Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Ken, I am still not loving the Swisher deal. I am still surprised that you would support a trade for someone due to make $5.3 million next year that is coming off a season in which he batted .219. All the other stats in the world can't mask this stark number. Plus, he will now hold a precious 40-man roster spot and is signed through 2011.

Here is his salary information as per Cot's Baseball Contracts:

09:$5.3M, 10:$6.75M, 11:$9M,
12:$10.25M club option ($1M buyout)
2012 option increases to $12M with top 5 in MVP vote any year 2007-11
limited no-trade clause 2011-12 (may block deals to 6 clubs)

Jack, you shouldn't focus on his batting average because that stat is almost meaningless. Batting average is very limiting -- it counts all hits as equal. Swisher had a poor year -- he's said it a million times himself -- but he still managed to walk quite a bit and hit for power. And in his two previous years in Oakland he showed tremendous power and patience. In a perfect world, Swisher would return to his 2006 numbers, when he had an incredible year. But they'll also take 2007, when he got on base just as much but showed less power. Looking at his numbers, it definitely seems his time in Chicago affected him and that his numbers should revert back to their norms.

Ken, you definitely covered all possible tags here. I also look forward, with honor and pride, to the day that I will be a tag myself.

Yes, future tag Jack, I agree with future tag baileywalk. It was a horrible '08 for Swisher, but there are reasonable excuses for what happened: First time getting traded. Didn't click with Guillen. Wasn't comfortable hitting leadoff. Go ahead and rip him for it, but if you're projecting what he can do going forward, there's ample reason to think he can rebound. And if he does, he'll be a bargain.

baileywalk, how did I know that you would write that? :) That's why I gave a nod to "other stats." Yet, batting average does mean something in the baseball world and a .219 average is hard to easily explain away - in fact, it's impossible.

Yes, he showed some talent in past seasons, but he wouldn't be the first player - or the last, to "lose it." Haven't people here said similar things about Robby Cano, who had an MVP year compared to Swisher?

I'm not sure what is the basis for the leap of faith inherent in the statement: "Looking at his numbers, it definitely seems his time in Chicago affected him and that his numbers should revert back to their norms."

A mere change of scenery can lift a player out of the morass of a .219 average? Maybe. Maybe not. If it doesn't, the Yankees have wasted money and tied up a roster spot. It wouldn't be the first time Brian Cashman wasted valuable resources, nor will it be the last. If Cashman had left and gone to any other team in baseball, it's unlikely he would be able to waste money in this manner. But, with the Yankees, he doesn't live in the real world.

Swisher struck out 135 times last season, 131x in 2007 and a whopping 152 in 2006. His OPS+ last year was just 92 and he hit into 14 double plays.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't focus solely on batting average because BA doesn't tell you how often a person got on base like OBP and doesn't tell you what type of hits he's getting like SLG. does. Despite his .219 BA, which obviously isn't good, Swisher still managed to walk a lot and hit for power. So even if he never gets back to '06, it's reasonable -- but not guaranteed -- that he should be more of the Oakland Swisher than the Chicago Swisher going forward. Swisher, when good, is simply one of those offensive players -- like Adam Dunn and latter-day Jason Giambi -- that kind of drive some people nuts. Strikes out a lot, doesn't hit for average, but gets on base and hits for power.

Looking at his career numbers, I just think his tough time in Chicago had a lot to do with bad luck and being in an uncomfortable position (with his manager and his place on the team). But nothing is guaranteed. He could be cooked. We'll have to wait and see how it all works out.

I don't want to speak for Cashman, but I assume he looked at Swisher as a high-reward/low-risk player. They gave up little to get him and his contract is reasonable.

baileywalk, everything you say could be on the mark, but it's hard to quantify bad luck and being in an uncomfortable position. Swisher played in more than 150 games last season, so any bad luck he had should have evened out over the long baseball season. His .410 SLG percentage was OK, but he had 21 doubles and 24 HRs, which are hardly eye-popping. True, the Yankees didn't give up a lot to get him, but he is taking up a roster spot through 2011 and if he can't turn it around, no other team will take his contract without the Yankees paying a good share of it.

Whenever Cashman's contract is nearing its conclusion, we all have to read the endless drivel about him agonizing over whether he should leave or stay. Sources talk about how he wants to prove himself elsewhere, etc. I really don't think the guy could function with Yankees money. The Swisher deal happened because the Yankees can afford him. The fact that he is a "high-reward/low risk player" for NY is a testament to the fact they can throw money down the drain and still enjoy a good supper.

None of us really knows which Swisher we are getting. The old one or the more recent version.

Bailey, I think my problem with the new stats is people throw away the stats that we know. I really am not a fan of people saying BA., RBI, wins, E.R.A., are meaningless because their not. If you hit .219, it is very telling. Find me one person with a .219 season that said, "Wow I had a great year." And find me one person with a 140 RBI season that said, "I really sucked this year." I agree the newer stats are probably better but .219 and 140 still tell an accurate story.

Ken, not to be a jerk but I think Gerry's comment came after the Thurdsay night deadline so sadly, he needs to be stripped of his bronze. The last thing we need here is a medal scandal!

Jack, Swisher's batting average on balls in play (BABIP) was unbelievably low last year - .249. His numbers will pick up some based on pure luck alone. That's quantifiable.

And Robby Cano put up a considerably lower OBP (.305) than did Swisher (.332). That's a much better gauge than batting average.

Batting average alone is a horrible stat. I'm sorry, Richie, but it's meaningless. No intelligent baseball executive pays any attention to it whatsoever. As I've blogged before, if someone invented it now, we would be laughing at it.

But you might be onto something with your Comment Olympic medal scandal. LOL.

Ken, take a look at Swisher's career batting average while playing 1B, compared to his career numbers at each of the three OF positions. I repeat, these are career numbers, so they take into account his earlier productive years. Does the number for 1B concern you at all?

I'm still not sure how you quantify "luck." It seems like "voodoo baseball stats" to me.

Ken my point is I dont think you can find a player with a .219 BA that had a great year. Ever. I agree your new fangled stats are more comprehensive, and therefore better. But when someone bats .219, it is a cause for concern. I bet Swishers other stats were below his average as well.

I'm going to try and learn a new pitching stat and batting stat this year. I hope its easy to find. Which two do you reccommend?

As for Swisher, I think he's probably a middle to below average first baseman (hitting wise). I thought his stats would pick up after Oakland so....he has one more year to prove himself.

Jack, when the Yanks acquired Scott Brosius during the off-season in '97, Brosius batted .203 11 HRs 41 RBIs in '97 but in '96 he batted .304 22 HRs 71 RBIs. Of course we saw what he did in '98 hitting .300 19 HRs 98 RBIs and winning the World Series MVP as the Yanks won 125 games (114 in the regular season) to win the World Series. I bought up Brosius becuase you were talking about Swisher. While Swisher batted .219 this year for the White Sox, he did hit 24 HRs 69 RBIs. In '07 with the A's, Swisher hit .262 22 HRs 78 RBIs. And in '06 with the A's he hit .254 35 HRs 95 RBIs. So while the batting average is shakly, the power numbers are there.
According to the New York Times, the Mets are looking into the Trade market to relievers to shore up the bullpen before they start negotiations with K-Rod and/or Brian Fuentes. It looks to me like the Mets want to revamp the entired bullpen not just getting a closer.

Jack, Swisher cost the Yankees absolutely nothing in players, his salary is somewhat less than Giambi's and his production should be about equal to Giambi. People around this blog talk about the Yankees lowering payroll almost like it means ticket prices will go down as a result. Guess what? They won't be going down anytime soon, or at least until they see lots of empty seats in the new ballpark.
Nobody wants Swisher on the Yankees because his production is "bad". Nobody wants Teixiera on the Yankees because he costs too much. Nobody wants Giambi because he's done. Nobody wants Matsui or Damon to play first because they can't. So if nobody wants anything available, who, exactly, do you want to play first base? The Yankees don't have one in the system.
The Yankees do business by spending money, period. The may talk the talk about cutting payroll but in the end, always, ever since Steinbrenner bought the team, they don't walk the walk.

I'm still not sure how you quantify "luck." It seems like "voodoo baseball stats" to me.
--

It's a little-known fact that Adam Dunn's value to a baseball team is measured by rattling chicken bones around in the skull of a baboon.

I don't know if Swisher playing first base is cut into stone. But if things aren't going the way Cashman expected given "his career batting average while playing first base, compared to his numbers playing the three outfield positions" Nady can play 1B very well, and they can switch. So, no first base doesn't and shouldn't concern the Yankees much right now. All first base means is we have freed up much more money for much needed starting pitching. And we will get it.

Richie, no one in the world is saying that Nick Swisher had anything but a terrible year in 2008. But batting average is 100% worthless. The sooner we get rid of it, the better. Swisher's .332 OBP (which is bad, but not anywhere as bad as a .219 batting average) is a far more useful measure. The idea is to score runs, and you score runs by getting on base. It doesn't matter whether it's a hit, walk or HBP.

Jack, one of my primary goals is to get you to stop hating on luck. It's actually quite quantifiable. Swisher's BABIP was an extremely low.249, and his line drive percentage was a healthy 20 percent. That's freaky. That's not supposed to happen.

As for Swisher's #s as a first baseman, that is a great catch. I hadn't noticed that. That is indeed something to ask Mr. Swisher and Mr. Cashman about, the next time I see them.

Ken, your point about scoring runs is dead on. But advancing runners is important too. And I've never seen anyone score from 2nd on a HBP or walk. And I've never seen runners advance from 1st to 3rd on a HBP or walk either. Even as a 7-year-old I knew the ol' adage a walk is as good as a hit is very often not true. So batting average has to have more value than 0. I think a team like the Angels that take the extra base would value BA. more than a team like the Yankees that dont.

I'm curious yours and James K.'s take on Ichiro. I heard someone say awhile ago that if he decided to drive the ball instead of slapping it, he'd be a far more productive hitter, even though his BA. would drop. Whoever said it, said in his quest to get 200 plus hits he's being very selfish. And I've heard he's hated in his lockerroom so maybe there's merit there.

To everyone, on Swisher,

I'm late to the game here, as Ken nicely covered the correlation between line-drive % and BABIP that resulted in Swisher's awful batting average. It turns out Swisher was probably the unluckiest hitter in baseball in 2008.

Swisher had the best LD% of his career, and the worst BABIP of his career. He was terribly unlucky. Richie, his other numbers were right in line with his career averages. (BB%, K%, isolated power)

Batting average is highly variable from year to year (and worthless as Ken points out), but BB% generally stays constant. Swisher should be fine.

Richie,

The goal of a hitter, at its absolute basic roots, is to not make an out. This is what OBP measures - how good a player is at not making outs. I think I stole that from Moneyball or something, but I think it's a terrific explanation of the stat.

There's some interesting research out there about the chances of scoring atleast 1 run in various situations (i.e. 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, man on 2nd with 2 out), which proves that the chances of scoring atleast 1 run is greater with a man on 1st and zero out vs. a man on 2nd and 1 out. Might not have a bearing with this current discussion, but it's pretty interesting, and mathematically proves that the sac bunt is a bad move in MOST situations.

P.S. The sac bunt is just fine when playing for 1 run in late innings. The math also supports it.

I dont like to bring God into this blog but God invented 3 outs for a reason. So I'm almost never a proponent of sacrifising (outside of a pitcher of course)

But not every hitters goal should be the same. It should differ depending on what the situation is and who is up. When Jason Giambi walks, he's not nearly the threat that Jose Reyes is when he walks.

There probably is a stat for runs created. Which to me would be you get a point for every run you score, and everytime you advance a baserunner that eventually scores.

And James, in my favorite fantasy league, we have a very lengthy scoring system. Ryan Howard finished with the 17 most points scored. (Reyes, Wright, Pedroira, Beltran, Hamilton, Berkman) Pujols was injured but still finished 8th. So I'm not as old school as you may think. We try to make it the people that produce the most runs get the most points.

Between OBP and SLG, Richie, you can get what you want, in terms of the value of coming up with a hit (as opposed to a walk) in a big spot. Batting average alone is utterly useless. Why do you not get an at-bat for a fly ball that scores a runner, but you do for a grounder that scores a runner? It just makes no sense.

As for Ichiro, there's no doubt he has a negative rep because he prioritizes his hit total at the cost of not only driving the ball, but walking a lot.

Thanks for the Ichiro tip. I agree that minor part of the stat makes very little sence. But thats sorta like saying the Mets in 2008 lost because of hustle, not relief pitching!! (Sorry, dont ban me)

The one time there is no comment submission error is when I wanted to edit my note.

Just so you understand, I know thats not your ONLY reason you think BA is meaningless.

But like I said, I'm going to take your advice and follow a new hitting and new pitching catagory this year. I already know on base %.

LOL, Richie. I just think (pretty passionately, as you know) that there are all of these great measures now, and that there's no reason to hate on them. Batting average is the absolute worst. I don't think there's a pitching equivalent as bad. Wins are silly to cite as a primary measure, but I wouldn't label them "worthless." And ERA has value, undoubtedly - but not as much as ERA+. And as you know, I loves me some strikeouts and walks.