(Sign Clemens and all is solved in Red Sox Nation)
Here is my post from May 13th - Click Here
It's a huge story: Red Sox superstar signs a four-year contract with the New York Yankees, paying him $13 million per season. This, surely, must mean the Red Sox are in serious trouble.
I am, of course, talking about Johnny Damon. But if you replace "Yankees" in the above paragraph with "Mets," I could just as accurately be talking about Pedro Martinez, who left the Red Sox to sign with the Mets a year ago.
Martinez earned his salary in 2005, and Damon will probably earn his salary in 2006. If I were a Red Sox fan, though, I wouldn't be mourning his loss just yet.
In Damon's four years with the Red Sox, he batted .295/.362/.441 (that's batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage) and played excellent defense in center field. That's almost the very definition of great value.
But Damon, like virtually every other Red Sox hitter since the 1930s, has benefited from his home ballpark. In Damon's four seasons at Fenway Park, he's batted .310/.383/.442. Away from Fenway, he's batted .281/.342/.440.
Does that mean Damon is fundamentally a .281 (etc.) hitter? Not necessarily. Players typically enjoy a home edge, regardless of their home ballpark. But it's not just the natural home edge that's caused Damon to hit for a higher batting average and draw more walks in his home games; generally speaking, everybody hits for a higher average and draws more walks at Fenway than elsewhere. The reason for this isn't a secret: In addition to the cozy dimensions in the direction of Lansdowne, Fenway also features a wonderful hitter's background (which is probably why left-handed hitters, even those who didn't routinely take advantage of The Wall, have enjoyed Fenway just as much as righties).
And of course, Fenway Park is just one half of the equation. Over the last three seasons, Yankee Stadium has apparently been neutral (roughly speaking) in terms of batting average, but it has knocked down the walks more than any other park in the American League (and perhaps more than any in the major leagues).
What does this mean for Damon? He's not going to bat .300 in 2006. He's going to bat in the .270 to .290 range, with an on-base percentage between .320 and .340 ... hardly the numbers the Yankees and their fans are expecting from a $13 million leadoff man. (In fact, the Yankees might be well-served by leaving Derek Jeter at the top of the order; reader Kashif Anwar points out that Jeter's numbers as a leadoff man are better than his numbers while batting in other slots in the batting order.)
I am, of course, postulating a fairly pessimistic outcome. Damon could, for various reasons, play better in 2006 than he did in 2005. He could hit .337 and win the batting title. But the numbers above weren't just conjured from thin air, and they are going to show up on the field eventually. Maybe it won't happen next season. But Damon is 32. He's not going to get better. He's going to get worse.
Here was the story on Fox News' bottom-of-the-screen crawl this morning:
BRONX BOMBSHELL ... NY YANKEES STEAL LEADOFF HITTER AND 2004 WORLD SERIES HERO JOHNNY DAMON FROM THE BOSTON RED SOX.
Well, that's one fairly balanced way of looking at it. Here's another way:
The Red Sox are going to miss Johnny Damon in 2006, just as they missed Pedro Martinez in 2005. But they lost Martinez because they believed -- correctly, in my view -- that as great as he was, he wouldn't be worth $53 million over the course of four seasons. Similarly, they lost Damon because they believed -- correctly, in my view -- that as good as he is, he won't be worth $52 million over the next four seasons. If the Red Sox behave as they generally have over the last three years, they'll take the $52 million they could have spent on Johnny Damon and spend it elsewhere, more wisely.
And then there's Jacque Jones. I know the words above will draw a healthy response for those who consider me a "Yankee-hater" ... but hold your fire, because I've got some truly nasty things to say about Jim Hendry and Jacque Jones.
Last night, I read a long story about the Cubs signing Jones to a three-year deal worth $16 million. Honestly, the money is not a big deal. The Cubs can afford it. The problem is that Jones will, for the next three seasons, be in the lineup nearly every day (notwithstanding trade or injury). In this particular story, I "learned" that:
• According to Cubs general manager Jim Hendry, Jones has "a lot of upside in him" (he's going to be 31 next season);
• Jones is "patient at the plate" (his career high in walks, set last season, is 51);
• Hendry's scouts told him that Jones' struggles in the last two seasons were perhaps because "Jones tried to carry the Twins," who had to deal with injuries to key players such as Torii Hunter and Shannon Stewart.
On the other hand, here's what I learned in three minutes of quality time on the Interweb: Jones batted .300 in 2002 and '03 not because he was relaxed. He batted .300 because he was 27 and 28. He's not at all patient and figures to draw something like 40 walks in 150 games. The Cubs finished second in the National League last season with 194 home runs, but ranked just ninth in scoring. Why? Because their .324 on-base percentage ranked 11th in the league.
Jones' OBP over the last two seasons?
.317
Jones is exactly the sort of player the Cubs don't need, and it's incredibly negligent of Hendry to ignore a fact so evident.
Article by Rob Neyer
No comments:
Post a Comment