Wilson Valdez Isn't That Good at Baseball
by taco pal on Jan 12, 2011 6:01 PM EST
Email
PrintSo Matt Gelb of the Inquirer recently suggested on his blog that Wilson Valdez (1) might not be a "stone-cold lock" to make the team out of spring training, and (2) is potentially replaceable. As repayment for this horrible slander, the caveman crowd at philly.com proceeded to heap insults on Gelb in the comments. (A big thumbs-up, by the way, should go out to our very own schmenkman for wading into the thread and trying to do some educatin'. Most of the commenters seemed to be resistant, however.)
TGP's audience probably does not overlap very much with the segment of Phillies fandom that comments frequently on philly.com, and thank goodness for that. Regardless, it never hurts to speak the truth, and the truth is that Gelb was right. Valdez is replaceable, and he shouldn't be a lock to make the team if someone else outperforms him in spring training. Why?
1. Valdez isn't a good offensive player. He doesn't get on base (2010 OBP = .306, lifetime OBP = .289). He has no power (2010 SLG = .360 despite achieving a career high in homers, lifetime SLG = .326). He doesn't steal that many bases (7 SB last year in 111 games). And as we all know, he hits into a veritable s**tload of double plays - while the staggering 20 he hit into last year was a bit flukish, anybody who consistently hits 60% grounders with average-at-best speed is going to collect his fair share of GIDPs.
2. Valdez isn't that great at defense. Yeah he has a great arm. So? That's only one component of defense. It's nice, but if you don't get to the ball first, your arm doesn't matter. And Valdez is okay, but only okay, at getting to grounders. UZR may be a flawed, volatile stat, but it's better than most other stats out there, and Valdez posted a 4.6 UZR/150 at shortstop and a -0.1 UZR/150 at second base last year. That's nothing special. By way of comparison, Jimmy Rollins posted a 12.3 in 2010, a 5.0 in 2009, and a 15.2 in 2008.
Simply put, bad offense + so-so defense = a replaceable player, even at shortstop.
The purpose of all this is not to bury Valdez. He was a nice surprise for us in 2010. We got him for nothing, we had no expectations for him, we needed him to be competent when Rollins and Utley went down, and he was competent. If he had played a full 162 games (shudder), he would have accumulated about 1.4 WAR, which suggests that he played significantly better than a guy off the street would have. (Seriously, it was pretty decent. He played at about the same level as Orlando Cabrera, which is nothing to be ashamed of.) But that was a career-best performance, which came at age 32, and which he may or may not be able to duplicate at age 33. And even if he can duplicate it, it's not as if replacing a 1.4 WAR player with somebody else would be the end of the world. We can appreciate what Valdez did for the Phils in 2010 without losing all perspective about how important he is for their chances to win in 2011.
This is all obvious enough. What's really interesting, and a little puzzling, isn't why Valdez's most rabid defenders are wrong, but why he has rabid defenders in the first place. It's not as if Valdez was a fan favorite for most of 2010: I heard plenty of complaining over the course of the year about all the DPs he was hitting into. And it's not as if he had a ton of "clutch hits" or other memorable moments that might distort the uneducated fan's mental impression of him. And (to people's credit, sort of) it's not as if he's a scrappy white guy who might inspire cultural identification.
No, I think the main explanation is groupthink. At some point late in 2010, somebody came up with the neat counterintuitive idea that "Wilson Valdez is our MVP!" As the idea spread, it somehow evolved into a marker of being part of the "in" crowd and privy to the "in" shoptalk - since no outside observer would ever pick Wilson Valdez out as any team's MVP, saying it yourself signaled that you were a close follower of the Phillies who knew all of the team's secret counterintuitive factoids. And then it turned into conventional wisdom, which now must be defended at all costs.
But it's wrong. Valdez isn't that good. He shouldn't be a "stone-cold" lock to make this team. And if we lose him, he can be replaced. The end.
183 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Amen
I had an otherwise very smart co-worker of mine tell me that jettisoning Rollins would be OK because Valdez could fill his spot just fine. I almost choked.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Yes. But not surprising. These are the same kind of people who started comparing Hank Baskett to Jerry Rice, because he was undrafted and had a few good games.
by FearTheTurtIe on Jan 12, 2011 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
I had similar conversations at work, and I have to admit, I at least entertained the idea. However, the case depends on several assumptions:
1. Rollins is on the downside of his career
2. Valdez can maintain his 2010 performance
3. The salary difference between Rollins and Valdez could be used elsewhere
4. Rollins could net something in trade that could help the Phillies elsewhere
I think most people think the case depends just on (1) and (2) and they’re certain both things are true. I think only (3) is clearly true, and that (2) is particularly iffy, considering Valdez is six months older than Rollins.
by phatj on Jan 12, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I really think it’s the extreme undervaluing of Rollins that is largely at play here (combined with how truly awful Castro was, as noted below). People look at Rollins slash line and think they see that it’s about the same as Valdez’s, ignoring that a) Rollins are all still better b) Rollins was injured most of the season and having a down season and c), as you point out, Valdez was easily having the best season of his career.
Rollins is so much better than Valdez, in every way, it shouldn’t even be necessary to say so.
He’s historically been a pretty good defender, at least at shortstop (career 8.9 UZR/150, +14 DRS, +4 TotalZone there), but for whatever reason, he’s just average at second base and third base.
Of course, you can find a number of MLB caliber defensive shortstops out there who can’t hit a lick… or, worded differently, “you can find a number of Wilson Valdezes out there.” This comes as no shock to you, TP, or Gelb or any of us here, but the philly.com commenters are a different story…
Of course, you can find a number of MLB caliber defensive shortstops out there who can’t hit a lick
Don’t the Phillies have one of those in the system already?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 12, 2011 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
I hate him
I cannot stand the guy and I never talked to a friend or fan alike that actually thought he was decent. This is kind of a no brainer, but keep in mind that he was brought in to replace a former MVP. Needless to say, no matter who the replacement is, there is going to be a significant VORP drop. Kind of sounds like a wrestling move and not something they are going to talk about on a Phil’s broadcast anytime soon.
And it’s not as if he had a ton of “clutch hits” or other memorable moments that might distort the uneducated fan’s mental impression of him.
Appropriately enough, according to fangraphs, Valdez’ WPA was an all time low -1.14, over double his previous worst. Meanwhile, horrible liability Jimmy Rollins was basically Bizzaro Valdez with a WPA of 1.38.
I realize WPA is not exactly a worldbeater of a stat, and sure “clutch” is a fake idea, but at least this validates my intuition that Valdez was a black hole into which possible wins fell like marbles.
You basically turned me into being a Valdez supporter
1. So Valdez isn’t very good at offense, isn’t very good at defense, yet put up .9 WAR as a part-time player at a premium position. Uh….that’s pretty decent.
2. Plenty of guys who played more games than he did at SS did worse than .9 WAR…Cesar Izturis, Yuniesky Betancourt, Alcides Escobar, Jason Bartlett, and Eric Aybar.
3. But Wilson Valdez is easily replaceable? Really? Find me another guy who can play every left infield position and put up .9 WAR playing part time. At Valdez’s salary. They’re not exactly a dime a dozen.
All of that is not to say that we could just replace Rollins with Valdez and not miss a beat. That’s laughable. But beware of taking the argument too far the opposite direction.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a 33rd place finish in WAR equal Replacement Level?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 12, 2011 9:24 PM EST up reply actions
That makes sense and all, but I thought there were yearly adjustments, i.e. in 2010, replacement level was 0.8 WAR; In 2009, it was 0.7 WAR; etc.
I guess I’m wrong with that.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 12, 2011 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
You also have to keep in mind
You’re comparing Valdez in a PT role against guys in a FT role with total WAR. They’re different animals.
No strawman here
You basically said losing Valdez would be no big deal. I disagree. Replacement shortstops who can accumulate between 1-1.5 WAR over a season for league minimum don’t grow on trees and do have value.
There are starting SS in this league who make more money and have less WAR.
Yes you are straw manning, and now you are compounding it with dishonesty. Neither Gelb nor I said that Valdez would be “easily replaceable.” You invented the “easily” out of thin air. What both Gelb and I said was that Valdez should not be a “lock” to make the team out of spring training because it is possible that one of his competitors will demonstrate a likelihood of outperforming him this year. Gelb specifically said it was likelier that Valdez will win out. But it is possible, and not just remotely possible, that he won’t. Thus, he is “replaceable” – capable of being replaced. If you actually think that Valdez should be a lock to make the roster, then you should say so and then back that up, instead of playing semantic games and misrepresenting my position.
I also said that losing a bench player who would post 1.4 WAR if he played a full season is “not the end of the world,” which it isn’t. You responded that such players don’t “grow on trees” and “have value”, which if isn’t a straw man, is a non sequitur. It does not follow that because Player A has some nonzero value, losing Player A is “the end of the world” or “a big deal” or whatever formulation you want to use. If you would prefer to label your error as a logic fail instead of a straw man, then be my guest, but either way, it’s a bad argument.
You're being disingenuous
You said Valdez shouldn’t be a stone cold lock to make the team and that he could be replaced.
Where else are you going to find a backup SS who could put up 1-1.5 WAR over the course of the season, making league minimum?
A guy who can do that should be as close to a lock to make the team as anyone outside the starting 9.
The best comp I can think of at the present is Craig Counsell (present performance, not past performance) and the Brewers are paying him 1.4 mil.
Valdez has never put up 1 WAR, let alone 1.5. His WAR by year:
2004: 0.0 in 19 games
2005: -0.2 in 51 games
2007: 0.2 in 41 games
2009: 0.3 in 41 games
2010: 0.9 in 111 games
That’s a cumulative 1.2 in 263 games, or a rate of 0.7 every 162 games. There’s also the fact that he is aging for a reaction speed-based infield position, and it’s unlikely his defense will remain as high as it is.
By the way, Valdez’s 0.9 in 111 games? Yeah, Jerry Hairston put up a 1.9 in 118 games. But Valdez isn’t replaceable by another low-salary guy.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
The Dark
You obviously missed the part where I stated that Valdez would have 1-1.5 WAR IF HE PLAYED THE FULL SEASON. I never said he put up 1-1.5 WAR strictly as a part time player.
And Jerry Hairston had a contract worth 2.152 million, not the $400000 Wilson Valdez made last year.
Sorry, posted before I was done.
So no argument from me that Jerry Hairston is a better player than Valdez. He is also paid accordingly. Not sure how that refutes the argument.
Except that he probably wouldn’t, because of fatigue (he’s never played a full season) and the fact that his track record projects out to a 0.7 per 162 games. The 0.9 was him playing better than he’s ever played in his career.
And I used Hairston because that was the general consensus on who the Phillies should have signed as their utility bench player.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
I agree
That the Phils might do well to sign Hairston.
But that doesn’t negate the point that a guy performing as well as Valdez making the league minimum (as a FA obviously, plenty of younger guys do) is hard to find. The Hairstons of the world don’t make league minimum.
That’s the combination I feel that isn’t easily replacable. Could you find someone to do better on the FA market? Sure. Would you have to pay that person more than league minimum? Almost certainly.
Maybe everyone who is saying Valdez is pretty replacable means that we could replace him by throwing a few million at someone else??? That’s true, but I think that ignores one of the biggest parts of Valdez’s value, which is that he works for peanuts.
It depends on who’s available on the market. I haven’t looked at the FA market much, and the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Punto.
But man, extrapolating out based on partial season stats, I’d love to have Donnie Murphy – 0.8 WAR in 29 games? Obviously destined for at least a 6.0 if he plays a full season.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Free Agents for perusal
Pure SS:
Orlando Cabrera SS 36 Free Agent (B)
Craig Counsell SS 40 Free Agent
Jerry Hairston Jr. SS 34 Free Agent
Cesar Izturis SS 30 Free Agent
Edgar Renteria SS 35 Free Agent
Middle Infielders:
Willy Aybar 3B 27 Non-Tendered
David Eckstein 2B 35 Free Agent (B) (he hasn’t played SS in a few years, but he has in the past)
Kevin Frandsen 2B 28 Non-Tendered
Cristian Guzman 2B 32 Free Agent
Felipe Lopez 3B 30 Free Agent (B)
Julio Lugo 2B 35 Free Agent
Aaron Miles 2B 34 Free Agent
Augie Ojeda 2B 36 Non-Tendered
Nick Punto 3B 33 Free Agent
Would any of those guys
1. Be reasonably expected to perform better than Valdez and
2. Be willing to work for the league minimum?
I agree Punto, Hairston, Counsell (who I think just signed with the Brewers for 1.4 million), O-Cab, etc would be better options on a pure performance standpoint.
However, I doubt any of them would work for the league minimum or close to it.
Again, that’s where I perceive Valdez’s value to be….you’ll not get the argument from me that there are plenty of guys who would perform better or cost as little….just typically not both at the same time.
Why do they need to work for the league minimum?
Yes, the team’s on a budget, but that’s like spending $75,000 on a sports car and then putting $100 tires on it. We need to look at who provides the best value to the team, which is not necessarily the same as who provides the cheapest contribution.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
It’s almost like saying “I know your wife looks like Eva Mendes, but you need to buy her jewelery and expensive dinners. My wife may look like Bea Arthur, but I only have to take her to the early bird special at Golden Corral and she’s happy”
There is a middle ground. You could probably spend a little extra and get a more consistent performer than Valdez as a possible utility guy. I’m not advocating signing Punto or Hairston, per se. But the bizarre qualifier that whoever it is needs to be as cheap as Valdez is just weird. And, frankly, it’s really damning with faint praise. If Valdez’s biggest positive is that he’s cheap (not necessarily good, just cheap), then that’s a decent argument to make sure there’s some competition for that spot.
Bea Arthur was a good conversationalist, too.
But seriously, if you think the Phillies have another 1-4 mil stashed away for a backup infielder, then heck YEAH, sign one of those guys to compete with Valdez.
My assumption was that they didn’t, and if they did, they would rather save what little they had for flexibility at the trade deadline.
Hence making Valdez a not easily replacable commodity in the (performance + cheapness) category.
One of my gigger concerns is that if we get hit with injuries like last year, I’d rather have Valdez down in AAA to call up, as opposed to calling up Bocock. The increase in salary would then be marginal. The biggest hurdle would then be needing to DFA Valdez and hope no one claimed him, as I’m pretty sure he’s used up his option years.
eh
count your blessings
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jan 14, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Didn't our esteemed GM
Just say he was up against the limitations of his budget?
Do you see us signing Eckstein for 1-2 mil, Hairston for 1-2 mil, O-Cab for 3-4, or whatever else they would command? Spending another 1-4 mil on a backup infielder?
I don’t, unless they can clear Blanton’s salary first.
1-2 million for an Eckstein or Hairston, sure. On the scale of sports salaries, it’s not that much more than what Valdez gets. 1-2 million is what Schneider and Gload are getting as bench players, and they’d provide less utility than Eckstein or Hairston (OK, Schneider’s somewhat of a special case as a C, but the point stands for Gross Load). The difference in salary between one of those guys and Valdez is about the same as between Gload and Rizzotti, if money’s really that tight.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Eckstein’s grittiness would fit in nicely with this team. Especially if he got to play next to Chase Utley. Can you imagine?
Training for the Phillies 5K Run on March 26th. Hoping I don't embarrass myself :-)
by LeepinLizardz on Jan 14, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Also, if you want to play semantic games
If your definition of replacable is “capable of being replaced”, then everyone on the team is replacable. I could replace Ryan Howard with Ross Gload. Therefore, Ryan Howard is replacable.
I thought replacable in this context means capable of being replaced while suffering little to no loss in performance. That’s what I’m arguing against. If you believe Wilson Valdez can be replaced with little to no loss in performance, perhaps you could point me to those players already in the system who can put up his WAR/games played.
OTOH, if in fact, all you meant was the former (i.e. anyone on the roster can be technically replaced) then I happen to agree with you, although it’s a very strange argument to make.
This is so stupid.
Yes I believe that he is capable of being replaced with little to no loss in performance. What that means is not: “If he is replaced with the next-best real-world option who emerges this spring, then there are pick-’em odds that you will end up with the same WAR.” It means that there is a non-negligible possibility that you will lose little to no WAR as a result.
Even if the middle of the bell curve for Valdez’s projected WAR/162 in 2011 really ought to be set at 1.4 (something you just assume based on a small sample of data, rather than actually demonstrating), the bottom tail of that bell curve will be significantly below 1.4. For instance, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that 25% of that bell curve will be below 0.5. There is significant uncertainty as to how good Valdez will actually be.
Now, if you had to set the opening-day roster today, then obviously you would go with Valdez. Whether or not 1.4 is a fair midpoint estimate for him, he clearly has a better track record than, say, Michael Martinez, or any potential NRIs on the FA market. But you don’t have to set the opening-day roster today. You are actually going to get some additional data in spring training. That is, in fact, what one of the main purposes of spring training is. Thus, you might, for example, see something in March that suggests that what currently looks like the bottom 25% of the bell curve is actually closer to the middle of the curve. Because that outcome, while not the likeliest outcome, has a reasonable chance of occurring, there is no reason to declare Valdez to be a “lock” to make the roster today.
Therefore, he is capable of being replaced – it is possible that somebody else will turn out to be a better option for us, once all the results from spring training are in. It is possible that someone will be better than him, even if 1.4 really is at the middle of the bell curve as of January 13. If the middle of the curve is actually below 1.4, then it makes him even more replaceable.
Furthermore, even if it turns out that Valdez’s WAR/162 really is 1.4 and even if we were to replace him with someone who had a 0 WAR, that still would probably have a pretty small impact on the team’s chances to win. WAR is a counting stat for a reason. That wasn’t an oversight by its designers. Looking at whether Valdez can be “replaced while suffering little to no loss in performance” is the wrong way of looking at the issue in context. On the issue of whether replacing him “would be the end of the world,” what matters is the actual impact on the team. If you had replaced David Herndon last year with a 5.50 ERA pitcher, it probably would have had zero impact on our record, because Herndon didn’t play. Although Valdez played 111 games in 2010, that was close to a worst-case scenario for us. It’s possible that he’ll have to start 162 games in 2011, but the mean # of games he’ll probably have to play is, in my view, significantly lower than 111 or 162. My guess is that it’s around 50. In which case, even if he’s really a 1.4 WAR/162 player, and even if we replace him with a 0 WAR player, we’ll still only be losing 0.4 WAR total. While that would be a bad move, that would not be the end of the world.
There’s only one person here who’s been playing dishonest semantic games and it isn’t me. You talk about context, but you have clearly made no effort to understand the actual context of this debate. Gelb said Valdez should not be considered a lock to make the team. His commenters insulted him, and I wrote this post in response to those commenters. The question is whether Valdez should be considered a lock to make the team. The meaning of the word “replaceable” is in the context of whether he should be considered a lock to make the team. Everybody else here seemed to have a perfectly easy time understanding this. Why can’t you?
Ohhhh shit. Baseball is almost here. I can tell. Taco is already rounding into mid-season form!
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
Snow Days in the Taco Pal Logic Thunderdome
Listen all! This is the truth of it. No Phightins’ leads to snarkin’, and snarkin’ gets to nerd warrin’. And that Fangraphs was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Stacked, 4 aces strong and everyone else huffin’ their own bullshit about our bullpen! But we’ve learned, by the dust of them all… TGPtown learned. Now, when men get to sabr rattlin’, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
by j reed on Jan 14, 2011 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 5 recs
I JUST WANT TO YELL SOMETHING NOW BECAUSE MY HEAD HURTS!
I am not a witch.
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 14, 2011 8:10 AM EST up reply actions
If you think I'm being dishonest or disingenuous
Let me put it plain and simple. Someone should be a lock to make the team unless there are viable replacements who perform as well for a similar amount of money. Please point these personnell out to me that are in a Phillies uniform right now that could do this as the backup for the left side of our infield besides Valdez. Bocock? Martinez?
Bueller? Bueller?
My attitude toward Valdez being a lock would entirely change if the Phils signed Nick Punto or David Eckstein or someone else like that. In that case, throw Valdez out the window and send his butt to AAA.
You might be entirely right that the Phillies would suffer minimal damage to WAR even if Bocock replaced Valdez for whatever reason. But why would a contending team punt wins, even as fractional as they might be? They wouldn’t, which is why, assuming no catastrophic injury or loss of performance to Valdez, with the roster as presently constructed, Valdez should be a lock to make the team as backup SS/infielder.
other players who can’t “play every left infield position and put up .9 WAR playing part time” include Valdez ever in his career before 2010.
by perfectdepth on Jan 12, 2011 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
Actually...
If you take a look at his WAR per games played and extrapolate out over a full season, he would be a 1-1.5 WAR everyday player for the years 2010, 2009, and 2007. So there is somewhat of a track record.
It’s still less than a full season of stats. perfectdepth is right. Your argument is completely reliant on the assumption that Valdez really is a 1.4 WAR player. You don’t even consider the possibility that 1.4 might not, in fact, be a middle-of-the-bell-curve projection for him going forward. You make a big deal out of the fact that Valdez was better than Jason Bartlett in 2010, but Bartlett himself posted 4.9 WAR in 2009. One season of stats (or less than one season, in your case) isn’t enough to support a conclusion that that the same stats are likely to recur in future seasons. Especially when the player in question is entering his age-33 season and posted roughly a .600 OPS in 300 AAA plate appearances over the past two years when not in the majors.
Even if your assumption about the 1.4 WAR were supported by the facts, your argument would still be an attack on a straw man, but since there aren’t actually enough facts out there to support your assumption anyway, your argument is pretty weak even in comparison with your own straw man.
Certainly there is a chance Valdez isn't a 1-1.5 WAR player going forward
Mosey on over to Fangraphs though, and that’s what his last 3 years of big league data say, if extrapolated over a full season. I think it’s safer to judge a guy based on the numbers he actually put up then assume he vastly overperformed. It’s not like his BABIP was grossly inflated.
Now certainly, he could just blow up tomorrow. But at that point, you have a guy making ML minimum, so you could just easily cut him, assuming you can find a replacement . It’s not like Valdez is keeping anyone off the roster that we would otherwise put on. As I stated, barring a great signing by the Phillies, Valdez should be as much of a lock to break spring training as any of the guys outside the starters.
I think you're missing the point a bit
by emphasizing Valdez’ major-league minimum salary. just because he’s cheap doesn’t mean his role can’t be upgraded.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
Now I know you’re being intentionally dishonest. “His last 3 years of big league data”? Sorry, no. What you’re really referring to are his last three seasons of big league data. In two of those seasons, he averaged fewer than 90 plate appearances. All of the data from those three seasons combined adds up to less than one full year of stats. Do you normally assume that the last 3/4ths of a season of stats are an accurate projection of what a player is going to do going forward? Do you normally ignore minor league stats accumulated over the same period of time in making that assumption?
Hunterfan, keep in mind that .9 WAR is less than a win above replacement, and accounts for position. So, by definition, he gives you less than one win over a “replacement player,” of which most teams have several in AAA. Actually, Valdez was one of those guys before 2010. And generally, a veteran shortstop playing in AAA is going to be able to play an adequate 2B and 3B as well.
Ok, then maybe I'm wrong...
Find me all the Valdez comps who can put up between 1-1.5 WAR playing SS (and can also play 2B and 3B) over a full season making the league minimum.
If these players grow on trees why are teams playing Cesar Izturis, Yuniesky Betancourt, Alcides Escobar, Jason Bartlett, and Eric Aybar, all of whom accumulated less WAR with more playing time?
Because all of those players have significantly higher ceilings.
Aybar had a 4.3 WAR in 2009, so you’ll forgive him a 0.5 WAR in 2010 (only .4 lower than Wilson). Oh and he’s 27.
Bartlett had a 5.0 WAR in ‘09 and a 3.1 in ’07 (oh and for what it’s worth, a 2.5 WAR in ‘06 with 372 PAs, only 9 more than Wilson got this year). Oh and he’s 31.
Escobar is in his first full season. He had .6 WAR in ‘09 in about a third of the PAs as Wilson had last year. Oh and he’s 24.
Betancourt had a 1.3 WAR last season, and had a 2.2 WAR back in ‘07. So he’s not really that great, but he plays for the fucking Royals which is why he starts. Oh, and he’s 28 (about to be 29 though)
And Izturis, well, he plays for the Orioles. ‘Nuff said. Oh, and he’s 30, which is STILL younger than Wilson.
He’s not that good. There’s a reason why the dude’s played for six teams since ‘04. And it was a career year. There’s no reason to expect that any other minor leaguer/bench player would do the same, and there’s also no reason to expect him to do it again.
by FearTheTurtIe on Jan 13, 2011 1:29 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
There’s no reason to expect that any other minor leaguer/bench player would do the same, and there’s also no reason to expect him to do it again.
**wouldn’t
by FearTheTurtIe on Jan 13, 2011 1:31 AM EST up reply actions
thanks for explaining why most of those comparisons are utterly ridiculous. I didn’t have the patience ;)
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 8:03 AM EST up reply actions
Point taken that the majority of the guys had higher ceilings
But if you can find me a reason why Wilson Valdez’s WAR was grossly inflated this year (BABIP checks out, UZR in line with his previous numbers) the point remains that this year, he was actually more valuable than those previous players on the field.
He shouldn’t be starting, but he has value as a backup, and his value right now trumps that of anyone else currently in our system. So barring a signing of a better utility infielder to compete with Valdez, he should be a near lock to make the team as it currently stands (barring catastrophic injury or fall-off-a-cliff decline.)
The guy just posted a CAREER HIGH WAR of 1.7. All the of the guys you mentioned have a career high WAR almost a full win better than Exxon. He’s 33. He had one good season. If he is outperformed in spring training by a younger, faster player then he should be cut. Simple as that.
by FearTheTurtIe on Jan 13, 2011 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Obviously you didn't see where I agreed with you
I already agreed with your point about the other SS having higher ceilings. (Well, except for Betancourt at this point. I honestly think the Brewers would be better off this year using almost anyone at Short besides Yuni. Wilson Valdez, Craig Counsell, David Eckstein, a random fan….but that’s besides the point.)
And who’s going to outperform Wilson Valdez in spring training? Martinez? Bocock? You’re right, if Martinez comes into camp and hits like Albert Pujols and fields like Ozzie Smith, he should make the team over Wilson. Is that realistically going to happen? I didn’t realize I had to qualify all my statements to account for extremely unlikely possibilities.
How about this: “If everyone performs like their scouting reports/past performance indicate, Wilson Valdez should be a lock to make the team.” Better?
No, I saw where you agreed with me. I was just simply stating another fact . And you’re seriously going to say:
"If everyone performs like their scouting reports/past performance indicate, Wilson Valdez should be a lock to make the team."Honestly? Well no shit. If Wilson plays like Wilson did last year, he should make the team. No one is arguing against that. BUT THERE’S NO GUARANTEE HE WILL. There is a reason why they have spring training. It’s to see who has made a jump, who has regressed, who is playing well vs. who is not. The argument “If everyone performs like their scouting reports…” is irrelevant because it has no correlation to real life. By such logic, the Phillies should just be given the 2011 World Series trophy. And the Patriots should be given the Lombardi Trophy. Why even play the games? Don’t worry, I’ll answer the question for you: Because things don’t always play out like it says they will in the scouting report or as past performances indicate. There is a realistic chance that someone (like Bocock or Martinez) will outperform Wilson in spring training and thus should be signed instead of him. It’s not unrealistic for those players to perhaps have a 1-1.5 WAR season. Case and point: Wilson himself. No one expected him to have a season like he did. Isn’t it therefore irresponsible to defend Wilson by saying “No utility-level infielder could perform at the level that Valdez performed this season” since that is exactly what Wilson did himself. He was a utility-level infielder who had a good season in which he posted a 1.7 WAR. It is not unrealistic to expect someone else to do the same. Therefore, he is not a lock to make the team, nor should he be.
by FearTheTurtIe on Jan 13, 2011 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
Its not that I hate Valdez the player(who is a replacement guy at best, he can play 3rd, SS, and 2nd if we need him), but I hate the notion that people think he is not just a starter, but a good starter. no matter what kind of stat you use to say hes not, people just dismiss them.
Samesis
PSN - philliesflyers89
The only really good things Valdez did was exceed all expectations (not difficult as there were none to begin with) and make Juan Castro expendable. He’s versatile on the field in a pinch, but I hope the Phillies don’t have to use a backup utility infielder basically all year in 2011 due to a ridiculously long string of injuries.
Given the ages of the left infielders, I think chances are fairly good that whoever wins the utility job sees the field more than we’d like in 2011.
my favorite part
of the common pro-Valdez argument is that Rollins is in his decline.
so naturally, the Phillies should replace him with an older player.
……..
great post
Exxon’s supporters have two legs to stand on that I see: he legitimately did exceed (non-existent) expectations, and Juan Castro, the guy to whom he was most easily compared, reeaaallly sucked.
It’s a near lock that 2010 was as good as it gets for him—and as tp points out, it wasn’t even all that good. If he gives the impression in camp that he’s a decent bet to match that performance, I’m okay with him coming back as a bench guy… in part because if it’s June 10 and he’s hitting .180/.220/.290, you cut him without regret. But if you see something in camp that suggests he’ll hit that badly, and there’s a viable alternative, cut him then and be as close to 100 percent confident as one can be in baseball that you won’t regret it.
chicks dig the long ball
Another example showing why I think this is one of the most insightful things I wrote on this site (if not necessarily well written).
Great work, Taco. You are a better man than I. For I would have just written a sarcastic piece explaining why Wilson Valdez is the greatest player ever by the end of which I would have convinced myself that Wilson Valdez is, in fact, the greatest player ever to play the game.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
I can appreciate all the above, but the bottomline is Gelb hit the nail on the head. Exxon needs to earn his job in Spring Training, he is not J’Roll! I personally would love to see him not make the team and I am one who likes him! Why, because a young guy beat him out with a fantastic spring!
Thought it’d be nice to see a young shortstop on the team, the only way in which one does appear is if Valdez has a pretty awful spring training. It’s not as if Freddy Galvis is going to suddenly start hitting, and I don’t think they’d leave Harold Garcia as the only SS in case of injury. Valdez can certainly lose the job, but a young SS winning it is pretty unlikely.
by philsandthrills on Jan 13, 2011 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
I think there’s a chance Galvis might start hitting someday. He’s been too young for his level every year of his career. Omar Vizquel sucked at hitting too, at the same ages and levels.
Won’t happen this year, though.
Yeah, obviously Galvis certainly has potential to get something going on the offensive side, but not as a 21 year old kid in spring training.
by philsandthrills on Jan 13, 2011 3:41 AM EST up reply actions
Oswalt could probably platoon in Left too.
by philsandthrills on Jan 13, 2011 3:41 AM EST up reply actions
Oswalt/Lee platoon in RF. Dom plays left. Easy!
Training for the Phillies 5K Run on March 26th. Hoping I don't embarrass myself :-)
by LeepinLizardz on Jan 14, 2011 9:53 AM EST up reply actions
Great Topic and Discussion
I think Valdez is a near lock to make the team. Charlie prefers players he knows and he trusts Valdez’s defense. He was not an automatic out at the plate (see Castro, Bruntlett, Taguchi…ugh). Unless Valdez is just horrible (in the field and hitting) and looks like toast he will be on the opening day roster. Given the previous ineptitude of backup SS, I would say that Valdez would be very difficult to replace.
However, (as it seems everyone here agrees) he should not be a planned starter. He has no more upside, so trying a young guy as a starter at least has the possibility of becoming an average starter. If Valdez could run a bit better his value would be higher.
Oh, I seem to remember Valdez’s ‘great moments’ were on defense: perfect games, turning double plays, that ‘gun’ of an arm…
I refuse to listen to your “facts” Taco Pal. Valdez has GRIT. He has HUSTLE. Didn’t you see his amazing CLUTCH?
I actually enjoyed watching Valdez play and succeed last year because I knew he was the R in WAR. I knew it was a flash in the pan and I enjoyed watching this guy get a shot in the majors. Like Chris Coste, it was a temporary fluke, but fun to watch him not totally bomb. Philadelphians always seem to like the guy who isn’t supposed to succeed a lot more than the guy we are told is a star.
He’s a lock to make the roster unless you really think that someone like Brian Babock or Michael Martinez has a more realistic shot at making this roster. Valdez is adequate as a backup middle INF and certainly better the likes of the recent options the Phils have employed there (Bruntlett, Castro).
Agreed
This is one of the points I have been trying to make. Sure, Valdez isn’t setting the world on fire, but where else are you getting equivalent production within the system?
that's a fair point
I don’t think there’s really any question that there’s no better option than Valdez currently in the system. Brian Bocock is clearly worse and Freddy Galvis isn’t close to ready for the majors. I guess it’s possible that Michael Martinez could fluke his way onto the major league team, but it’s improbable.
the argument that I & (I think) others are making is that there should be more competition for that spot. maybe a vet like Jamey Carroll or Jerry Hairston (or Felipe Lopez, or Cristian Guzman, etc). maybe an AAA guy blocked on some other team. there’s no guarantee that any of them would be better than Valdez, but there’s no reason the Phillies can’t find that out on the field instead of assuming that Valdez is the best they can do.
some of them would cost more than Valdez, most likely—I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that. but this is a team with World Series aspirations, and I think it needs a better bench to get there.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Galvis
I don’t have a source for this, but my recollection is that he’s supposed to be a real glove wizard, right? Let’s suppose he can play defense at a GG-level (ignoring for now that Gold Gloves are often given to the best-hitting player with a decent defensive reputation); how well would he have to hit to match Valdez’ overall value?
(This of course supposes Galvis can handle 2B and 3B as well as SS.)
Interesting question. I may look into that later. However, I need to note Galvis has never played anywhere by SS (I’m not counting his 1 inning at 3rd base 2 years ago). So any defensive flexibility is just hope at this point. Though , I think they might want to play him around some. If his bat doesn’t develop this year, then his path to the Majors is Valdez’s route, a utility guy who can play at multiple positions. He may be Ozzie Smith in the field, but if he’s only Brian Bocock at the plate, he’ll need to really play up his defensive value to have any MLB future.
Using FanGraph’s numbers, Valdez was worth -8.4 runs batting, 1.9 runs fielding last year (there was a 12.1 replacement adjustment and 3.0 positional adjustment). Golden Glove winner Tulowitzki had a 7.1 fielding WAR. That means a Golden Glove defender could have a -13.6 WAR batting and be equivalent to Valdez. As it happens, nobody had a -13.6 batting this year, but one middle infielder had a -13.7. Tony Abreu had that horrid batting season, hitting .233/.244/.316.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
And yes, I know Tulowitzki got the GG because of his batting, but he actually is a decent defender.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
What if we used “best fielder” instead of GG winner? How bad a batter would he be allowed to be then?
I remember hearing somewhere that Ozzie Smith would have been a positive for his team even if he had been the worst hitter in baseball, but that could be apocryphal.
back to Brendan Ryan!
the best fielding shortstop by total zone in 2010 was Brendan Ryan at 15 runs above average. and his .573 OPS/57 OPS+ was very nearly the worst in baseball for anyone who got 450 PA. only Cesar Izturis was worse in that many PA. even if you push it down to 300+ PA, there’s only three hitters worse than Ryan: Izturis, Pedro Feliz, and someone named Luis Valbuena who apparently played for the Indians.
so there you have a pretty good example of the best fielding shortstop and worst hitter in baseball, and he was good for about 1 WAR.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
that’s best fielding as a cumulative stat, not a rate stat. by rate, the best fielding shortstop was either John McDonald, Julio Lugo, or Clint Barmes, depending on where you set the bar for innings.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Using those 3
Lugo was -0.6 WAR with a .581 OPS
McDonald was a 0.7 with a .697 OPS
Barmes was a 0.4 with a .656 OPS
mixing measurement systems
those numbers are from Fangraphs, which uses UZR. Baseball-Reference uses total zone, which I cited. it has has those three at 1.1 WAR (McDonald), 1.0 WAR (Barmes), and -0.2 WAR (Lugo).
it looks like the best UZR shortstops in a similar number of innings (i.e., 100+) were John McDonald again, Alexi Casilla (.726 OPS, 1.1 WAR), and Nick Punto (.615 OPS, 1.4 WAR).
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
you need to control for playing time when comparing defensive WAR, though. Tulowitzki had ~1000 innings in the field, all at short, while Valdez had ~800, with only a bit more than half at short.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Good stuff, thanks.
The problem, of course, is that I have no faith that Galvis could even hit .233/.244/.316 at the major league level right now. Maybe someday…
by PhillyFriar on Jan 13, 2011 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
a good comparison
might be Brendan Ryan in 2010.
Ryan had a .573 OPS in 486 PA; Galvis had a .586 OPS in 545 PA in AA this past year. Ryan was good enough on defense according to total zone to be worth about 1 WAR though (exclusively at SS).
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
the argument that I & (I think) others are making is that there should be more competition for that spot. maybe a vet like Jamey Carroll or Jerry Hairston (or Felipe Lopez, or Cristian Guzman, etc). maybe an AAA guy blocked on some other team. there’s no guarantee that any of them would be better than Valdez, but there’s no reason the Phillies can’t find that out on the field instead of assuming that Valdez is the best they can do.
What’s interesting about this situation is if you replace “Valdez” with “Juan Castro,” this was the exact same situation last year. It’s not that it’s impossible for Valdez to once again be an effective backup infielder in limited playing time (as Castro was in 2009), but banking on it is never sound policy.
by PhillyFriar on Jan 13, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
This is a really well written post, TP. You always provide back up for your arguments, but what I like the most is your explanation as to how the perception of Valdez being invaluable became embedded in the collective. It adds another level of context that really strengthens your point, IMO.
That said, I’m still rooting for him to make the team.
I’ve talked to literally hundreds of Phillies fans about this very same topic,, and not a single one thought that Valdez was anything more than a fill-in with decent defense and a nice arm. Blog commenters and radio show callers tend to attract the lunatic fringe of a fanbase, so you have to take them with a grain of salt and realize they don’t represent the majority of the fans.
An argument for him being a “stone cold lock” can be made based on his salary, team control, current competition, and Cholly’s love of familiarity, but statistically there is no argument for it. I fully expect him to make the roster but it won’t be because of the numbers he put up.
Watched almost every game last year – either at CBP, in a bar, or just with friends. Valdez was very popular with all the fans I was around. No we don’t have the same attachment to him like we do to Utley, Rollins, Lee etc. but he was a very good fill-in and a quiet hustling team player. He should go into spring training w/ the upper hand for a utility position unless someone battling for the same utility position demonstrates vast superiority. I know we need pitchers and catchers to report soon if we are discussing the need to replace Wilson valdez.
"quiet hustling team player"
My favorite demonstration of this is when he flipped his bat on like his fifth career MLB home run.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
it’s amusing that all 4 of his home runs this season (in other words, all but one of his 5 career home runs) came in a 10-game span lasting less than 2 weeks.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
ROIDS
Did you see the size of his head those two weeks?
Stealing signs.
I am not a witch.
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 14, 2011 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
New website - Ferengi or Not?
I am not a witch.
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 14, 2011 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Real reason why I wish they have a possible upgrade over Valdez . . .
How many people on here think that Utley, JRoll, and Polanco will all play 150+ games this year and not visit the DL?
. . . .. . . .
I wrote a fanpost a while ago that sort of related to this. What do you think a fair midpoint estimate for 2011 games played would be for each guy?
We also need to allow for combinations. 2010 had a lot of games where two infielders were out (Polanco/Utley/Rollins). 2011 could see more missed games, but I’d like to believe/hope that they would be in sequence rather than overlap. If that’s the case, then Manuel can potentially move Polanco around a bit.
by Wet Luzinski on Jan 13, 2011 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
Also if there were a more capable middle infielder on the bench, maybe Charlie would occasionally give Utley and JRoll a day off. Wishful thinking, I know.
INF replacements (going off topic sort of)
I think the excuse is the lack of a quality replacement. The drop off from those 3 to a Valdez is severe. That is why I would really want the Phillies to get (I am not sure how or where) a quality hitting 3B backup. Polanco would get days off and some time at 2B for Utley. Unknown 3B (RH 2008 Dobbs type?) would bat 7th with Vic moving up to 2-hole.
Last season I was hoping Dobbs would return to 2008 status and fill that role. Then I was hoping Francisco would do the same in the OF to give the all-stars a day or two off every 2 weeks. But with the horrible run production last season it is difficult to weaken the lineup further.
But with the horrible run production last season it is difficult to weaken the lineup further.
What???
The Phils scored the second most runs in the NL last year, and the sixth most in all of baseball.
(For comparison they were 4th in baseball in 2009 and 9th in baseball in 2008… below the Mets even)
OH.. and the totals were
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 Runs
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 RunsSo yes, they did score fewer runs, but …
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 RunsSo yes, they did score fewer runs, but …Runs per game
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 RunsSo yes, they did score fewer runs, but …Runs per gameNL
2008 – 4.54
2009 – 4.43
2010 – 4.33
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 RunsSo yes, they did score fewer runs, but …Runs per gameNL
2008 – 4.54
2009 – 4.43
2010 – 4.33AL
2008 – 4.78
2009 – 4.82
2010 – 4.45
OH.. and the totals were2008 798 Runs
2009 820 Runs
2010 769 RunsSo yes, they did score fewer runs, but …Runs per gameNL
2008 – 4.54
2009 – 4.43
2010 – 4.33AL
2008 – 4.78
2009 – 4.82
2010 – 4.45Phils
2008 – 4.92 (or about 8.5% above NL average)
2009 – 5.06 (or about 14% above NL average)
2010 – 4.75 (or about 10% above NL average)
So.. I don’t know where this myth that their offense was so horrible was last year comes from. It wasn’t the amazing 2009 offense, but it was better than the 2008 offense (when compared to the league).
meta comment
I applaud all of us on this board for coming up with 100+ (and counting!) comments on the weighty topic of Wilson Valdez and his indispensability or lack thereof. seriously, it’s impressive.
by perfectdepth on Jan 13, 2011 4:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Now, it’s time for a 1000 comment thread on Colby Shreve.
by philsandthrills on Jan 13, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
I accept each person’s opinion and Matt Gelb of the Inquirer is just one of those people who have opinions and that does not mean that the opinions are always right. He gave his reasons for the opinion on Wilson Valdez.
Tiger Woods' friend says Michael Jordan a bad influence
This is the best .gif response in the history of this site.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Jan 13, 2011 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
I believe his signature is the key to understanding his post.
Perhaps it’s all some kind of code.
by philsandthrills on Jan 14, 2011 12:10 AM EST up reply actions
As the thoroughgoingly disappointed fantasy owner of “vintage” 2010 Elvis Andrus, who fell between Rollins and Valdez in some valuations, taco (and Gelb) are spot-on. But to argue this from more of a mythical/philosophical perspective, I’m sure Satan himself could sleep nights knowing that one of Cerberus’ three heads has been rendered useless. (Indeed, Phillies fans need to look no further than Juan Castro, whose nickname, “Manos de Oro,” hearkened back to another famous underworld traveler and poet.)
But I digress to make my point: Duh, that’s why it’s a three-headed dog. Depth works that way. As the philosopher said: Hell is other people.
wow
The quality of the comments on that piece is just… well, no comment.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Yeah, although I don’t think they are as offensive as the ones in the Gelb article. Philly.com is still the mecca of crap.
Yup
See it’s not that we’re less popular than Phillies Nation, it’s that our appeal is more selective…
http://www.thegoodphight.com
I love that someone wrote “when you combine his stellar defense with his .258 average” and “amazing bench player who one could argue was the team MVP last year” with no apparent sense of irony.
by perfectdepth on Jan 14, 2011 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
You can take your GIDP line and with fifty cents get a cup of coffee. He put the bat on the ball, and look at his avg in the 7th inning and after, If i remember correctly he was pretty good along with his obp. I will take a back up guy that plays stellar defense in any infield positiion (out side first base) Versitale does not complain. I will take a great defensive player who grounds into dp in the first six innings then gets a hit in the 8th to tie the game or take a lead or get a rally started or finished. I will take a guy who you know can play D bat him 8th and let him hit .229, over a guy who will make an error a game and hit .300.
I might make that exchange, too, except that there is no such player “who will make an error a game”
obviously he was referring to the well-known 19th century Phil Tomney of the Louisville Colonels.
seriously though, that’s pretty amazingly bad. 114 errors in 112 games and a 71 OPS+ to boot. no wonder the Colonels went 27-111.
by perfectdepth on Jan 14, 2011 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Or Lou Say in 1884.
102 errors in 94 games, and an 84 OPS+. I can see why he was traded mid-season and then retired.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
I like Phil Tomney’s picture on B-R
I imagine that this was taken as he desperately tried to position himself under a pop fly, only to have it bounce off his head.
by perfectdepth on Jan 14, 2011 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
the fact that his picture is on a cigarrette card and he died at 28 of TB makes it all the more pathetic.
by Wet Luzinski on Jan 16, 2011 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
I must say, Mr. Say was a rather dapper chap.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
PS – gotta love the model dude’s hair showing (chin and the locks). Who else would wear a CWO shirt?
I am not a witch.
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 14, 2011 11:05 PM EST up reply actions
Valdez did hit better in the 7th and 8th (.361/.410/.500 and .324/.359/.378 respectively), but that doesn’t make up for his utter lack of ability in the 6th (.095/.156/.095) or 9th (.261/.261/.304).
Hell, he had a negative sOPS+ for the sixth inning. I’m not sure I’ve seen that before.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
yeah, I was also surprised to see that his 7/8/9-inning split was actually ostensibly good (.323/.356/.406). but of course that poster was talking about a small sample size of 96 ABs that doesn’t indicate any true talent level like it was something significant.
and as long as we’re nitpicking insignificant splits, we might as well note that Valdez hit poorly in high leverage situations (.653 OPS, 81 sOPS+) or when the margin of the game was less than 4 runs (.538 OPS, 49 sOPS+).
by perfectdepth on Jan 14, 2011 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Three different commenters specifically noted that Valdez “didn’t complain.” Why does anyone give a crap about that?
Seriously. It was probably, far and away, the best year of the guy’s professional career. Dude was “living the life.”
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jan 14, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think Adam Eaton ever complained, either, except perhaps about the back pain that his enormous wallet caused.
I am not a witch.
by RememberthePhitans on Jan 14, 2011 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, he did complain about lack of run support once IIRC, even if he was somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it. The year after he was afforded 10 wins with an ERA of 6.29 and a 1.6 WHIP.
Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Guys, I swear I saw somewhere last year that Valdez had otherworldly defensive stats about 3/4 through the year. Do you have some of the other D-Stats on him (other than UZR)?
Subjectively, his range was excellent, and his arm allowed him to make plays lots of the other infielders seemingly didn’t.
Minor league reviews at philliesphans.com. Check out phuturephillies.com for discussion of minor leaguers by a great staff.
Here are DRAA stats for Valdez, which is what I remember:
“[Valdez] had a great season in the field. Truly great statistically, at one point late last year he led the ML in Fielding Runs above Average for infielders. He finished with 13, which is was still pretty high on the list (3rd in the NL I think) for middle infielders (Tulowitzki, widely considered the best SS in the league, had 12). Given the number of innings Valdez played, these numbers are extremely impressive.”
I can’t reconcile these numbers with the UZR stuff above. DRAA is usually pretty spot-on.
Minor league reviews at philliesphans.com. Check out phuturephillies.com for discussion of minor leaguers by a great staff.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Friday, May 25, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing from right to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 90.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
