Free Erubiel Durazo!
Last I looked,
had more HR and RBI than
despite being the backup and being banished to the minors for a time. It'll
be amusing to see how long the D'backs will stubbornly play Grace.
They are unwilling to admit they made a mistake, no matter how much
evidence exists to show playing Grace is costing them games.
It might be time for a grass-roots effort. Maybe
we need to start a guerrilla movement, some fan-
based push to get Erubiel Durazo the playing time
he so richly deserves.
If you’re at a D’backs game, start chanting, "Free
Erubiel Durazo!" Tear up a pillowcase and put the
war cry on it in bold red letters. Call your local
sports-talk station on the premise of discussing
the NBA playoffs or how many letters Eric Lindros
has in his alphabet, then shout the mantra to the
world. E-mail sportswriters, both in Phoenix and
around the country, with just three little words
that will take baseball by storm.
We can do this. We can change the world, or at least
the NL West.
Do I make any sense with this idea? The Cardinals are looking for a
first baseman to caddy for
They've gone as far as trying to coax
out of retirement. The Diamondbacks have a logjam
at first base and are probably starting the worst option of the bunch.
Why don't the D-backs trade Mark Grace to the Cards for cash
(something we know they can really use)? With the unbalanced schedule
it could be fun watching Grace take on the Cubs.
I agree with you that the Cardinals could use
some extra OBP instead of wasting ABs on
and Placido Polanco.
That said, it’s not
realistic to expect them to acquire Mark Grace.
Grace has the better part of two seasons left on
his deal, and the Redbirds expect to have Mark McGwire
back sometime in the second half.
The D’backs should be looking to trade Grace. Then
again, they never should have signed him in the
first place. Free Erubiel Durazo!
Changing the Game, Part II
I was interested
to see you suggesting a "bonus baby" rule as a possible reform
in baseball. As you probably know, baseball experimented with rules
of this sort in the 1950s and generally they were a dismal failure. I'm
curious as to how you would tweak the rule to make it more successful, or
whether you think the industry has changed in the intervening 50 years in
some way that would make a similar rule today more successful?
It’s because of that very reason–the failure of the bonus baby rule in the
’50s–that I’d be in favor of this sort of change. I’m undoubtedly guilty of
some bass-ackwards thinking on this front, but I’d want teams to have a
disincentive to sign amateur talent to big bonuses if they’re really so
concerned about bonus sizes. Would the Yankees be as ready to throw around
large bonuses after amateurs if it cost them roster spots, either on the 25-
or 40-man rosters? Probably not. Would some prospects be harmed by the rule?
Yes, they would. Ambitious high school players with bad agents would
undoubtedly get harmed in terms of swapping a player’s potential development
for a short-term payoff. It would all get stored away under the umbrella of
negative reinforcement, where teams, players and agents learn that it’s
usually going to make more sense to try to build a career than score a quick
payoff with negative side-affects. Considering that many young players would
be losing a chance at a big payday, it would make sense that this kind of
proposal would go hand-in-hand with a more liberal rights scheme, where
minor league free agency could be moved up from six years to five, or where
the savings in bonuses could instead be plowed back into pay hikes for minor
Now, the question is whether or not what I’m proposing really makes that
much sense. I can understand how most people would think it makes more sense
to let teams exercise their rights to blow their money in whatever way they
choose, and I can just as easily understand that if the Yankees don’t get to
exert muscle on signings in the way they can now, that isn’t going to stop
them from finding new ways to spend it. Indeed, you might even argue that by
preventing the Yankees from giving an Andy Morales scads o’cash, you’d be
giving them a greater opportunity to spend the exact same amount of money on
amateur talent acquisition as they do now, but that they’d wind up with more
players because they can distribute the money to more prospects, all just
under whatever threshold you’d arbitrarily set to determine who a "bonus
To these complaints, I’d say that this proposal clearly depends on creating
meaningful revenue sharing among the 30 teams, and may well depend on Sandy
Alderson’s scheme to internationalize the draft. Essentially, this kind of
proposal would merely be an add-on to a more comprehensive reform of the
game’s economic and player development structures.
Do you have an idea why
has yet to translate his
minor league performance on to the Major League stage? I know that major
league performance can be accurately predicted by minor league
performance, but clearly Giambi has not thus far performed as expected.
Giambi’s numbers from the minors are a good match for his major league
numbers… except for Omaha.
EQA 1996 Spokane .234 1997 Lansing .260 Wichita .251 1998 Omaha .310 KC .259 1999 Omaha .317 KC .262 2000 Oakland .265
He had 30 AB at Sacramento, which isn’t enough to tell us anything, but he
did hit well (.310) there.
Omaha is an unusual stadium if I recall correctly; it is very short down
the right-field line. Giambi is supposed to have taken extreme advantage
of it; a look at the stats say that he did in ’98, but not in ’99. At this
point, I believe that Omaha was just an unusually good match for his hitting
style, and his numbers there are not indicative of his major league ability.
was another one-park wonder – great numbers at Buffalo, when
he was in the Pirate system, and mediocre everywhere else.
I have recently read a couple of articles in the Cincinnati Post
about the Yankees being interested in Dennys Reyes as a starter, while
the Reds are interested in trading him for starting pitching. I have
tried to be patient with the Reds' sometimes ridiculous evaluations of
players, BUT NOT ANYMORE DAMN IT!!! DENNYS REYES IS STARTING PITCHING.
The article also said that the Reds could end up with Ted Lilly
(unlikely) or Randy Keisler. If you were the
Reds, would you put Reyes in the rotation or trade him? Would you expect
fair compensation since he has not had a real chance to prove himself
and will be a free agent in two years?
You raise a very interesting point, in that the Reds are currently goofing
off with Jim Brower, which would seem to indicate a need for starting
pitching. But Dennys Reyes is the best available internal alternative, and
the Reds would rather deal him? There is an element of better certainty I
guess, in that returning Reyes to the rotation might be considered a "risk"
insofar as it’s been a while since he was a regular starter, while people
like Ted Lilly or Randy Keisler have been starters all along. I’m inclined
to believe that’s pretty small beer, because if anything, Reyes probably
needed the time in the pen to protect his arm after a few years of working
hard at a young age in the Dodgers’ chain.
So you’ve got my sympathies, in that as much as I’ve always like Lilly and
don’t have any problems with Keisler, I’d rather have Reyes, and I’d rather
do as you suggest, which is to start him to potentially increase his value
in trade and/or help myself out in the meantime.
With Fred McGriff
passing Mark McGwire
in the ever-relevant number-of-different-ballparks-homered-in category, I recollect that
was in third a couple of years ago, and has switched back to the
American League since then. Since he only has two dingers this year, I'm
sure he's not really catching up. Still, where can I find this
If Burks gets a decent number of ABs this season, he should be able
to break or at least tie this important record. He’s homered in 36
parks, two behind McGriff, and he hasn’t hit a homer in Jacobs Field
(his home park), Comerica, Safeco, Tropicana, or the Ballpark in
piece from espn.com that has the information.
McGwire probably has a good chance to end up with the record. He
could add two to his park collection this year (Miller and PNC),
and he seems more likely than Burks to crank them out in ballparks
that open after 2001 — e.g., the one opening next year (?) in
wasn't considered for center field
is because he is an average left fielder who would be terrible in center.
Having watched Brown at the end of last season and in spring training, he is
as capable of playing center as Laddie Renfroe was of closing games in the
era. I am frightened that Baylor will eventually play White in
center in order to get more offense in the lineup. I can think of worse
ideas (like using White in center) than calling up
and seeing if he can hit better than Little Sarge.
Rosie Brown is not a good outfielder, and I would never advance the claim
that he is. While defensive stats are primitive to the point of being
nothing better than hints at ability, they generally don’t say good things
about him. But what Rosie Brown can do is hit, and he’s a much more viable
offensive half of an offense-defense platoon in center than
was in 1998. Getting three plate appearances out of Rosie, followed by replacing
(an overrated defender, but far better than Rosie) or
Gary Matthews Jr.,
would at least put runs on the board (admittedly, for both
teams), while giving Don Baylor the flexibility in his lineup to go for
offense or defense as needed, as opposed to have two bad alternatives that
you have to pinch-hit for.
All that calling up Todd Dunwoody would do is add another crummy player to
the mix. Whether or not he can outhit Little Sarge is immaterial. In over
900 big league plate appearances, Dunwoody’s career OBP is .282 and his
career SLG is .351, all while playing in one of the best offensive eras. If
Dunwoody hits that well again, he isn’t doing the Cubs any favors. If
Matthews can’t outhit that (and he hasn’t), neither is he. The Cubs would
have been better off shopping for a guy like
or James Mouton,
but Andy MacPhail turned up Dunwoody. To Dunwoody’s credit, he’s more
experienced and also eight months younger than Matthews, but playing Russian
Roulette with fifth outfielders can take forever, since all you’ll do is
Thinking about the recent increases in offensive output has got me to
wondering why was it that pitching was so dominant in the 1960s? Why
did offense decline so much in that decade that the Lords of Baseball
lowered pitcher's mounds?
Major league baseball changed the strike zone in 1963 because they felt
there was too much hitting; the strike zone was moved from the armpits
to the top of the batter’s shoulders. That’s probably not the only
reason, but it was the primary one.
I've noticed over the last week that
has been carrying a BA HIGHER than his OBP. I'm pretty sure this has never
been 'achieved' over a whole season, but I'd like to know what the
closest difference between the two has been for a regular over a whole
Limiting the search just to
players after 1954 (when data for all the components of OBP become
available), you’re right that the "Guillen Standard" (as I called it
in Baseball Prospectus 1999) has never been achieved in a
full season. The closest is
1982, in which he
walked a mere 5 times, was hit by a pitch once, and had an
all-important 7 sacrifice flies in 350 PAs. The seasons that came
closest to the Guillen Standard since 1954 (minimum 300 ABs):
PLAYER YEAR BA OBP DIFF Ellis Valentine 1982 .288 .294 .006 Alfredo Griffin 1984 .241 .248 .007 Rob Picciolo 1979 .253 .261 .008 Hal Lanier 1964 .274 .283 .009 Ozzie Guillen 1996 .263 .273 .011 Doug Flynn 1982 .225 .236 .011 Ozzie Guillen 1991 .273 .284 .011 Ozzie Guillen 1993 .280 .292 .012 Tim Foli 1983 .252 .263 .012 Mariano Duncan 1996 .340 .352 .012
is the career Guillen Standard champion, by a wide margin
(non-pitchers, minimum 1500 ABs):
PLAYER BA OBP DIFF Rob Picciolo .234 .246 .012 Andres Thomas .234 .255 .020 Don Mueller(*) .296 .318 .023 Ozzie Guillen .264 .288 .023 Alvaro Espinoza .254 .279 .025
(*) - numbers since 1954 only
is the player with the most PAs in a season to actually
have achieved the Guillen standard, when he went 127 PAs without
drawing a walk or getting hit by a pitch, but hit 2 SFs for the 1963
Giants. That’s a .184 BA to go with a .181 OBP.
Questions? Comments? Contact us by clicking here.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.Subscribe now