Tribe tracking Bourn

[peeker643]

HOLY SHIT.

What team is this, anyway? Im completely floored.

(I think there is your first premium free agent, Peeks?)

I'm encouraged they went outside their economic comfort zone for sure and I like the move. But I personally would stop short of calling Bourn a premium free agent. Personally I'd consider Swisher a bigger acquisition but I wouldn't call him premium either. Guys like Pujols and Hamilton, etc., et al, those guys are premium offensive players. Guys like Bourn and Swisher are a level (or more) below that.

Again, not knocking it as I like him and I love the fact you have eliminated Zeke Carrera and Aaron Cunningham-like guys in the OF.

I also still personally prefer Stubbs defensively in CF but the Indians have added power and speed to their lineup this season and no way will I bitch about that.

Still comes down to one of either Ubaldo or Masterson being an ace. That happens and it could be interesting but a lot of holes are being filled and I dig it.

[motherscratcher]

HOLY SHIT.

What team is this, anyway? Im completely floored.

(I think there is your first premium free agent, Peeks?)

I'm encouraged they went outside their economic comfort zone for sure and I like the move. But I personally would stop short of calling Bourn a premium free agent. Personally I'd consider Swisher a bigger acquisition but I wouldn't call him premium either. Guys like Pujols and Hamilton, etc., et al, those guys are premium offensive players. Guys like Bourn and Swisher are a level (or more) below that.

Again, not knocking it as I like him and I love the fact you have eliminated Zeke Carrera and Aaron Cunningham-like guys in the OF.

I also still personally prefer Stubbs defensively in CF but the Indians have added power and speed to their lineup this season and no way will I bitch about that.

Still comes down to one of either Ubaldo or Masterson being an ace. That happens and it could be interesting but a lot of holes are being filled and I dig it.

All of that.

I like it a lot. This team is much better now, but there are still a lot of question marks, especially in the rotation.

But if all of the chips fall the right way...who knows? It's no long completely delusional.

[skatingtripods]

Take a deep breath, Adam...

I'm thrilled with this. I had an impossible time trying to competently write a quick article for the front page about the signing because my mind is racing. I never thought this was possible, which I think makes it that much sweeter.

If nothing else, this'll be a damn entertaining team to watch. There's a lot of 3-run HR potential in this lineup with the walks and power that they'll generate. A lot of strikeouts too, but a lot of 1st to 3rd and 2nd to home. I'm trying to stay grounded about Bourn, because he's just an average offensive performer except for the stolen bases, but he's a tremendous asset to the outfield and the top of the lineup.

They need another starting pitcher, but at least the current starters have some margin for error now.

Wow, what a fuckin' ride this offseason. If nothing else, there's a major buzz, in the city and in that clubhouse. They'll believe that they can win. They've got a good manager for it. Definitely need a couple starters to overachieve, but, they're a hell of a lot better than they were two months ago.

[Dnthateonthepronk]

you might have to change your avatar now

[skatingtripods]

you might have to change your avatar now

It was actually meant sarcastically. In jest, if you will.

But, I never expected this offseason.

[Govbarney]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

[statmasta]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

1,529 by the 2010 Diamondbacks

AL record is 1,387 by the 2012 Athletics

[skatingtripods]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

What's it matter? They walk, hit for power, and have speed. That's all going to cancel out the strikeouts.

[Dnthateonthepronk]

you might have to change your avatar now

It was actually meant sarcastically. In jest, if you will.

But, I never expected this offseason.

Oh I know


Then again, now he actually has no money, so actually it fits

[dazindiansfanuk]

Well, I'm absolutely shocked.... did not see this one coming!

According to Hoynes on Twitter, Bourn is "only" making $7m this year before it jumps to $13.5m in 2014/15 and $14m in 2016.

So, in spite of my genuine excitement, the sceptic in me reads that and my first thought is "taking a run at it this year, but will probably have to dump salary in the off-season".

Pitching is still a bit thin..... go get me Kyle Lohse (ha!).

One note on draft pick compensation, this seems to have created the perfect storm for the Indians to sign Bourn - too many teams afraid of giving up a first round pick.

As it stands, the Tribe forfeits their 2nd and 3rd picks (technically the 2nd round and Competitive Balance pick), in the draft for signing Swisher and Bourn which, on the face of it, you wouldn't say is a big deal BUT let's not forget, with the new "draft budget system", losing picks in the top 10 rounds reduces your draft budget and therefore makes it much more difficult for you to pick any "tough signs" or "flyers"....... granted, you could make a strong argument that every pick was a "flyer" as the draft's a crapshoot, but it's still something to consider.

All in all though, great to see the team dig deep and dramatically improve the offense. But, like I said, I'd still love another vet starter (that isn't named Dice-K).

[pup]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

What's it matter? They walk, hit for power, and have speed. That's all going to cancel out the strikeouts.

Happy with the move.

Like the off season.

But Adam, that last sentence might be the epitome of assinine. I dont want to derail the convo, but nothing cancels poor at bats that result in doing nothing.

[Toxicadam]

Gotta say, I really like this move. Bourn fills a lot of holes this team had and allows for a lot more lineup flexibility.

Although I am pessimistic about his contract in the long term, it makes this team more viable in the short term.

[British_Pharaoh]

Umm yeah, so I shat my pants and leapt out of bed this morning when scrolling through news on my phone

[British_Pharaoh]

$54 million to Swisher
$48 million to Bourn
$16.5 million to Cabrera
$7.3 million to Perez
$7 million to Myers
$6 million to Reynolds
$5.75 million to Jimenez

plus whatever they paid Francona

Where in the world did all of this money come from? Wow.

Francona must have a lot to do with this spending. I would think he would have wanted guarantees that the FO would spend more money to help him shore up his squad.

Cheers Terry!!!

Best offseason for ages
have the Browns signed Wallace yet? Just to make this day better

[British_Pharaoh]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

Yeah alright Dr Doom

[Govbarney]

Gotta say, I really like this move. Bourn fills a lot of holes this team had and allows for a lot more lineup flexibility.

Although I am pessimistic about his contract in the long term, it makes this team more viable in the short term.

This move "fills a hole" if we can trade Brantley, or Stubbs for a quality starting pitcher.

[Govbarney]

What's the single season team record for strikeouts?

What's it matter? They walk, hit for power, and have speed. That's all going to cancel out the strikeouts.

Okay, Bill James , I get what your saying, but come talk to me again when we are first in the league with runners left in scoring position. I just know its pretty damn demoralizing when you strike out with one or two outs , and there are RISP.

I am glad the Tribe are spending money, I just hope they are doing it wisely , and not out of desperation.

[Gradysmanldy]

Might actually pony up the 20$ or whatever it is to watch the spring training slate; i'd like to see the youths (Mcallister, Bauer, Carrasco) pitch and see if the vets (Kazmir, Dicek) have anything left in the tank. Need 2 solid starters from that group, unless they trade an OF or sign another pitcher.

Biggest problem is still the rotation, but lineup and bullpen should be very good, again.

[skatingtripods]

According to Hoynes on Twitter, Bourn is "only" making $7m this year before it jumps to $13.5m in 2014/15 and $14m in 2016.

So, in spite of my genuine excitement, the sceptic in me reads that and my first thought is "taking a run at it this year, but will probably have to dump salary in the off-season".

Same as Swisher's contract. The Dolans won't get their TV revenue from the STO sale until next season. They get 40M per year from Fox Sports for the Indians' television rights, but it doesn't kick in until 2014. Hence the lower salaries for this season.

[British_Pharaoh]

I hope Bourn transitions well to AL pitching. It can go either way for him. Either he storms all over the pitchers who have not seen him before, or he struggles in a superior league. But with him and Swisher in the lineup in improves the young guns we already have around them. Protection for Santana means he will see less junk, and have some more juicy meatballs to swat.

The lineup is just so mouth-watering now. No more platoons. And you know Francona is going to be aggressive on the bases, and when you have guys like Bourn and, to a lesser extent, Brantley, Kipnis A-Cab and Stubbs, when they get on base pitchers and infields are already on their toes.

We could have a situation where 3 of our guys (Stubbs, Bourn and Kipnis) account for over 100 steals.

[skatingtripods]

But Adam, that last sentence might be the epitome of assinine. I dont want to derail the convo, but nothing cancels poor at bats that result in doing nothing.

It's not asinine. It's what I believe, because I'm with the sabrists on this. High walk rate + power nearly cancels out strikeouts. I misspoke when I said it would entirely cancel out the strikeouts, but, strikeouts aren't that big of a deal. The difference between ground ball/fly ball outs and strikeouts is very minuscule over a large sample size.

Mike Axisa (River Ave Blues, Fangraphs, and now some national baseball blog that I can't remember):

We’ve all heard the argument before. If high strikeout pitchers are so great, then why aren’t high strikeout batters so bad? Most will argue that you want a guy at the plate who puts the ball in play when you have men in scoring position, and that’s certainly true, but it’s an oversimplified look at things. Mark Teixeira, the number three hitter for the best offense in baseball last season, had runners in scoring position in just over 31% of his plate appearances. That’s it. Miggy Cabrera, the cleanup man for a middle of the pack offense, had men in scoring position in just over 25% of his plate appearances last year. We can’t just ignore the other chunk of plate appearances because of our confirmation bias, though that’s usually what happens.

The Yankees struck out fewer times than all but one AL team last year, so we have the best of both worlds. Dis-ir-regardless, I decided to look into this a bit. What I did was take every batter with at least 400 plate appearances over the last three seasons, and plotyed their strikeout rate against their weighted on-base average (wOBA,, which Joe explained in detail here). If strikeouts are so bad for hitters, then theoretically the players with the highest wOBA’s would have the lowest strikeout rates, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, the graph is too big to just post in here, but here's a link

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say that strikeouts are good. They’re bad, we all know it. However, it’s okay to sacrifice a few strikeouts from position players in exchange for other things, like hitting for power or getting on-base at better than average rates. Just look at the graph, you can see that almost all of the players with really high strikeout rates (say, 33% and above) are generally above average offensive players. If that many of your plate appearances end in strike three, you better do other things well at the plate, otherwise you’re useless. Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Carlos Pena, Mark Reynolds … all those guys make up for their strikeouts by hitting baseballs far, far away.

Guys who strike out more also walk more. Also increase pitch counts. Truly, what's the difference between a first pitch ground out and a strikeout after a full count? That 2 times out of 10, that ground ball might get through for a single? But how many times will a guy walk with a full count?

The common thought in the sabermetric world is that you overcome strikeouts with a high BB rate, power, and a high BABip.

Bourn: Bourn has the high BABip (.343). Walked career high 10% last year (league average in 2012 was 8.1%), doesn't have much power, but his stealing ability lessens some of the strikeout burden. He was only 4% better offensively than the average Major Leaguer last year, so, I am a little skeptical of his offense.

Reynolds: Has a career .240 ISO (SLG - BA), walks an above average amount (11.9%, again, league average was 8.1% in 2012), and has a high BABip (.306, compared to his .235 career average); It depends what Reynolds you get. 2009 Mark Reynolds was 27% better than the average player. 2011 was 17% better. 2012 was 8% better. Also had career low ISO due to injury early in season.

These are just two examples. We come from different schools of thought, so, I don't expect you to agree with me. The difference, I think, is that I understand your logic because I used to agree with it. Strikeouts can't be productive, while outs on balls in play can be. I don't think you'd take the time to try to understand mine.


I've gotten an article idea out of this that I'll hopefully be able to do over the next couple of days. Because I have a pretty good idea of why the Indians are going this route this offseason.

[pup]

If I could simplify my stats point of view.

Baseball, when looking back at what a player has done is a large sample size game.

Baseball, the game, is not a large sample size. It is a single sample. Followed by another single sample. And each and every sample has different variables that effect the results. So to use 4000 AB's by really good players who happen to strike out, you come to a conclusion that strikeouts are not that big of a deal. When in fact, there are maybe a handful of guys in the entire league that can overcome their strikeouts and be productive.

[skatingtripods]

If I could simplify my stats point of view.

Baseball, when looking back at what a player has done is a large sample size game.

Baseball, the game, is not a large sample size. It is a single sample. Followed by another single sample. And each and every sample has different variables that effect the results. So to use 4000 AB's by really good players who happen to strike out, you come to a conclusion that strikeouts are not that big of a deal. When in fact, there are maybe a handful of guys in the entire league that can overcome their strikeouts and be productive.

OK, but most high strikeout guys put together consistent HR, BB%, and ISO rates from year-to-year, so what's the issue?

The fluctuation comes in BABip, as luck definitely plays a factor, and that's when high K, high power guys have bad seasons.

Sure, you'll get the odd Adam Dunn 2011 stinkbomb, which was one of the worst seasons ever by an everyday Major Leaguer, but he was 14% better than the average MLB hitter in 2012. He bounced back, because most high strikeout guys consistently perform well in the categories needed to offset strikeouts.

To say "maybe a handful" of guys overcome their strikeouts is a little broad. There's no criteria there. No, a guy with 15 HR power and an 8% walk rate probably won't overcome 125 strikeouts. But, those aren't the guys that the Indians signed. Well, Bourn is in that realm, but he has an insanely high BABip due to his speed and steals bases. He's a very unique player.

[Sea Foam Green]

I found these reactions from former players amusing;

DKnobler ‏@DKnobler
CC Sabathia on Bourn signing: "I never got a free agent like that when I was there. Good for them."

Anthony Castrovince ‏@castrovince
I broke the Michael Bourn news to Victor Martinez. "Wow," he said. "I guess they want to win now, huh? How 'bout that?" #Indians

[motherscratcher]

If I could simplify my stats point of view.

Baseball, when looking back at what a player has done is a large sample size game.

Baseball, the game, is not a large sample size. It is a single sample. Followed by another single sample. And each and every sample has different variables that effect the results. So to use 4000 AB's by really good players who happen to strike out, you come to a conclusion that strikeouts are not that big of a deal. When in fact, there are maybe a handful of guys in the entire league that can overcome their strikeouts and be productive.

But that's not what he did.

I decided to look into this a bit. What I did was take every batter with at least 400 plate appearances over the last three seasons, and plotyed their strikeout rate against their weighted on-base average

He didn't pick and choose "good" players. He used data from every player available. The good, bad, and in between ones.

[pup]

If I could simplify my stats point of view.

Baseball, when looking back at what a player has done is a large sample size game.

Baseball, the game, is not a large sample size. It is a single sample. Followed by another single sample. And each and every sample has different variables that effect the results. So to use 4000 AB's by really good players who happen to strike out, you come to a conclusion that strikeouts are not that big of a deal. When in fact, there are maybe a handful of guys in the entire league that can overcome their strikeouts and be productive.

But that's not what he did.

I decided to look into this a bit. What I did was take every batter with at least 400 plate appearances over the last three seasons, and plotyed their strikeout rate against their weighted on-base average

He didn't pick and choose "good" players. He used data from every player available. The good, bad, and in between ones.

No. He used all the players to compile a graph, then noted 4 names of guys that make up for striking out by hitting home runs. Notice he did not say Jack Cust, Russ Branyan, or Kelly Shopach in his "discovery". Shit, there were some people having a conniption fit about possibly signing Carlos Pena and hailed at the signing of Kotchman. According to this Pena is the perfect Cleveland Indian.

Look at the graph again. Notice the best of the best names on that list all strikeout less than the kind of good players he mentions.

This data is also 3 seasons old. Wonder what it looks like today?

Player A that has .300/.600/.900 and strikes out 10% of the time
is better than
Player B that has .300/.600/.900 and strikes out 30% of the time.

Is that really debatable?

[skatingtripods]

This data is also 3 seasons old. Wonder what it looks like today?

Probably similar.

Player A that has .300/.600/.900 and strikes out 10% of the time
is better than
Player B that has .300/.600/.900 and strikes out 30% of the time.

Is that really debatable?

Strike out less than 11% of the time in 2012: Span, Young, Furcal, Prado, Barney, Molina, Rivera, Pedroia, Aoki, Suzuki, Brantley, C. Lee, Reyes, Scutaro.

Yep, a lot of power in those guys.

Four players in the top 20 in HR K'd less than 15% of the time: Miggy, Encarnacion, Beltre, Cano. Fielder, Pujols, Ramirez if we extend to top 30.

Those guys don't grow on trees.

Basically, there aren't a lot of guys posting .900 OPSes and striking out less than 15% of the time. The ones that are are the game's elite hitters.

[pup]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

[motherscratcher]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

Is someone arguing something other than that?

[pup]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

Is someone arguing something other than that?

So striking out is worse than not striking out?

[motherscratcher]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

Is someone arguing something other than that?

So striking out is worse than not striking out?

In a vacuum. But that's beside Tripod's point, which he is explaining better than I ever could. Nowhere did Tripods imply that he doesn't care about stikeouts, especially when comparing two fictional non-existant players who are the exact same in every other way possible.

[WiscTribeFan]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

If you've got a guy with an OPS of 1.000, it doesn't matter because he's doing some major league production in your lineup. I can live with the extra Ks with a player like that.

In 600 plate appearances that's a difference of 30 strikeouts over the course of a season. How many of those plate appearances would a strikeout be worse than say a groundout? How many of those ABs would be 1st and 3rd with one out and instead of whiffing the batter hits into a 6-4-3 DP killing the rally? If he moves the runner over but the guy behind him makes the 3rd out, does it matter? Plenty of sacrifice flies happen when your team is up 10-2. If he whiffs in that situation does it truly matter for anything other than the individual player's numbers? With 2 outs does it matter what out he makes? How many of these individual ABs happen in a game where the outcome is already pretty much well in hand?

What the sabermetric guys are saying is, statistically it's not a huge number where a K versus another out actually makes a difference in the outcome of the game. How many ABs a year does a typical player have that actually determines the course of a game?

I do get your point about each AB being unique, but we all know that over the course of a 162 game season, the numbers balance themselves out.

That said, do I think a guy like Reynolds who can put up staggering numbers of whiffs in a season is a good thing. No, I don't, but if he wins the Tribe a couple of games with his power, it will probably make up for the time that he didn't hit a sacrifice fly, just like his 3 run dinger in a 10 run loss didn't matter either, or his whiffing or grounding out with a guy on third and 2 outs didn't matter. An out is an out in those cases, and in probably most cases. What you need there is a hit.

[skatingtripods]

So make it

.250/.400/.600

Bottom line is, two identical results player, one strikes out 15% and the other 20%.

Give me 15%.

Like moscratch said, you're missing my point and you're throwing out hypothetical player lines that don't exist to try and make yours.

If I scoured the Fangraphs leaderboard, I could find players to make your point. Which makes my point that much stronger. You have to really search to find guys to make this comparison.

Are there guys with .275/.375/.500 lines out there that strike out 15% of the time? Probably. Are there guys with .275/.375/.500 lines out there that strike out 20% of the time? Probably not as many.

You lose batting average. That's about it. In most cases, you gain OBP and you gain SLG.

I'm not denying the fact that putting a ball in play is better than striking out. What I'm saying is that the difference between an out on a ball in play and a strikeout is very small.

There were 184,179 plate appearances last season, 42,063 hits, 14,709 walks, and 1,494 hit by pitches. So, 125,913 plate appearances that were outs. 36,426 were strikeouts. That leaves 89,487 plate appearances ending in an out with a ball put in play.

There were 1,223 sac flies, 1,479 sacrifice bunts and 3,008 errors. That accounts for 6.38% of all plate appearances.

Not sure the numbers on advancing runners from a ball in play, but let's say (just a guess) it adds another 4%. But, there were 3,620 double plays. 3,620 double plays is 4% non-strikeout, ball in play out plate appearances. So, we'll cancel out the advancing runners outs.

So, roughly, 6% of all outs league-wide could be considered "productive outs", assuming my math is right and assuming 4% is an accurate number for outs that advanced a runner that weren't sac flies or sac bunts.

Small. Probably a negligible difference after you account for if the out that advanced a runner wound up scoring the runner or not. Not to mention the times when the runner would have scored regardless of the "productive out".

Frankly, that number still seems too high to me.

[NH Tribe Fan]

I have come to the conclusion that high K% is only bad if they also have a high GIDP rate. I would take a guy with 50 more strike outs then a guy who has 10-15 more GIDP in the course of a season.

Strikeouts can be productive it works a pitcher and I also believe it gives other players a chance to look at the pitchers pitch selection in certain counts. Let's not forget Thome who would have no problem striking out in a meaningless situation (not that he was aiming for it) but to work the count and understand a pitcher for future at-bats.

Player A: 1 for 4 with 3ks
Player B: 2 for 4 with 0ks

If Player A got his hit with the bases loaded, and player B got 2 singles with 2 outs and nobody on. We would all prefer Player A. Granted this is a small sample size and I don't know if there is a way to quantify this over the course of a season, but hopefully you get my point.

[pup]

I am out

[leadpipe]

This strikeout argument has come up often.....but I think a point that is missed many times is the strikeouts as a TEAM.

How they effect an individuals statistical rating is one thing, stringing together a collection of outs in a lineup that do nothing can be a problem.

Years ago when Sexson started playing full time here, they had a good part of the season with he, Thome...maybe Branyan, and a couple others that struck out a ton - and if you looked at those guys in a vaccumm we could argue OPS this or OBP that, but anyone watching those games could see that they had big problems with the inability of 2 or 3 guys in a row unable to get the bat on the ball in situations that called for it.

I'm ok with stat guy telling me that strikeouts aren't the end all be all, but they do mean something, and a team certainly can have too many in the lineup - it will effect wins and losses.

And while it's good to see them opening up the wallet, I'm not down with 100 million to the Swisher/Bourne combo.

[motherscratcher]

I'll agree with that. Hitters with high K rates aren't rendered useless, as long as they have other qualities that make up for it. And in general a strikeout usually isn't going to hurt any different than any other kind of out most of the time.

But like LP said, filling a lineup with a who's who of the strikeout leaderboard is probably not a great thing.

[skatingtripods]

I'm ok with stat guy telling me that strikeouts aren't the end all be all, but they do mean something, and a team certainly can have too many in the lineup - it will effect wins and losses.

Definitely a reasonable point.

Planning to hammer out an article that'll discuss some of this stuff. Hopefully you'll all read it, even you Pup.

[e0y2e3]

I am out

Hey Pup, Jimmy Haslem called and said to tell you you're a V-A-G-I-N-A

[pup]

I am out

Hey Pup, Jimmy Haslem called and said to tell you you're a V-A-G-I-N-A

Gonna take another shot at jumping in a forum once every six weeks, making absolutely no points in it and then tucking your panties between your bottles of nair and lip gloss until you find a point you can steal from someone else and rehash it as your own? Awesome.

[1Perry]

I'll agree with that. Hitters with high K rates aren't rendered useless, as long as they have other qualities that make up for it. And in general a strikeout usually isn't going to hurt any different than any other kind of out most of the time.

But like LP said, filling a lineup with a who's who of the strikeout leaderboard is probably not a great thing.

To me, this is the bottom line. You can accept someone that strikes out over 100 times if he can do other things better than most.

Then again I'm still grinning over the idea that the team has actually been improved over the off-season and have no desire to argue about anything right now.