Let's start with Javier Vazquez and this idea that Vazquez can relax more because he's a #4 starter with #1 starter stuff. Do I think that there's less pressure on Vazquez this time around? Absolutely. He's coming to a team that just won the World Series instead of a team that was beaten by an underdog. He's coming to a New York pitching staff that has CC Sabathia, Andy Pettitte, and A.J. Burnett as holdovers from the year before instead of one that was rebuilding with Kevin Brown, Jon Leiber, and Vazquez--who was supposed to be the "young ace".
But to say that Vazquez is going to be able to relax is ridiculous. Do you think he's going to be able to relax on Sunday night in Fenway against Josh Beckett because he pitches 4th in the Yankees rotation? Nope. Do you think that if he gets bombed in the first round of the playoffs fans will lay off him because he isn't the ace? Not a chance. Especially not with his last playoff memory in New York being the 2004 ALCS.
But I think that too often we fall into the trap as categorizing guys as #1s or #4s without realizing that those numbers don't matter. I don't think any team in the 5-man rotation era has ever gotten through a season with 5 starters going 1-5 every time. Just doesn't happen. If CC Sabathia needs to be skipped a start, is AJ Burnett suddenly their #1 starter? Nope. Is there any real difference between a #2 and #3 starter? A prospect like Joba Chamberlain may project as a #4 starter on the Yankees but as a #1 starter on a team like the Pirates--does that change his value at all? It shouldn't. The key is to find a way to get a certain amount of quality innings from your starters in a season. If you get 450 great innings from your "#4" and "#5" guys combined, is your rotation a failure? Nope...not at all.
I think the same type of narrow-minded thinking goes into evaluating where your hits come from. Traditionally teams were built with light-hitting guys up the middle (catcher, short stop, second and center) and power at the corners. But times have changed. A catcher, Joe Mauer, is winning batting titles in Minnesota, a second baseman, Dustin Pedroia, won an MVP two seasons ago, and a shortstop, Derek Jeter, posted a WAR of 7.4 last season. Yet when the Yankees think about starting Brett Gardner in leftfield, people go nuts. One of my favorite bloggers, Steven Goldman of Pinstriped Bible, was guilty of this in his 12/24 mailbag when he said of Garnder: "What I don’t know is if he has the bat for left field. Remember, left field is one of the more offensively productive positions in the game."
Now I only bring up Goldman's piece for a few reasons: 1) I read it today, 2) It perfectly displayed my issue and 3) I think of Goldman as a more progressive blogger so I was surprised to see this. The truth is that Gardner may not be an everyday player. But in a small sample size last year in centerfield, Gardner posted a WAR of 2.1. That was higher than AL East foe Jacoby Ellsbury or teammate Melky Cabrera. Now would Johnny Damon (3.0 WAR) or Matt Holliday (3.0 WAR) be more valuable? Sure. But at what cost?
The reason I say this is that for what Gardner may lack in his bat at this point of his career (and no one ever expects him to hit for power), he makes up for in he field. The goal of a team is to have more the most net runs possible. So a run saved on defense (or, in Vazquez's case pitching) is equal to a run earned on offense. The Oakland As, Boston Red Sox and Seattle Mariners have turned their focus away from big sluggers and have tried to improve their defense. The Yankees have an in-house way to do just that in Gardner. And Gardner is not a total wash on offense either. Bill James' projections (via FanGraphs) has him with an OBP of .368, a wOBA of .347, and a better BB% (with plus plus speed) for next year which could be valuable at the bottom of the Yankees lineup that will feature power at every position other than LF. Could the Yankees use a right-handed OF like Reed Johnson, Jonny Gomes, Marcus Thames, or someone like that (NOT Jermaine Dye who is an awful defender at this point in his career) with lefties in CF and LF? Sure. But I don't think they need to get a starting leftfielder just because Brett Gardner is penciled in on December 28th (and, truthfully, it may be all smoke and mirrors). There certainly is no "gaping hole" in leftfield. And if the Yankees truly need a leftfielder midseason, they can wait until the trade deadline and try to pick one up then as Joel Sherman writes.
Now, I do think the Yankees would be better off with Gardner in CF and Granderson in LF (and that may still occur) and IIATMS agrees. Gardner was the better defensive CF last year (and many forget his huge catch in the Angels series pictured above from The Star-Ledger). If you're going to play both, this may be your best defense. So if you move Gardner to CF and Granderson to LF, have you solved your problem of not having a power-hitting corner OF since Granderson is a power-hitting threat in LF, especially with the short porch? Haven't you basically just replaced Damon in LF and Gardner/Melky in CF from last year with a better version of Granderson in LF and Gardner in CF (especially defensively)? I think too often we get into traps of projecting positional traits when, as long as the whole is good, a team can have different strengths at different positions (as Ken Davidoff writes in Newsday). The Yankees may not have a better lineup with Brett Gardner instead of Jason Bay in their outfield, but when you factor in defense and money and speed and age, they actually may be a better team in 2010 and beyond sticking with what they have.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment