from Amazon
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who is it that is a nut case here?
This is from a Jon Heyman article (not really an article, just a brief mention):
The Dodgers were disappointed by the regression of catcher Russell Martin, who in the words of one Dodgers-connected person was “just another catcher’’ this year. Only a year ago Martin was an excellent two-way player who won a Gold Glove and a Silver Slugger and appeared on the verge of superstardom. The New York Post reported that the Dodgers might even consider trading him.
What the hell is either Heyman or the “Dodgers-connected person” talking about? The guy is 25 and a half years old, he has an OPS of .791 in his rookie year, .843 in 07, and .781 this year, and he is a freaking catcher! I don’t even see any poor garbage stats this year to give the impression that he “regressed” or had a bad year. He batted .280, hit 13 HR and drove in 69 runs. Did I mention that he is a freaking catcher? And did anyone notice his 90 walks and 5 HBP? That is why his OPS undervalues his offense this year, as opposed to last year and the year before. In 06, combined with his minor league numbers, his offensive lwts per 150 games was -3.7. In 07, it was +12, and in 08 it was +8. That is a “regression?” That is “just a catcher?” Holy crap!
I’ve mentioned this before, but if a guy hits .850 (in a league where the average player hits .750) in his first year (or in any year, and that’s all we know), and he gets better in talent (say by 20 OPS points), how many teams do you think understand that he is supposed to hit around .820 the next year, a “regression” of 30 points?
For those of you who are just casual readers, let me repeat that: If a player hits .850 (OPS) his first year and we KNOW (G-d comes down and tells us) that his true talent is going to increase the next year by 20 points (maybe because he is on the up-slope of his aging curve, like Martin presumably is, but it doesn’t matter why), then we expect him to hit around:
.820 the next year. Yes, we expect that a player who gets better in true talent will hit 30 points less than he hit the year before!
So, the “Dodger-connected source,” assuming that this quote is reasonably accurate, is a complete idiot on so many fronts, that if he is a “high-up” in the organization, I feel sorry for the organization and its fans.
(BTW, when I say that an organization, manager or GM (or whatever) is bad or good, that has very little to do with their short-term, and in some cases, long-term, success, for several reasons: One, there are so many other factors in a team’s short-term (and long-term) success, not the least being plain old luck (or payroll, etc.). Two, if I say that an organization is “bad” I am usually talking about one particular area. There are many other areas, like scouting and player development, in which they could be very good. Third, since I am not really privy to what is going on inside an organization, and reports from the media could easily be inaccurate or misleading, you probably have to “regress” my assessments quite a bit.)
Agreed with everything MGL said. Before calling Martin “just another catcher” perhaps they should try counting how many catchers are better than Martin. Last year it’s Soto, McCann, not sure if there are any others, off the top of my head. It was a real down year for catchers in the AL as Posada got hurt, Napoli couldn’t stay in the lineup enough, and Pudge and Varitek got old.
Reading the intro I wondered if I missed something. I thought Martin had a good year and checked B-ref to see if I missed a late slump that brought his numbers down to .250/.340/.370 or something. Nope, he had a very good year, and even if he had done that given his age and track record would project as a very valuable player.
But what I really found interesting was his full name:
Russell Nathan Coltrane Jeanson Martin
Almost as long as one of our greatest presidents:
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho