOS) - .302/.380/.603, 0 SB, 0 CS, 0 SB%, 41 HR, 133/75(1.77) K/BB, .983 OPS, 73.1 VORP

Gary Sheffield(NYY) - .290/.393/.534, 5 SB, 6 CS, 45.5 SB%, 36 HR, 83/92(0.90) K/BB .927 OPS, 63.8 VORP

Not Popular Choices

Miguel Tejada(BAL) - .312/.360/.534, 4 SB, 1 CS, 80 SB%, 34 HR, 73/48(1.52) K/BB, .894 OPS, 79.1 VORP

Carlos Guillen(DET) - .318/.377/.542, 12 SB, 5 CS, 70.6 SB%, 20 HR, 87/52(1.67) K/BB, .919 OPS, 71.3 VORP

Alex Rodriguez(NYY) - .286/.375/.512, 28 SB, 4 CS, 87.5 SB%, 36 HR, 131/80(1.64) K/BB, .887 OPS, 63.0 VORP

Ichiro Suzuki(SEA)- .372/.413/.455, 36 SB, 11 CS, 76.6 SB%, 8 HR, 63/49(1.29) K/BB, .868 OPS, 79.2 VORP

Melvin Mora(BAL)- .340/.415/.562, 11 SB, 6 CS, 64.7 SB%, 27 HR, 95/66(1.44) K/BB, .977 OPS, 79.3 VORP

Travis Hafner(CLE)- .311/.408/.583, 3 SB, 2 CS, 60 SB%, 28 HR, 111/68(1.63) K/BB .991 OPS, 74.1 VORP

It is the author's opinion the most important statistic that will show you a players overall performance is VORP(Value Over Replacement Player). My reasons behind this are because VORP includes SB's, CS, SB%, Quality of Competition, and Ballpark Factors. As opposed too OPS (read on...).

The second most important stat in my opinion is OPS(On-Base+Slugging). This is pretty self expanatory, everything a hitter is trying to do at the plate is reflected in this statistic.

The system I used to determine my rankings was simple. I ranked the VORP, and OPS of each player 1-10 and awarded each player with a "ranking point" equal to the rank itself. Since I believe VORP is a more complete and valuable statistic, I weighted it to mean 1 and a half times more than OPS. After completing the rankings I added up each players "ranking points"to determine their total "MVP Points." Since a better ranking equals a lower number, a less amount of points would be the better.

****Since a less amount of points is better in this system, a player's VORP ranking was cut in half to determine how many "ranking points" he was given for VORP.****

Example: At 93.2 VORP, Vladimir Guerrero ranks #1 out of the 10 candidates, and with a .989 OPS he ranks #3. Since VORP is weighted to mean 1 and a half times as much as OPS, Guerrero's VORP ranking is multiplied by .5 to give him at total of .5 points in the VORP category, and 3 points in the OPS category for a total of 3.5 "MVP Points."

Here are my Rankings:

Rank. Player- VORP--"Ranking Points"
1. Guerrero- 93.2--.5

2. Mora- 79.3--1

3. Suzuki- 79.2--1.5

4. Tejada- 79.1--2

5. Hafner- 74.1--2.5

6. Ortiz- 73.1--3

7. Guillen- 71.3--3.5

8. Ramirez- 70--4

9. Sheffield- 63.8--4.5

10. Rodriguez- 63--5



Rank. Player- OPS--"Ranking Points"
1. Ramirez- 1.010--1

2. Hafner- .991--2

3. Guerrero- .989--3

4. Ortiz- .983--4

5. Mora- .977--5

6. Sheffield- .927--6

7. Guillen- .919--7

8. Tejada- .894--8

9. Rodriguez- .887--9

10. Suzuki- .868--10


Rank. Player- VORP + OPS "Ranking Points" = "MVP Points"
1. Guerrero- .5 + 3 = 3.5

2. Hafner- 2.5 + 2 = 4.5

3. Ramirez- 4 + 1 = 5

4. Mora- 1 + 5 = 6

5. Ortiz- 3 + 4 = 7

6. Tejada- 2 + 8 =10

7. Guillen- 3.5 + 7 = 10.5

8. Sheffield- 4.5 + 6 = 10.5

9. Suzuki- 1.5 + 10 = 11.5

10. Rodriguez- 5 + 9 = 14

Very surprising to see where Travis Hafner and Gary Sheffield end up, isn't it? Some say Sheffield is going to win the AL MVP, and Hafner isn't even mentioned. It can be seen earlier that Hafner is on the "Not Popular Choices" list.

And even when the argument of "the MVP has to be on a playoff team" is used, Sheffield ranks fourth among the players that are on Playoff teams (Guerrero, Ramirez, Ortiz, and Sheffield).

So as it ends up, Vladimir Guerrero of the Anaheim Angels wins the AL MVP according the Serious Baseball.

What a great first year in Anaheim, huh??

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.