Just Say No to Rowand

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 11:01 AM EDT in News

Amidst the Phils' exciting run-up to a possible postseason spot, there's some worrisome noise coming from the trainer's room. Aaron Rowand is saying that he's ready to return to action if the team makes the playoffs.

If they do make it to the post-season, Charlie Manuel should loudly just say no to Rowand returning to his everyday role with the team.

Ignoring Rowand's fabled grit and emotion, let's look at reality instead. Here's what the facts tell us: the Phils are a better team without Rowand in the lineup or on the field.

First, let's look at a simple measure, one that many fans will appreciate the most: the team's record with and without Rowand.

	Record	Win %
With	56-54	0.509
Without	25-19	0.568

The Phils have played better without Rowand than with. That's a small sample size, though, and smart fans know that a simple record analysis doesn't get at an individual player's contribution because so many other factors come into play.

So, let's try to isolate Rowand's contribution compared to the contribution of other center fielders in his absence. Here's a chart comparing Rowand's performance at the plate and other center fielders' performance in the games Rowand has missed:

	BA	OBP	SLG
Rowand	0.262	0.321	0.425
Others	0.330	0.385	0.440

In the 44 games Rowand has missed, the Phils' centerfielders (mostly Shane Victorino) have slightly outslugged Rowand, hit much better, and massively outperformed Rowand in getting on base. In total, the non-Rowand centerfielders have an OPS that is 0.079 higher than Rowand's. That's a signficant difference at the plate.

How about in the field? Isolating one player's defensive contribution is difficult, but it's possible to see how the team has performed with and without a player in the field by looking at defensive efficiency (the percentage of balls in play turned into outs). Here's the comparison with and without Rowand:

	DER
With	0.656
Without	0.702

Without Rowand in centerfield, the team has converted about 4.5% more balls in play into outs. That's a significant difference in performance.

Doubters will say that the team suffered for most of Rowand's time because of the wall-fearing tin-man (Bobby Abreu) in right field. They would say that the team's DER would be lower with Abreu in the outfield, thus penalizing Rowand for playing healthy when Abreu was on the field. So, let's limit the DER analysis just to games after Abreu stopped playing for the Phils (his last game was July 28):

	DER
With	0.675
Without	0.698

The gap has narrowed, but still, even in the post-Abreu era, without Rowand, the team's defense has been better than with Rowand by almost 2.5% more batted balls turned into outs.

The Phils have a better record without Rowand than with; their center fielder has hit better when he was not Rowand than when he was; and their defense has been considerably better without him on the field. There's no reason Charlie Manuel should let him play everyday if he returns and if the Phils's season stretches past October 1.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I do believe Gillick is on the record

That he likes Victorino in CF. If you move Rowand to RF that will allow Dellucci to PH or spell Burrell in LF and have Burrell have him PH. I'm sorry but having Rowand in the OF mix is better then having Roberson in the OF mix. Having a OF mix of Rowand, Victorino and Dellucci/Conine is better defensively. More then likely offensively also. No way in hell I would want to rely on Burrell in a run situation in a playoff game other then wanted to produce a fly ball to score a run. If he can make contact with the ball. But since I know where you stand on Burrell you will see it a different way. While Rowand was tailing off, being he had all this time off he will not be a tired player and could produce a pretty good amount. I'm just saying this is not a problem its a good thing to have him in the OF mix. Remember he did have a good April and May before he got hurt and actually did pretty well the first 2 weeks after coming back from injury. His K's were down. Then he starting striking out alot and his BA went down alot. Just another reason to show K's kill a player. If he can keep his K's down, he should produce at a pretty good rate.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 11:53 AM EDT reply actions

"... K's kill a player"

"Just another reason to show K's kill a player":

That bum Howard would really be good if he would only stop striking out so much. Maybe he should bunt more often.

by Celebre Twins on Sep 24, 2006 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions

yo

when you hit 58 HR then you can deal with strike outs because pitchers aren't pitching to you. when you hit 23 HR and SO and you are looking at pitches down the plate, that is an issue. Come on use a little sense.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

What?

If Ryan Howard is striking out more because he's being pitched around, then I'm officially worried. I don't think that's happening, though.

by phatj on Sep 24, 2006 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions

What?

I guess you don't watch baseball games. But really it doesn't matter about SO when a player is like Howard who bats .313 has 58 HR and 143 RBI. Compared to a player like Burrell.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I've watched pretty much every inning since Labor

...Day weekend.

His strikeout rate since then has been slightly lower than it was beforehand, and his walk rate higher. Howard has done a terrific job of laying off when he's getting pitched around. He was baffled by Ohman or whatever his name is on the Cubs, but not because he was getting pitched around.

by phatj on Sep 24, 2006 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I got just one more thing to say

When I posted the stats of players batting behind Rollins, you told me thats not proof. Well this is not proof that the Phils would be worse if Rowand did play. He doesn't have to play CF, he could move into LF and become a upgrade over Burrell he could be moved to RF and be an upgrade over Dellucci. There is no proof to show the team is better off without Rowand. There are a number of factors besides Rowand to show why this team is better. One being the Pitching. Another being Howard. Are you going to admit the team is better without Abreu? Because you just proved it yourself. So the Abreu trade was a good move, am I correct on this?

If Victorino is that much better then Rowand, bat Rowand 2nd with his .323 BA and move Victorino lower in the order. Put Victorino in the 3rd spot and move Utley to 5th to protect Howard.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 12:04 PM EDT reply actions

no, and no

Are you going to admit the team is better without Abreu? Because you just proved it yourself. So the Abreu trade was a good move, am I correct on this?

I'll admit that when I saw Dave posting the records with and without Rowand, my first thought was, "That speaks against Abreu, too." Just as post hoc ergo prompter hoc applies for the Abreu deal, it also applies to invalidate the idea that the ballclub is better simply by virtue of not having Rowand in the lineup...

...if there's no other evidence to back up that idea. The difference between what Dave has done here and what you and other Abreu-bashers keep doing, is that he offers a whole bunch of other data against Rowand as a contributor.

Now, if you're limiting your case to "Rowand > Roberson," I'm 100 percent with you. If you want to pull Burrell out of the game for defensive reasons, or because he's not a good contact hitter, I'd rather see Rowand in there than Roberson, or Bourn, or (since Manuel sometimes seems to believe he's an outfielder) Thurston. Rowand's defense may or may not be better than either of the rookies, and he's not as fast afoot, but I trust his bat a lot more and I'm willing to credit his "intangibles" as maybe meaning something, especially after Bourn got picked off late in a game a week or two ago.

But unless Vic'o is hurt worse than he seems to be, there's just no way Rowand should be in the lineup over him. Perhaps he should play vs. lefties rather than Dellucci... but would you rather have him in there than Conine the Barbarian? I think not.

Just say no to Rowand, indeed.

by dajafi on Sep 24, 2006 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I never mentioned Conine

but I start him in RF and use the Rest Conine, Burrell and Dellucci as a pinch hitter.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

You don't get it

If all I had done was post the record with and without Rowand, I would have done the same as you had done with your analysis of guys hitting behind Jimmy. I would have posted two events and not drawn any connection between the two.

However, as dajafi points out, I went further and tried to explain the difference. First, the guy replacing Rowand, mostly Victorino, has significantly outperformed Rowand at the plate. That's one way to explain the positive difference in Rowand's absence. Second, the team defense has been significantly upgraded without Rowand. That's not all Rowand's absence, obviously, but given Victorino's stellar range, it's part of it as well.

Offering an explanation and proving it is what this site is about.

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

what i posted about rollins is

exactly what you posted. It wasn't about wins and losses it was about where a batter hits better. I gave when a player batted 2nd and i gave when said player was batting in differents spots in the order. I gave over 2 years not 1 year or a couple of games as you did. So don't give me that crap about proving it when i did and you refused to see it.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Only to yourself

You proved it to yourself and no one else. You gave two facts and no connection. Draw the connection and refute the other possibilities I mentioned, and then we'll give you credit. Until then, it's just speculation. And calm down.

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

come on

the obvious connection is being that no matter how you look at it those players i mentioned as 2 hole hitters over the last 2 years have batted better behind Rollins then they did in any other part of the order. What does your saying that the Phillies are better off without Rowand? Because of BA am I correct. You used Victorino being a better hitter, well who does he hit behind. What order does Rowand bat. Behind Pat Burrell thats who. Its a big difference. You can't use W/L records because there are other facets of the game that plays into it. There is better pitching, there is Ryan Howard, there is Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Mike Lieberthal that have something to do with the Phillies winning. But nothing but better pitching is why they are better. Frankly, the phillies have scored less runs without Rowand then they did with Rowand. In the month of Sept. Victorino is batting .277 which is not much better then Rowand has for the year.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

BA?

Do you really think I care much about batting average? Have you learned nothing reading this site?

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

of coarse not

because a Batting Avg doens't mean a thing just like any other avg. Thats the problem with stats. they are averages nothing else. just like the one's you post.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions

No, you don't get it

Batting average means very little to me because it doesn't tell you whether a guy has advanced the game along. In other words, it leaves out walks (unlike OBP). Also, it doesn't tell you whether a guy is knocking other guys around the bases because all hits are equal (unlike SLG).

If you think the reason I don't think much of batting average is because it's an average, then you're really off base.

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

i understand what you mean about BA

but i did say a better hitter. BA is very valuable to show a player making contact with the ball and actually putting it into play. OBP is fine if you want to include walks, but I was talking about hitting not walking. Rollins makes the 2 hole hitter a better hitter. History shows that. As far as Slug. pct. for a 2 hole hitter doesn't have to be a slugger. He has to move the leadoff runner. The difference between OBP is so small a difference of 10 walks over a coarse of a year could just add about 10 points if that. Rollins scores a ton of runs, In order to score you actually have to hit the ball. BA is a very good way to see how a hitter makes contact with a ball and actually putting the ball in play instead of looking to walk as in Abreu and Burrell which also leads to K's.

by Philsin06 on Sep 26, 2006 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

A more detailed comparison

Here are links to the Baseball Prospectus player cards:

Rowand: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml

Victorino: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/victosh01.shtml

Burrell: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/burrepa01.shtml

As one can see, Victorino has outplayed Rowand at the plate and in the field. And despite having a down year, Burrell has been a better player than Rowand (see WARP which includes offense and defense). In fact, the fielding stats demonstrate that Rowand has been overrated, Burrell underrated, and Victorino as excellent as we thought.

by Celebre Twins on Sep 24, 2006 1:05 PM EDT reply actions

NOOOOO!!

by WholeCamels on Sep 24, 2006 6:24 PM EDT reply actions

I have got to say

you people don't know a thing about the game of baseball. You sit there with your little stat sheets trying to prove how this is this and that is that. Bottom line is Wins and Losses. If you had any clue at all, just a little you would know that having Rowand makes that bench that much stronger. If some common sense was being used you have known this to be a good thing. Now if you want to say keep Victorino in CF, Yeah i could agree with that, but to not play him must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard on this blog. You compare players that shouldn't even be comparing. They bat in different spots in the order, they are different players. That does not mean they are bad players. You people really need to understand the actual game of baseball before opinions like this is posted. Sorry for the blasting but it needed to be done.

by Philsin06 on Sep 24, 2006 7:54 PM EDT reply actions

ey quote from initial post:

"If they do make it to the post-season, Charlie Manuel should loudly just say no to Rowand returning to his everyday role with the team."

Nobody said don't play him.

by phatj on Sep 24, 2006 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

There should be a "K"

before "ey" in the title of my previous post.

by phatj on Sep 24, 2006 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Reading comprehension

Seriously, read phatj's post and then take some time to improve your reading comprehension skills.

by David S. Cohen on Sep 24, 2006 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe you need some reading comprehension

this is what he said

"The Phils have a better record without Rowand than with; their center fielder has hit better when he was not Rowand than when he was; and their defense has been considerably better without him on the field. There's no reason Charlie Manuel should let him play everyday if he returns and if the Phils's season stretches past October 1."

Well, I was dispute was to let him play everyday. Pitchers like Moyer, Hamels, Myers and Lieber need good defensive players. There is more to baseball then just offense. Weren't you the one who disputed that pitching doesn't win? Well it does. Rowand should play everyday and sit Burrell. That was my point. But because you are all over on Burrell which is crazy in itself. Platoon Dellucci/Conine/Burrell depending on matchups. The Phils will score runs reguardless. If you have better defense you give up less runs. that LF combo are not very good defensive players. Besides, just to point something out, Rowand has a .248 BA with RISP. Dellucci has a .194 BA and Burrell has a .220 BA.

I am not saying move Victorino out of CF, I am saying play Rowand in RF or LF depending on who is pitching and what kind of lineup the opposing team is throwing. If you are going to play in the playoffs and have to face a Padres or a Dodgers with their pitching, you have to keep the opposing teams runs down because you could have trouble scoring runs.

Dellucci has a .000 BA vs. Padres and a .200 BA vs. the Dodgers

Burrell has a .167 BA vs. and vs. the Dodgers has a .167 BA

Rowand has a .174 BA vs. the Padres and a .267 vs. the Dodgers.

Chances are the Pads will win out. None of those players have good numbers vs. the Padres. But Rowand is indeed heads above the rest defensively. So if you are going to have a hard time scoring runs, you better have a good defensive team to limit the amount of runs the opposing team will score. Don't you think?

by Philsin06 on Sep 26, 2006 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Phils W-L record is better without Rowand

Rowand just isn't a very good player. No one said you couldn't keep him around as a bench player. But he shouldn't get significant playing time. That's such an obvious fact that anyone who disagrees with it proves himself to be completely ignorant about the basic workings of the game of baseball.

by taco pal on Sep 25, 2006 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

So can we all agree

Victo > Rowand > Roberson/Bourn?

by das411 on Sep 25, 2006 12:20 AM EDT reply actions

Rowand

Wow this is a tough scenario. If healthy I want him only based on the other options as discussed previously above. Rowand's bat is better than Bourn/Roberson but each of them have huge pinch-running ability which is big in the playoffs. It will be very interesting to see what the Phils do.

http://pabaseball.blogspot.com

by Carson on Sep 25, 2006 7:14 AM EDT reply actions

Victorino

Victorino is definitely my choice for CF, and I don't trust Rowand in RF over guys who can hit a lot better. I would definitely use Rowand as a righty PH threat, as we do have a weak bench. He could also be a late game defensive boost over Burrell, too.

The rest of this comment is directed at Philsin06:

I really don't want to get involved, but I've been reading this blog for a while, and I would really appreciate if before you posted, you at least READ Moneyball. You don't need to agree with a single word of it, but you should at least understand why the people who write on this site disagree with your assessments. There are basic principles illustrated in that book like batting average being less valuable than on-base percentage for simple reasons like batting average varies wildly from year to year and on-base percentage doesn't vary as much; and things like why a hitter's K totals shouldn't be taken as seriously as other statistics. Then you can feel free to argue as much as you want, but I'm annoyed that reading this blog has turned into reading a bunch of guys giving you a book report on Moneyball. You don't need to agree with a word of it, but please at least know who you're arguing with so I don't have to read book reports to enjoy this blog.

by Matt Swartz on Sep 25, 2006 8:35 AM EDT reply actions

thanks MattS

what '06 doesn't understand is that we are not "guys with stat sheets." We're guys who want to better understand how the game works, and why our favorite team is more likely to win or lose based on decisions they make.

I do believe there's a danger in over-concluding based on statistics; I think there are things we can't measure, either because the metrics aren't there yet (e.g. defense) or because they're simply not quantifiable (e.g. mood of the clubhouse), but that still matter, and that we limit our analysis by dismissing things just because we can't effectively measure them. But that's nothing like saying we shouldn't try to measure things; of course we should.

The 1993 Phillies, the last club from these parts to make the playoffs, are a great example of all this. The performance analyst looks at that team and sees a bunch of position players who drew tons of walks and who could and did do damage when they put the ball in play, and a bunch of pitchers with very good strikeout-to-walk ratios. The John Marzano types looks at that team and sees a bunch of personalities that meshed well, guys who sat up all hours playing cards and drinking brews and talking baseball. Of course, they're both right.

by dajafi on Sep 25, 2006 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

1993

The thing about the two different versions of 1993 is that when you point to the performance analysis, you're describing a winning team. With the clubhouse personalities explanation, you could easily be describing a winning team or a .500 team or even a losing team. Which has more value then?

by David S. Cohen on Sep 25, 2006 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

that's true

My last line--"they're both right"--probably implies an equivalency that I didn't mean. In terms of explaining why they won in '93, and what it means as far as generally building a team, the walks and K/BB type explanations are much more powerful.

The other stuff is just better copy. Maybe the key as far as advancing the debate is to figure out how to write about performance analysis as vividly as the Ring Lardner types did 70 years ago...

by dajafi on Sep 25, 2006 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Very true

The other thing that we need to convey is that even though we may talk about stats when talking about what contributes to winning, it's the other stuff that contributes to having fun following a team. A team may win 60% of their games, but do so in a manner that is boring, with bored players on the field, and constant fighting in the clubhouse. Given how starved we are for a winner, I'd take that. But, I'd have more fun following a team that shows excitement on the field and gets along off the field . . . as long as they're winning!

by David S. Cohen on Sep 25, 2006 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

great book

I don't agree with everything in Moneyball, but it is a great read!

by Carson on Sep 25, 2006 11:25 AM EDT reply actions

Is that Carson...

from We Should be GMs??

Also, for anyone who enjoyed Moneyball there is an excerpt from Mike Lewis's (not the Eagles safety) next book, which basically applies the same theory to the NFL.

Semi-useful link here: http://tinyurl.com/gyppc

And DC, did being dismissed as a losing team by pretty much everyone in spring training '93 motivate the individual players to up their performances that year? My own personal theory is that there are sooooo many random variables that go into each season that a true answer to the "SABR versus scrappy" debate will probably never be found. With that said, why not enjoy the debate for its own sake?

by das411 on Sep 26, 2006 12:23 AM EDT reply actions

Good article, David

I agree Rowand should not get his starting job back, but do believe an OF of Burrell, Vic, Dellucci, Conine, Rowand is good IMO..it would be better with Abreu, but that is water under the bridge. I think with that group we can match up with any team/pitcher. As usual, our success will come down to pitching; the starters seem to still be in their groove, but the pen I fear is vulnerable.

by Vote for Kalas on Sep 26, 2006 6:14 PM EDT reply actions