Ah, Numbers: How Abreu, ARod & Ankiel Agitate
By Mike SanClemente - Managing Editor
04/17/2005
I came home from work, checked my email, and saw an assertion about two baseball players, and noticed how it left out a major statistic, thereby leading the reader to an incorrect conclusion. I ignored it, because it was just one email, even if it was from a man whom I consider to be very bright.
But then I checked another email, and another mind held in high esteem by many in our industry made a similar statement. This one didn’t compare two players, but rather showed the reader only a portion of what one player was capable of, and again led the reader astray by not giving him the whole picture.
One I could ignore, but not two, even if they were from different sources.
I have no ax to grind with either source. And to further that point, I won’t reveal who either of them are. But suffice it to say that each source, er, person, is held in fairly high esteem in our industry and both have made strong contributions to the study of baseball statistics (no, one of them is not Bill James). With no further ado, here they are:
Scenario 1: The first source is geared more for fantasy than anything else, and was written in early March. It asked who’s better, Alex Rodriguez or Bobby Abreu? The answer cried out Bobby Abreu, for some reason.
Using the Runs Created metric, it stated that in 2004, Bobby Abreu created 139 runs while ARod had 112. Furthermore, their favorite projection source saw Abreu as again better than ARod in 2005 with 131 projected runs created versus 128.
Bobby Abreu
My take: Bobby Abreu is worth more than Alex Rodriguez? The points made above were preceded with the words “from an offensive standpoint…,” though even from an offensive standpoint, they weren’t very far apart. Abreu certainly had an amazing offensive season, .301 average, 127 walks, 47 doubles, and 30 homers. But ARod didn’t fare too poorly either: .286 average, 80 walks, and 36 homers.
But simply comparing the output here, straight-line, completely ignores several key elements. First, by stating Abreu is far better on offense and not mentioning any other part of the game of baseball, it therefore appears to answer the question of who is better as a complete player. In a Strat league, few sane minds would deal you ARod for Abreu! I’d take that deal in a second.
Park factors are also overlooked. Be careful when reading evaluations that don’t tell you which type of hobbyist they’re appealing to. In rotisserie, a homer in Coors is worth the same as a homer in San Francisco. But for Strat, the two homers are not equal. Let’s ask Eric Milton what he thinks of the new Philadelphia ballpark (where Abreu plays) compared to Yankee stadium, ARod’s home. I’m not sure the difference is enough to bring the two players to a dead heat offensively for 2004, but it makes them much, much closer. Watch your Strat league stats this year; those two players might finish with very similar numbers.
Age? Doesn’t age impact one’s value? On an overall value scale, because of the huge age difference, few among us would prefer David Wells to Mark Mulder simply because Wells had a better 2004. Abreu is 31, ARod 29. Not a big difference, but still two years apart.
Position. No one needs reminding that solid offensive outfielders are plentiful, while infielders are much more difficult to obtain. Yes, third base has more talent right now than it has had in a long time (thanks partly to ARod moving there), but all else equal, we’d all rather have a good 3B than an equivalent RF.
Defense. Not even close. Abreu may not deserve his 4, so let’s be charitable to him and call him a 3. ARod got a 1 at 3B and 2 at SS. End of story there.
Alex Rodriguez
Again, I’m not here to take down the author, just to let the Stratheads among us be aware that much of the baseball evaluation out there does not directly pertain to Strat. And when it DOES directly pertain to fantasy valuations, the results can be very deceiving sometimes. To wit, read on to scenario 2:
Scenario 2: The second email is a service which recaps the day’s transactions. Last month, it reported Rick Ankiel’s position switch to the outfield, plus the author’s assessment of how good a hitter Ankiel is, stating flatly that “Ankiel has been unable to hit” in his time in the majors. For reference, it added Ankiel’s big league hitting line:
.310 SLG, .258 OBA, .568 OPS in 96 PA.
Rick Ankiel
My take: Once again, beware all you Stratophiles out there. While no big league hitter wants to be known as a .568 OPS guy, these marks aren’t bad for a pitcher. Despite what Ted Williams asserted in his book “The Science Of Hitting” (that pitchers must take on greater responsibility for their role in the lineup), a pitcher’s job is to focus on getting batters out, not raking the ball into the gaps during the two at bats he gets every week.
If your job was a fulltime starting pitcher, and you hit .250 in your only full season in the bigs as Ankiel did in 2000, that’s not “unable to hit.” Strat agrees, and made him a pitcher’s hitting card 8N off his 2000 season.
Ankiel’s big league numbers:
| Year | Age | Tm | Lg | G | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | BA | OBP | SLG | TB | SH | SF | IBB | HBP | GDP |
| 1999 | 19 | STL | NL | 9 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .100 | .100 | .100 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2000 | 20 | STL | NL | 33 | 68 | 8 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20 | .250 | .292 | .382 | 26 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2001 | 21 | STL | NL | 6 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | .000 | .111 | .000 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2004 | 24 | STL | NL | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | .000 | .500 | .000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 Seasons | 53 | 87 | 9 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 29 | .207 | .258 | .310 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The big stat that stands out for me is Sac Hits. Most pitchers are sac bunt magnets (or sac bunt magnates, depending upon your point of view), because they are poor hitters. Nobody wants them swinging away. But Ankiel’s total sac bunts in 96 plate appearances? Three.
Say what you will about Tony LaRussa’s managerial ability. Sure, ask yourself why he started “Say It Ain’t” So Taguchi in Game 1 of last year’s World Series in Fenway Park instead of John Mabry, or wax perplexed by his affinity for old utility infielders, old relievers, and Roger Cedeno. Regardless, he’s a fairly smart manager, and letting Ankiel hit away that often isn’t done by accident.
Maybe this was part of the reason why: the boy is capable of putting up some crooked offensive numbers. How would you like to have this guy on your roster:
Single – A Appalachian League » Johnson City Cardinals 06/20 to 08/28 2001:
| G | AB | R | H | RBI | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | SB | CS | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS |
| 41 | 105 | 21 | 30 | 35 | 7 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 26 | 0 | 0 | .286 | .353 | .638 | 1.276 |
Those were Ankiel’s stats in 2001. The naysayer says “Oh, but he’d already been in the bigs for one season by that point, and it’s just A ball, so throw those numbers out.”
No, he was 20 years old entering the 2001 season. TWENTY. A twenty-year-old hitter with a 1.276 OPS in 105 AB, even in A ball, is damn good. After Ankiel’s blowup in the 2000 playoffs, the club sent him way down to A ball the next season to build up his confidence. I’m not sure whether he requested it or not, but he was allowed to hit (I believe as the DH) a couple times between each start, and obviously did very, very well.
And though the first email didn’t mention them, we should obviously account for park factors. Baseball Prospectus rates the park factor for Johnson City in 2001 to be 1040, slightly higher than the average of 1000, but not a lot; by comparison, it’s dwarfed by Coors Field’s mark of 1148 in 2001, the highest in all of professional baseball. Therefore Ankiel’s gaudy hitting numbers in the minors are 95% legit.
By not mentioning his 116 minor league plate appearances in 2001 and instead focusing on his 96 major league plate appearances, the second source misses a big part of the puzzle and leaves the reader believing Ankiel is pulling this stunt out of the air.
He’s not. Ankiel is not crazy. He’s an excellent athlete, and obviously has tremendous power at the plate in addition to his obvious, though flawed, set of talents on the mound. I wish him well in his hitting endeavors, and despite the many contributions the other two men have given to the study of baseball statistics, I hope each understands that some of their comments may leave people – namely Strat gamers – with an unnecessarily narrow view of what’s really happening.