Pat the NL Bat
by SSC24 on Jun 9, 2010 11:57 AM PDT
Email
PrintYes, Pat Burrell is strictly a National League hitter. American league pitching is to Pat Burrell what the yankees payroll is compared to the A's payroll: overwhelming. Speaking of the A's, they recently had a hitter who suffered from the same syndrome as Burrell by the name of Matt Holliday. First we thought, "oh, you never know how well he'll hit outside of Coors..." and when he became an athletic everyone said "ha, I told you he wouldn't hit well away from Colorado." Well, let me just say that for one thing, the A's ballpark is a pitcher's park. Also, Holliday had begun facing his nightmare in American League pitching. The A's end up trading him to the Cardinals at the deadline (classic Beane) for a few prospects. And when Holliday came to St. Louis, he picked up where he had left off in Colorado and became even better. And this happened for a number of reasons. Busch Stadium is more of a hitter's park than a pitcher's park, for one. Big Mac Land is an occasional landing spot for Pujols' homers. Another factor that contriubted in Holliday's success in St. Louis is the fact that he was surrounded by great hitters all around him in the lineup (Pujols, Ludwick and Yadier Molina to name a few). But, by far, the main reason he succeeded in St. Louis is because he faced what he had loved for the first five years of his career: National League pitching.
And now we look at Pat Burrell. He had a great start to his career with nine years in Philly. He never hit for average, his highest two averages being .282 in 2002 and .281 in 2005. For his career as a Philly, he was a .257 hitter. Ugly, eh? The sad part is, he played in one of the most hitter-friendly parks. After the Phillies win the World Series in 2008, he receives a two-year, 16 million dollar contract (I believe) from the Rays, opting to become a free agent than re-sign with the Phils. Bad move. He should have learned his lesson from the World Series.
His line there: One hit (an RBI double), five BB's, five K's, a .071 average and a .316 OBP. That was in a five game and 14-AB span. Pretty ugly if you ask me. The Rays did have good pitching in 2008, but the thing that made it hard for Burrell was that it was American League pitching.
So the Rays released him and I thought at first that they Giants should not get him. I thought he was a washed up 33-year old who can't play defense. Then I was told by a nice member of our McCoven that Burrell was playing defense, thus staying more fresh, in Philly than in Tampa Bay, where he was strictly a DH. I thought that was interesting. But when the Giants picked him up, I liked the thought because he had proven power, and definitely more than Bowker and Schierholtz, and would be somewhat of a weapon off the bench, sometimes receiving a start in the outfield to, as I mentioned, maintain that freshness.
In four games with the Giants ( I know it's a SSS), Burrell is hitting .417 (5-12) with two doubles, an RBI, and a K.
Burrell, after a horrific stint with the Rays (2009, when he batted .221 with minimal power, 2010 prior to his release, when he only got worse, hitting .202), is right back where he belongs: in the National League.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Where he belongs is a retirement home in Boca Raton, Florida.
Proud parent of the new dominant pitching sensation out of San Diego State University.
Refocused on baseball. Sharks hockey: torture.
This
at the most, he should be platooning with Nate/Bowker-but he is best served as a 4th OF/PH specialist
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
Awesome first post.
Rooting for Jose Casilla to take his K- and GB-inducing skills to the majors and join his brother.
The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga... CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz... CHONE WAR projection= 12.6
Sorry, but if the pitching in the AL is to overwhelming for Pat THE BAT, then he belongs in Japan or Fresno.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
THIS
How many at bats do you think he’ll get in interleague play? And if the Giants were to make the World Series, would that mean we should keep him off the roster because he can’t hit AL pitching?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Holliday’s numbers in Oakland weren’t that far off his career numbers, and they’re almost identical to what he’s hitting so far in St. Louis this year.
by Monkeyking42 on Jun 9, 2010 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
Burrell getting a few hit..now lets see some pop
then I will be a believer that he needed to return to the NL
The pitching in the NL West is probably about as good as in the AL East. The Red Sox and Yankees have good staffs (actually, the Red Sox don’t right now), but so do the Padres and Rockies. The Blue Jays are solid, but the O’s aren’t good, and the Dodgers are solid, but the D’Backs aren’t lucky. He also doesn’t get the Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium benefits anymore, and he has to play in Dodger Stadium and Petco now. Though he does get Chase Field.
Goodbye, Steven Johnson, we hardly knew ye. Seriously, that was short.
I’ve always found that curious. “I know that my argument is based on something that has no meaning….but I’m going to make it anyways…?”
by Missing Barry on Jun 9, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
to be nitpicky...
SSS usually doesn’t mean “no meaning,” just not very much meaning.
Yes, that is correct, with a huge emphasis on the not very much part.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2010 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't see a problem with it, as long as you're acknowledging the sample.
For one thing, the topic is going to be stale by the time a significant sample rolls around, for another, teams often have to make decisions based on less than ideal sample sizes.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I would say that teams very rarely have to make decisions based on small sample size. That some choose to do so anyway is something else.
I was promised lasagna.
Really?
Bullpen decisions, for instance, are almost always made on a small sample size (considering that even a full season of relief is a small sample, and in-game decisions are often made based on even smaller platoon splits or even tiny match-ups). Even things like hitting often rely on small samples: Are you willing to give Bengie Molina and Aaron Rowand the 500 AB’s or so it takes for batting average and BABIP to approach a reasonable level of reliability? There are many baseball decisions that need to be made on a time frame that simply doesn’t allow for a sufficient statistical sample, and even if a sufficient sample is available, the fact hat a sample can take months, or even years, to aggregate means that the early information may no longer be relevant.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Very simple
Bullpen decisions should not be made based on one season.
If their only problem is BABIP, I’d give them more than 500 AB. I’d let them play the next year, too. Otherwise I might end up doing something silly, like benching and later giving away Nick Swisher, or releasing Kelly Johnson.
I was promised lasagna.
If you base all your bullpen decisions on multiple seasons, you’re likely to have a very expensive, very mediocre pen. Most non-elite relievers simply don’t have a very long peak.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I disagree
Pitchers have good days/stretches when their stuff is working and bad days/stretches when it isn’t.
If a reliever comes in, can’t locate his fastball, and is getting lit up. Would you leave him in with the reasoning, “Small sample size. He has a long track record of performing well”?
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Small sample size is not the same thing as “short time period”.
If I met you and talked to you for 5 minutes, noticed that you’re clearly tired, and asserted that you’re likely to be tired in the next 15-20 minutes, am I making a decision based on small sample size? After all, you’ve been alive for pretty long time, and I’ve only witnessed a fraction of your life.
Of course not. If my goal is to determine how tired you will be in the next 15 minutes, 5 minutes is NOT a small sample size. It’s a short time period, but, for the purpose of determining how tired you’re going to be in the next 15 minutes, the sample size is more than sufficient.
If, on the other hand, I asserted that you’re going to be tired next week based on not only 5, but even 15 minutes, then it would be SSS. The time period would be three times longer, but the sample size itself would not even be close to sufficient for determining how tired you’ll be next week.
Different things require different sample sizes. Essentially nothing in baseball should be decided by SSS.
I was promised lasagna.
That’s not really a fair question, b/c not locating is really a stat thing its more a rhythm thing which isn’t included in stats, but it is a scouting thing and if your manager sees an issue in his command he should pull.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jun 10, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
But I really think it’s important to understand the you can have a good sample size in a short period of time, and you can have an insufficient one in along period of time. It all depends on what you’re trying to measure.
- I saw Goofus for 2 minutes. He was tall. Therefore Goofus is tall.
- I saw Goofus for 10 minutes. He wasn’t funny. Therefore Goofus isn’t funny.
The first claim is NOT based on a too small sample size. If Goofus was tall for 2 minutes, he’s tall all the time.
The first claim IS based on too small a sample size. Even if Goofus wasn’t funny for 10 minutes, that doesn’t mean that he’s never funny.
I was promised lasagna.
Flawed argument is flawed
It should have taken you less than two minutes to figure out I’m not funny
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Well, a good strategy is to turn to the stuff that normalizes quicker. Peripherals. For bullpen guys, how are their K%/BB%‘s? That doesn’t need that large of a sample to normalize, and you might have to make a decision based on less than ideal sample size, but you should at least get to the point where you have something to go on. And this is also a place where projections are useful – they tell you what to expect out of the player based on the past population you think he fits into. More useful information. Plus you have scouting information, which helps a lot – your scouts can see when guys are losing their stuff, for instance. There’s plenty of information to make a solid decision that doesn’t involve “Burrell was good 2 years ago and has been good in 12 AB’s!”
12 AB’s is the amount where you think the exact same thing about him you thought before those 12 AB’s. If you change your mind even a little bit, you’re doing it wrong.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
But now it's 17 PAs
and he’s hitting 357/412/500. Satisfied? :-P
I think we both agree that the question shouldn’t be Nate vs. Pat. If Rowand sits as he should and Posey catches as he should, there’s room for both of them. The problem is Rowand and Molina, which cause the Pat vs. Nate debate.
What I’m saying is this: I wasn’t clamoring for a Burrell signing, but not opposed to it. I thought he might make a good RHH bat off the bench. I think the Giants played it right signing him to a minor league deal.
After seeing Burrell’s ABs with the Giants, I’m more impressed than I thought I’d be. He obviously goes up there with a plan, controls the strike zone and looks like he hasn’t lost his timing. I’m not even looking at his numbers at this point, just trying to “scout” him and determine whether he looks like a guy who’s “lost it”. If he was going up there and having ABs like Rowand (chasing bad pitches, yanking his head, etc), I wouldn’t want him out there, but I think he brings some “presence” to the batting order order that Schierholtz doesn’t. the biggest problem the Giants have had over the past two seasons is a lack of a “heart of the order”; especially a RHH.. Burrell looks like he might help in that regard.
Do you think Harang wanted any part of him yesterday with two out? He pitched around him to get to Buster and Buster went yard.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
One problem I’ll note is that the single biggest factor in his loss of productivity over with the Rays was a substantial loss in power. He hasn’t had very much BABIP bad luck, his K/BB rates aren’t that different from what he was doing before…more than anything, he lost 100 points of iso. Strikes me as a bad sign in an old player. So far this year as a whole? He’s continued the exact same trend for last year – small losses in BB/K, but mostly, no power. His value is in his ability to take a walk and hit for power. If the power isn’t there, his value plummets, and it will probably lower his walk rate with it.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
if you’re going to use SSS to say his good hitting is a mirage, you can also use SSS to say you can’t really judge whether his power is gone or not. I think Burrell was hurt by the change in leagues, and he was also hurt by being used as a DH, the first time in his career when he wasn’t in the field every day. He was probably also hurt by the fact that he wanted to stay in Philadelphia, the place where he had spent his entire career, and now had to go to a different place where he didn’t really want to be. He’s really not old when compared to some of the veterans Sabean has dragged through here in recent years, so I don’t think he’s washed up by any means.
As far as him belonging on the Giants’ bench, you can put it in green all you want, but he’s a better option than either Rowand or Nate, so he belongs in the lineup. Talk to me about Nate when he actually hits the ball out of the infield. He hasn’t hit one single ball hard in ages, and if it’s injury, put him on the DL, and if this is the real Nate, than I don’t want him on my team. The only real option with real potential was just sent to Fresno, and until he’s called back, Pat The Bat should be in the lineup.
Buster Posey: "still not ready." - idiot of a GM
I'm talking about small samples, not insane ones.
And definitely not a microscopic sample that flies in the face of a very recent, much larger sample.
What I’m talking about is (for instance) at what point does Rowand’s replacement-level performance this season begin to overcome his previous, and rather large, sample of near league average performance? And (in reverse) at what point did Affeldt’s insanely good performance last season begin to erode people’s faith in his significantly worse (but still good) established level of performance?
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Depends on how big a sample we’re talking about. Going with what Monkeyking said – even small samples do tell us something, and the larger they are, the more they tell us. There’s no magical line where all of a sudden they gain meaning, it’s a sliding scale. In this case, our sample size is 12 AB’s. That’s……not something you can make a decision on. If you’re acknowledging you have a small sample size of 100 PA’s and it’s not close to ideal but the best you have, fine, but 12? Worthless.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2010 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Acknowledging you have a small sample size is the first step
Having the courage to go to the pharmacy and buy small condoms from the cute clerk is the second.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
It’s interesting that Burrell is always cited as a guy who benefited from hitter friendly Citizen’s Bank Park, but for his career, his home and road splits are extremely close. If you look at his last big year in 2008, he was far better on the road. It varied – some years, he was awesome at home, weak on the road, and the next year, it would be the reverse. He wasn’t an incredible player, but he definitely wasn’t just a product of the ballpark in Philly. For his NL career, he was always a guy with a subpar BA, above average OBP, and roughly .500 SLG. He was a solid 2nd tier outfielder in the NL (other than his defense, which was always scary bad). Once he moved to the AL, he pretty much lost whatever ability he had to drive the ball out of the park, he slowed down even more than in prior years, and his average fell like a bag of cement. I think this is the last year for him to get a shot at being a starter unless he kicks ass over the next four months; I guess it’s up to him to decide if he wants to play baseball or join up with Eric Byrnes. It’s a low-risk move for the Giants, as long as they don’t fall in love with him early enough that later reversion to mean results don’t move Bochy to send him to the end of the bench. I’d prefer to see a healthy Schierholz in right, Burrell in left, and Torres in Center, but until they move Posey behind the plate, I doubt this lineup happens. I’m deathly afraid of the Huff/Burrell corner OF combo – Torres has to be Kelly Leak out there in this scenario.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=burrepa01&year=Career&t=b
Eliminate that pesky Dominatrix in one easy step. Step 1: Tell her you're a Cubs fan!
as long as they don’t fall in love with him early enough that later reversion to mean results don’t move Bochy to send him to the end of the bench.
This is my very real concern.
I feel prickishly demanding!
I couldn't be prouder of my recent adoptee - Tim Lincecum's dealer. He provides the secret fuel behind both Cy Youngs. Also, he taught Timmy the change-up.
by giantsfansince1981 on Jun 9, 2010 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
My concern is that he plays shitty defense and doesn’t make up for it with his offense, all the while stealing PT from younger players who should get it. But yeah, I’m also concerned that Bochy will play him because of “veteran grit” or whatever.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2010 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Like Rowand is a lead off hitter?
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond, Brian Anderson.
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Jun 9, 2010 8:32 PM PDT reply actions
I imagine Bochy will try him there again
you heard it here first.
I like my beer cold ... my TV loud ... and my romosexuals flaming.--Homer Simpson
Question – anyone want to take a go at this: who’s better, Burrell or Rowand? As in: if they’re competing for a corner OF spot, what should we expect out of each going forward offensively and defensively in a given amount of PT?
A very conservative estimate of the defensive difference is 15 runs per year.
ZIPS projects Rowand to have a .327 wOBA the rest of the way, which seems awfully bullish, but that’s okay, it balances out our conservative defensive estimate.
You need to make up 15 runs — divide by 650 plate appearances over the course of a season — multiply by 1.15 — that’s a difference of about .027 wOBA. So Burrell would need to be at .354 to match Rowand.
That’s his 2004 season: .257/.365/.455. Can Burrell manage that?
Does Rowand still add 15 runs of defense if you move him to a corner OF spot?
One more stat question: Does this take into consideration that a presumably superior offensive player (Burrell) moves other guys down in the lineup or is that “intangible”?
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Incomplete answer:
I’d take Burell in a heartbeat, but I’m not going to plug the pro-rated numbers: call it an intuition (it isn’t, but since I’m too lazy to dig out the stats, call it that). But I still think the best currently available OF is four guys playing in rotation (which helps keep people fresh). The slash numbers are days played out of total days:
Torres: 5/6
Schierholtz: 5/6
Burrell: 4/6
Rowand: 4/6
The actual positions played default to CF for Torres and RF for Schierholtz, but with ocasional shiftoffs as circumstances require. (I posted a much more complere proposed rota on another thread, the 1/3-season one I think).
If there is someone better than any of those four who is currently within the organization and ready to play at the major-league level, I don’t know who it would be except—possibly—John Bowker. If Rowand were somehow excised from the roster, I’d be willing to take a flyer on Bowker in his place.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
lots of hitters benefit from going AL to NL: Uribe and Renteria are 2 more. Rowand, Chisox to Philly another.
Let’s see, what to World Series and AllStar results show us?
proud, yes I said proud, adoptive papa of "Geno" Eugenio Velez
DON’T FORGET HUFF!
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jun 10, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Pat the Bat Update
Burrell has now raised his 2010 season OPS+ from 68 to 103 in just 31 PAs.
In 10 games, he’s turned a lousy season into a decent one. As much as I’ve been touting Burrell as a possible missing piece, I still find that remarkable.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
