Crazy Idea

by DanT on Oct 4, 2006 2:55 AM EDT

Now, normally, I try to be a voice of skepticism around here. And I'm not a big fan of crazy ideas, like thinking the Phillies are going to sign a 3B that every other team will want. Or sign a Japanese pitcher they haven't even scouted. Or ever stop sucking. But here's an idea so crazy it just might work.

Move Pat Burrell to 3B.

Have you stopped laughing yet? Good.

I'm working on a diary on FA 3Bmen, much like my earlier one on FA starters. And the grizzly conclusion is the Phillies don't have good options out there. So why not do something this silly?

The best option (for other teams, not us) is Aramis Ramirez. What would you say if I told you Pat Burrell is a better hitter? Okay, I may be pushing this too much. But if you look at him, overall, he's a very similar player. You lose a little slugging but make up for it in power.

Pat the Bat played thirdbase at The U. And it's not like he was some horrific, Dick Groatesque player. He was projected as a 3B on the big league level, and the only reason we moved him was... Scott Rolen. Yeah, remember when we ran him out of town for not being able to handle the pressure and not being a gamer and the fans hating him? Good times.

Now, how many players moved the other way on the defensive spectrum? How many LFs went to 3B? I don't know, and to be honest, I don't feel like doing the research. But how bad could this really be?

Poll

Could this idea work?

Absolutely

2 votes

Maybe, but there's better options

2 votes

Worth a try!

1 votes

No, he can't hack it

11 votes

No, Burrell sucks!!!!! I love you Gillick!!!!!

0 votes

16 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

pedro guerrero

Pedro Guerrero did it. He was pretty bad though.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

ramirez is better

I think Ramirez is clearly better, by the way. You have to throw out the first several seasons of his career - he struggled for a long time when he was younger, but the player he is today is better reflected by his last three seasons when he's been awesome. But on the other hand Ramirez might take his option with the Cubs.

The main problem I see with your plan is that in filling the hole at 3B, we'd just be creating a new one in LF. I don't think Conine, Rowand, or Victorino are good enough hitters to cut it as full-time corner OFs. Not sure who's out there on the market though.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 11:36 AM EDT reply actions

Not so sure

Let's look at 2006, a supposedly bad year for the bat:

A-Ram had a line of .291/.352/.561
Pat's final line was .258/.388/.502

You'll notice as we go on the difference between the two.

Ramirez's ISO was .269 to go with 38 HR. Pat's isolated slugging was .245 to go with 29 HR.

Ramirez's Unintentional BB rate was .0697, while Pat's was an astonishing .16402. To put that in perspective, only Jason Giambi drew more unintentional walks per plate appearance.

Because of this, A-Ram's .294 EQA (an overall offensive metric, read like Batting Average) is just below Pat's .297 EQA.

Look at last year's lines:

A-Ram .302/.358/.568
The Bat .281/.389/.504

And again, Ramirez was high in ISO and Pat had a very high walk rate.

Essentially, they have the same value as hitters. Ramirez slugs harder, but Burrell gets on base at a better clip.

It's actually kind of amazing to think that we wouldn't bat Pat ahead of Ryan Howard, to take advantage of his being on base so much.

But yeah, Ramirez ain't all that, and he's really not better as a hitter than Pat. And that's assuming we could get him.

Pat Burrell at 3rd and one of the available Corner Outfielders is better than one of the available third basemen and Pat Burrell in left.

by DanT on Oct 5, 2006 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't think its a good idea

He has never played 3B in the majors. I am not even sure he played 3B in the minors. That would mean that he has not played 3B in almost 10 years.

Nunez will be the 3B. It doesn't look like they are going to look to upgrade the position. Nunez is just fine playing 3B. Seeing how he played when he became a starter, I am curious on how he will fare as a starter right from the beginning.

Q: Will you be given the money to go out and get like a Ramirez or an impact guy at say third base?

A: Let me put it this way, we'll have the money to go out and get somebody. I'm sure what that position might be. It could be a another position other than third base.

I am not getting the silly feeling Burrell will even be here unless he bats 6th. If they aren't going to get a 3B, and Gillick did not like Burrell batting 5th, and there is no catcher who can protect Howard, That would leave a OF position that will be changed. So its either Burrell or Rowand. I guess it will come down to if they can find a taker for Burrell. I believe they love Rowand.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 1:17 PM EDT reply actions

it won't be Nunez

Since you're now a convert to looking at stats, here are some:

Nunez, full season 2006: .211/.303/.273/.576
Nunez, second half (e.g., while starting): .247/.359/.311/.670

You just can't slug .311 and play third base every day in the majors. Of 24 NL third basemen with more than 100 AB at the position, Abe was 22nd. He finished just ahead of two Padres, Mark Bellhorn and Vinny Castilla, who played in a park that depresses offense to a greater extent than CBP enhances it.

I'm fine with keeping Nunez as a reserve, starting him once or twice a week, and using him almost every day as a late-game defensive replacement. But he absolutely cannot be the Phillies' starting 3b next season.

by dajafi on Oct 4, 2006 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Nunez

Well, he can be the starting 3B for the Phillis in 2007. It just would hurt the Phillies' chances of actually competing for the playoffs.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 4, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

So what your saying is that St. Louis wasn't

In the playoffs last year with Nunez. The same Nunez who was on base 74 times in the last 54 games. The same Nunez who batted .375 and a OBP of .423 in last years PLAYOFFS.

Why must you always come back with so much nonsense.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Reading Comprehension

Please, please, please stop acting like an idiot and actually respond to what people say, not some ill contrived idea of what you think they mean.

Of course the Cardinals made the playoffs in 2005 with Nunez on the team. However, it was despite him, not because of him. With a decent 3B and they would have won even more games.

I never said a team with Nunez couldn't make the players, only that his presence makes it more difficult.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 4, 2006 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Why must you continue to be a ...

I was pointing out that cards made the playoffs because you said the phils chances would be harder.

I am saying your wrong!

what's to understand. It didn't seem to make it harder on the Cards now did it. Get a clue!

by Philsin06 on Oct 5, 2006 6:16 AM EDT up reply actions

When

your SS has a .479 and your 2B has a .523 and your 1B has a .655. I think you can leave a little power off your 3B. As your whole team has a .447, you need a more of a defensive player at 3rd then offensive player. Remember he is the 8th hitter in the lineup. According to Lazz, 100 AB is not enough bats to evaluate a player.

Now with that being said, I don't think its fair to compare him with other 3B. Since he is batting 8th and we are talking offense, he needs to be compared with other 8 hole hitters base on the PA that he had.

Yes his slug. is low, no doubt about that, but base on the amount of his PA his OPS is .627 which is the 5th best, and his OBP is .339 which is 3rd best. That Slug. % that you speak of is compensated with Utley, Rollins and Howard.

People have to remember that when he was inserted into the lineup full time the team went 35-22. You can't argue with success. Out of those 57 games he got on base in 51 of them. Out of those 57 games he reached base in 30 of them. For a 8 hole hitter that is a pretty good reason to play and keep him. Instead of looking at raw numbers look what he actually did in the game. Each and every game when he became a full time starter.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Just to put what I said in perseptive

Abreu scored 37 runs in Aug. and Sept.
Nunez scored 31 runs in Aug. and Sept.

One guy had a .925 OPS and a .511 Slug
One guy had a .664 OPS and a .304 Slug

One guy has a Giambi hitting behind him
One guy has a Pitcher hitting behind him

Add all that in with getting on base 51 out of 57 games, and a winning record. I get he stays and needs to stay if those number hold up.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Just to add to that a little bit more

Rating the 3B only, now remember Nunez bats 8th.

Aug. 3rd most runs scored
Sept. 5th most runs scored

And just to add a little bit more

In the month of Aug. He had more hits, more runs, same BA and better OBP then David Wright. Though he had 8 less RBI then Wright, Wright bats 3rd and Nunez bats 8th. With no protection.

In the month of Sept. He has 2 less RBI, 3 more runs on 12 less hits vs. Wright. Wright had a .963 OPS, while Nunez had a .703 OPS. While Wright might have had 12 more hits, Nunez made up for that with 10 more BB.

You can take OPS, OBP, and any other sabermetric stat and throw them out the window. Bottom line is runs and rbi. I don't know if there is another 3B that bats 8th. Nunez might be one of the best 8 hole hitters in the NL. If he had the AB he would have the most runs scored and at the top in RBI.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

wright doesn't bat 3rd

what was i thinking, doh. he bats 5th.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

sample size?

What have we all been telling you about sample size, phils06? Seriously, you desperately need to take a basic-level stat class somewhere.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Lazz said that 197 PA wasn't enough for Burrell. That was what I was talking about. I think Nunez had enough PA to find out what you have.

My comment was for Lazz about enough PA.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait a minute

Is he a rookie, or did he come in St. Louis last year and batted .301 playing 3rd last year in 338 PA. They guy has played almost 1000 games. Yet over the last 2 years when he became a starter, he has done pretty darn well.

Last year he started 77 games at 3b with St. Louis reached base 75 times over the last 54 games. This year he gets on base 92 times over 57 games. So over his last 111 games that he was the regular starter he got on base 167 times.

That means he gets on base 1.5 times a game. That projects to getting on base 243 times over the coarse of a full season. That would be more then Freddy Sanchez had all year. 4 times less that David Wright had been on base this year.

I am not sitting here saying he is the best offensive 3B in the NL, I am saying with his defense and him batting 8th, you can't find a better player.

If you can't judge a player over 111 games, then you need to learn to. Every time he has been a starter on a regular basis that guy performed. Truth.....be told.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

what kind of weird stats are these?

Nunez hit .285 last year, with a .343 OBP and a .704 OPS. That is below-average.

What the heck is this "hit .301 playing at third" business all about? What basis is there for breaking down his offensive stats playing one position vs. his offensive stats playing at another position? Are you saying there's some magical quality that makes him hit better when he's at one position than when he's at another? The differential is caused by random variation. It's much more accurate to look at his overall hitting stats, instead of cherrypicking the stats that support your predetermined conclusion.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Ah hello

I went with what he started. I figured he started 3rd base, yup, I was talking regular starter. Not a player coming of the bench. Everyday, going into the field and his name in the lineup.

Now if you don't think .285 BA and a .343 OBP and a .704 OPS for a 8 hitter, then you don't understand a thing.

Please keep things the way they should be. He is not a 3B in the lineup, he is a 8 hole hitter.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions

you can't have too many runs

There isn't a point at which you've scored enough runs and don't need any more offense. Even if you're a winning team that scores a lot of runs, if you get even better at hitting then you'll win even more games. The more, the better. The only question is whether the resources you use in getting offense could be allocated in such a way that you could get even better in some other area.

Nunez did hit fairly well in the last couple months of the season, but you can't rely on him to duplicate those results over a full season because they're anomalous compared to the rest of his career. I could live with him as a part-time player though.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Read above you

Last 111 games as a regular starter the guy has done nothing but get on base. What more do you need. He is only 30.

Don't you need defense to stop the other team from scoring. Does this not matter to you. Offense is not the only thing there is to winning. These pitchers need defense behind them. Might have been the biggest difference between the beginning of this season and the end of the season play.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions

defense

Yes, you need defense. Great. How much worse at defense do you expect Nunez's replacement to be? How many more runs do you think he's going to let in, even if he isn't that good? Is he going to be playing with no glove or something?

Nunez is good, but a 3B who is a much better hitter and a mediocre fielder would help the team a lot more than he would hurt it. The marginal difference between fielders, measured in runs, just isn't very big.

by taco pal on Oct 4, 2006 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Not if you change your left fielder.

It doesn't matter what your 3B, 8 hole hitter does, and he does very well for a 8 hole hitter. You don't need power out of that position. You have a ton of power at SS, 2B, 1B, and LF. You can't win without the little guys. You have to have guys who just can get on base. IF Nunez does not bat 8th at the end of this year, no way Rollins drives in 82 runs. Not to mention a switch hitter. Same with Victorino. Same with Coste, the way he played. You need to have guys like that in your lineup or you will get destroyed by pitching. You need guys who can get on base. Not every player is going to hit a HR everytime he is up. Good pitching will kill ya.

by Philsin06 on Oct 4, 2006 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

And I quote....

"You need guys who can get on base."

Sometimes people make comments that boggle the mind.

ps: Just for reference, Nunez's lifetime OBP is an awful .313.

by Laaaaazzz on Oct 4, 2006 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Who cares about OBP

Who cares about percentage when overall you get on base. That is the most overblown stat. Look at actual games then come back to me.

Who cares what his lifetime OBP is. He was a part time player. Look at his stats as a starter when he plays everyday.

That is the problem with stat people. They assume that is what it is when acually it isn't what it looks like. Do yourself a favor and look at actual game logs, you might find your self a little more educated on a player.

by Philsin06 on Oct 5, 2006 6:21 AM EDT up reply actions

oh my.

"Who cares about percentage when overall you get on base. That is the most overblown stat."

Nothing personal, but this might be the single dumbest statement I've ever read on this site.

Think about it this way.

Player 1 plays every game and gets up to bat 700 times and gets on base 30% of the time. So that's 210 times on base.

Meanwhile, Player 2 gets on base 40% of the time but only gets a chance to play in 120 games for whatever reason (maybe because his team has another good player at the same position who he has to split time with - whatever). So let's say he only gets up to bat 500 times over the course of the year. So at 40% OBP, he gets on base a total of 200 times.

Who's the better hitter? The obvious answer is Player 2. Player 1 only got on base more times because he got up to bat more times. If you gave Player 2 the same number of chances, he'd get on base way more times than Player 1. What matters is how often they got on base per opportunity.

That is why percentage is important.

by taco pal on Oct 5, 2006 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe this comment will boggle your mind

When Nunez became a regular starter his OBP was .361 this year in the month of Aug it was .323 and as he played more it went up to .398 in Sept. Not a part time player a full time player. Some people get better the more to play.

That is what boggles my mind, in your opinion a player can't play better the more they play.

Once again, I understand he is not the best hitter in baseball, but as a 8 hole hitter he is perfect. Since Gillick plainly said they won't be looking for a high priced FA 3B, he should be a pretty good 8 hole hitter. Put it the way that it is. He is not a power hitter, he might not even a great avg. hitter, but his a good batter for the spot that is needed.

by Philsin06 on Oct 5, 2006 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Conlin agrees

See his column today. Not that I think his opinion is particularly valid, but at least you're not totally out there in the blue.

The truth is that if Nunez gets on base at a .360 or .370 rate, and plays great defense, he's borderline acceptable...

...if you're getting kick-ass production everywhere else. But if you have Aaron Rowand and Shane Victorino both in the starting outfield, as it seems likely the Phils will next season, it's almost impossible to win with Nunez in the lineup too.

by dajafi on Oct 5, 2006 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

That's a big "if"

If Nunez can post an OBP of .360 for a full season, and if his defense is really as good as it looked down the stretch this year, I'm fine with him, even as punchless as he is.

Unfortunately, I don't really believe he would hit that well, a couple good months notwithstanding.

by phatj on Oct 5, 2006 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

walk rate

Nunez this year drew 41 walks in 322 AB. Last year with the Cards, he had 37 walks in 421 AB. Maybe that's situational (which is fine for an #8 hitter); maybe it's osmosis from sitting around with Abreu and Burrell. But I can't think why it would be a fluke.

Don't get me wrong--I'd rather upgrade too. But there's some reason to think that the late-season 2006 Nunez is the hitter we'd get going forward.

by dajafi on Oct 5, 2006 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

You don't upgrade the 3B

You upgrade the LF. One that can play better defense and has more power. SORIANO.

by Philsin06 on Oct 5, 2006 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions

don't let the facts get in the way

Pat Burrell, LF, 2006: 3 errors, .986 fielding pctg

Alfonso Soriano, LF, 2006: 11 errors, .969 fielding pctg

Do you know how difficult it is to make 11 errors as a friggin' OUTFIELDER?

Soriano could be an all-time bad defender. Yeah, he had 22 assists--because everybody tested his arm at first. He'll be lucky to get half that many next year... if he's even an outfielder.

Does this get old for you at any point?

by dajafi on Oct 6, 2006 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I just love how people

Make the sats to look like when they aren't even close.

Keep to facts, although what you wrote are facts, they do not show the whole picture

How about total chances and innings played.

Soriano-359
Burrell-215

Innings
Soriano-1374.2
Burrell-988.2

Put Outs
Soriano-326
Burrell-215

Assist
Soriano-22
Burrell-8

Double playes
Soriano-9
Burrell-1

Range Factor ((PO + A) divided by innings)
Soriano-2.28
Burrell-1.93

Zone rating. The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc.
Soriano-.876
Burrell-.857

It isn't even close. Soriano was playing in his first season in the OF that might be the biggest OF in MLB, while Burrell plays in one of the smallest OF in MLB.

If Burrell can put up 29 HR playing in this park and Soriano can put 46 Playing in Washington's park, Soriano could challenge Howard for the HR title.

You people need to look behind the stats. Soriano will kill in the park. Tell me if I am wrong, but didn't Burrell get taken out of the game when it was late for defensive purposes.

Come on people educate yourself. See the truth instead of making up lies in your stats to try and failing to make your case.

by Philsin06 on Oct 6, 2006 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions

so?

So, in the same number of innings, Burrell would have made 5 errors to Soriano's 11. Soriano is still worse.

Also, Burrell would have had about 320 put-outs and to Soriano's 326. Ooh... big difference!

There is no material difference between the two guys in the field. Burrell is the better hitter. Soriano might be a slightly better offensive player overall because he steals a lot of bases and doesn't get caught often. But the overall difference between the two of them is very small. And the defensive stats that you yourself cite back up that conclusion.

by taco pal on Oct 6, 2006 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

How can a guy

with a .259 BA be better then a guy with a .276 BA. Never heard such a thing. The .276 hitter had almost 20 more HR on top of it. I can understand how you don't know how big Washington's OF is compared to Philly, but i guess that doesn't matter to you. Nor the reason that Soriano can actually get to the balls to make an error. Does Burrell get an error if he can't get to the ball. NO. Come on now, use a little sense. Burrell is a better hitter then Soriano. I can't wait to tell people you said that. Better yet, I want to see the people in here back you up.....now thats funny. I can't stop laughing. The people I work with are dying also. Thanks for making my night.

by Philsin06 on Oct 6, 2006 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

starting a new thread

not enough room here

by taco pal on Oct 6, 2006 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions

philsin06 - get a clue

Philsin06, tell me: if Soriano's soooooo much better at getting to balls than Burrell, then why does he get roughly the same number of put-outs per inning as Burrell? That's according to the stats that you yourself posted!

Now, for your other concerns.

How can a guy with a .259 BA be better then a guy with a .276 BA. Never heard such a thing.

Oh really? So I suppose Dave Magadan was a better hitter than Mike Schmidt. Batting average is a bad stat - how many times must we explain that to you? The reasons why it's a bad stat are that it fails to account for the facts that (1) walks help your team, and (2) extra-base hits are better than singles.

The .276 hitter had almost 20 more HR on top of it. I can understand how you don't know how big Washington's OF is compared to Philly, but i guess that doesn't matter to you.

First of all, it was 17 HR, not 20. Second of all, I suppose it never occurred to you that Soriano got up to bat 25% more times than Burrell - if Burrell had gotten as many chances as Soriano he would have been projected to close that gap to 10 HR. Third, even that 10 HR differential only shows that Soriano had a better year than Burrell in hitting for power. One year does not make a career. You must have been out there clamoring for Brady Anderson the year after he hit 51 or for Jay Bell the year after he hit 38. If you look at their careers as a whole, Soriano and Burrell have pretty similar power numbers - if Soriano has any more power, it isn't by much. And Burrell gets on base a LOT more often than Soriano.

Nor the reason that Soriano can actually get to the balls to make an error. Does Burrell get an error if he can't get to the ball. NO. Come on now, use a little sense.

See above. If Soriano's so much better at getting to balls than Burrell, then why doesn't he get to more balls than Burrell? Look at the stats you yourself posted, and then get back to me.

Burrell is a better hitter then Soriano. I can't wait to tell people you said that. Better yet, I want to see the people in here back you up.....now thats funny. I can't stop laughing. The people I work with are dying also. Thanks for making my night.

I'm genuinely amused by your apparent belief that your opinion should actually mean something to me. Seeing as how you're wrong about just about everything you've ever written about, if anything I'd actually start to question myself if we ever agreed on something.

Your level of trash-talking is about as clever and cutting as the kind of inanities you might see posted by middle school students on myspace pages. Oh no, Philsin06 said that he and his alleged co-workers are laughing at me! Ooh, he said "Thanks for making my night!" How creative! Oh, how it cuts me to the bone!

Pathetic. This may come as a shock to you, but intelligent adults don't feel any shame in being laughed at by ignoramuses or lunatics. If you really think your disapproval is going to somehow disappoint me, think again.

by taco pal on Oct 6, 2006 7:51 PM EDT reply actions

Burrell for Lowell?

If the Red Sox were to be the ones to get A-Ram, and they finally traded Manny, do you think they would be interested in trading Lowell for Burrell? Possibly include Nunez as a back up IF or some extra money for Burrell's contract?

For the Sox, they'd have A-Ram to guard Ortiz, a left fielder with good production and OBP and similar defensive capabilities, and money leftover from dealing Manny to pick up other pieces.

That would solve the 3B defense concerns issue, and supply a hitter to somewhat offset the loss Burrell's production while allowing the Phils to pursue another left fielder with potentially $3-7M extra.

by raboo on Oct 9, 2006 6:38 PM EDT reply actions