If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times – Spring Training stats are meaningless. There are several different reasons why this is true, none more so important than the fact that 50 PA or 10 IP is not enough to trump multiple seasons worth of results. Anyone who doubts that needs to look no further than the Blaine Boyer fiasco of a few years ago, when the Mets thought his impressive 11 IP in Grapefruit League play was more important than his disastrous results in his six previous seasons in the majors.
But what if you don’t have six seasons of MLB data to look at in determining a player’s ability to hack it in the majors? The 2013 Mets have at least 10 hitters with minimal time in the majors vying for a spot on the Opening Day roster. And those guys are fighting with “seasoned vets” like Lucas Duda (898 PA), Omar Quintanilla (772) and Justin Turner (712) for the right to go north with the big club at the beginning of the season.
Let’s look at some people trying to make the team, with their MLB experience and ST numbers:
Mike Baxter – Lifetime: 260 PA, .761 OPS. ST: .340 OPS in 25 PA
He entered Spring with the inside track for the larger half of the platoon in RF. But his Grapefruit League numbers are beyond terrible. Did last year’s performance clinch a spot for him? There’s going to be a lot of people disappointed if Baxter makes the roster with numbers this poor.
Brian Bixler – Lifetime: 356 PA, 519 OPS. ST: .943 OPS in 21 PA
His numbers this Spring are out of line with what he’s done in either the majors or minors. Bixler has to be considered an extreme long shot to break camp with the Mets. But he’s still here and that means something, too.
Andrew Brown – Lifetime: 148 PA, .679 OPS. ST: .368 OPS in 25 PA
Another player thought to have a leg up to make the roster coming into the Spring, Brown now seems destined to start the year in Las Vegas. In addition to poor results in the majors and a poor showing so far in camp, Brown is here on an NRI – making his task even harder.
Collin Cowgill – Lifetime: 216 PA, .654 OPS. ST: 1.108 OPS in 29 PA
With an .854 OPS lifetime against southpaws, Cowgill came to camp in good shape to make the club. His hot start has seemingly punched his ticket. Now the question appears to be – Will he become the club’s starting CF?
Matt Den Dekker – Lifetime: No MLB experience. ST: .598 OPS in 24 PA
If it seems strange to consider Den Dekker – he’s also not on the 40-man roster – you haven’t seen some of the highlight-reel defensive plays he’s made. With the awful Springs of some of the other outfield options, Den Dekker still has a shot to be on the Opening Day roster.
Brandon Hicks – Lifetime: 98 PA, .493 OPS. ST: .534 OPS in 27 PA
He’s had solid minor league numbers but has not hit in several brief chances in the majors. The one thing he has in his favor over some of the other infield options is his ability to play SS. But will that be enough if other guys are outhitting him by 400 points of OPS at the end of camp?
Zach Lutz – Lifetime: 11 PA, .182 OPS. ST: .718 OPS in 27 PA
He’s hit everywhere in the minors but injuries have held him back. Typically a third baseman, he’s seeing lots of time at first base in Grapefruit action.
Kirk Nieuwenhuis – Lifetime: 314 PA, .691 OPS. ST: .206 OPS in 20 PA
After having his last two seasons truncated due to injuries, Nieuwenhuis has been shelved once again. To make matters worse he’s again not hitting. It’s a coin flip right now if he even makes the Opening Day roster after appearing to be a lock on February 1st.
Josh Satin – Lifetime: 16 PA, .481 OPS. ST: 1.602 OPS in 11 PA
The deck is stacked against Satin – in addition to tying for the fewest ST PA of anyone on this list, he’s an NRI – which is really a shame because he would be a solid RHB off the bench.
Jordany Valdespin – Lifetime: 206 PA, .710 OPS. ST: .985 OPS in 26 PA
He would seem to be an ideal bench player but it feels like he is not one of the favorites of manager Terry Collins. Still, it would be an upset at this point if Valdespin did not make the Opening Day roster.
*****
Essentially, the 10 players detailed above – along with Duda, Qunitanilla and Turner – are fighting for seven roster spots, as no one really has staked a claim on a starting OF position. None of these 13 players has an established track record in the majors. If used properly, all 13 could be an asset for the 2013 Mets. In fact, it almost seems like you could pick seven names out of the hat to see who opens the year in the majors.
This is why we have to pay attention more than ever this year to Spring Training results for the Mets.
Should probably add Marlon Byrd to that mix, too, bringing the total to 14 guys fighting over those 7 spots.
If it’s me, based purely on the information I have, I think I’d go with Duda, Cowgill, Byrd, Valdespin, Turner, Baxter, and Hicks (caveat: if they’re not comfortable with Hicks at SS, then swap him out for Quintanilla).
IMO, it’s best to completely, 100% ignore Spring Training numbers 100% of the time. I have seen no evidence that they provide any value whatsoever (the one potential expection being a pitcher’s FB velocity late in ST). So when I’m playing armchair Spring Training GM, I prefer to maximize org depth in lieu of attempting to glean any information from ST numbers. I get the appeal of using them, even just dabbling, but I’m firmly in the “just throw those numbers out” camp.
And just to be clear, the Mets should be (and I’m sure are) using their own internal scouting & evaluation to make assessments on the capabilities of the guys battling for spots. They know what guys are working on in games, and they see what guys are working on in non-games (i.e. the bulk of Spring Training). And I’m hopeful that (along with looking at roster flexibility) those are the tools being used to make the roster decisions, not ST stats. Spring Training isn’t meaningless with respect to these positional battles. Far from it. But Spring Training numbers are (IMO).
Byrd has extensive MLB experience which is why I did not include him. But you’re right that he’s in the mix and he likely will get a spot, too. Which means that it’s likely the other 13 are competing for six spots, not seven.
But I believe we are relying on ST numbers in penciling in a spot for Byrd in the OF. While he has extensive MLB numbers, he’s also been a guy flirting with replacement level the past two seasons and one who in the recent past received an MLB suspension, too. How favorably would we view him if he had a .412 OPS instead of the .812 OPS that he currently sports?
Just curious – what would be your definition of “providing value” in regards to ST numbers?
Byrd’s a guy who was terrible last year in 150 PA (which is a little over a month of regular PA). But he was a 4+ win player 3 years ago, and a 2+ win player in two thirds of a season 2 years ago. He was in my 2013 OD outfield the day they signed him, frankly.
I think he would be viewed very differently if he had a .412 OPS vs. an .812 OPS in ST action so far this year. Which I see as a prime example of why interpretting ST OPS as providing useful information is a bad idea. Because if I had the same information except Byrd had a .412 OPS through 24 PA, he’d still be my 2013 OD rightfielder.
To me, “providing value” (with respect to ST numbers) means being a useful input into a decision-making process. I see ST stats as nothing but noise, often worse than no data at all.
Leaving aside ST numbers – Byrd’s 4.4 fWAR in 2010 (a career-best) came with a .335 BABIP and a 9.8 UZR. I don’t see him ever again approaching those numbers. Steamer, Oliver and ZiPS all see him as essentially a half-win player in 2013 – Oliver in 508 PA. He’s 35 and coming off a brutal, if shortened, season.
He’s the exact type of guy you roll the dice on and invite to ST on an NRI and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Even as bad as the Mets’ OF figures to be, I wouldn’t write his name in pen anywhere.
That .335 BABIP isn’t out of line with Byrd’s career .321 mark. As for his defense, UZR is indeed volatile, but over the course of his career, he’s been average in center, and above average at the corners. On this team, that should play.
On a team with a hole in RF & no standout options, I’d agree that he’s that type of guy. On a team with holes in LF, CF, and RF & no standout options, I think it’s unlikely he’s not one of the 3 best options going into the season.
He may totally bust. At 35, his skills may have faded. But he’d still be my pick for the RF starter’s job going in. And it has nothing to do with his Spring Training OPS in 24 PA.
I don’t think Byrd gets within 30 points of that BABIP this year. My opinion is that a player’s career marks are no longer relevant once he’s fallen off the cliff, like Byrd did last year.
Since 2000, there have been 257 OF age 34 or greater who have accumulated 100 PA in a season. Byrd’s .488 OPS is the second-worst mark in the group. Only Garret Anderson and his .475 OPS in 2010 was worse. And Anderson was 38 that year.
If we limit it to 34 year olds we have to go back to 1973 to find a season by an OF worse than Byrd’s. Johnny Callison posted a .425 OPS that year. Since 1970, there have been 51 seasons of an OF age 34 posting an OPS of .700 or less in a 100-PA season.
Only Marquis Grissom and Jim Dwyer rebounded from that to put up good seasons going forward.
Byrd’s ST numbers may prove to be absolutely meaningless. But the fact that he can be productive, even in a 24-PA stretch, is a reason to keep from pulling the plug on the experiment. If he finishes ST with 50 PA and a sub .600 OPS then he shouldn’t make the team.
The odds are stacked against him being a productive member of a team for 100+ PA this year. If the 50-PA ST sample confirms 40+ years of history, I cut him and never look back. If he continues to put up an .800+ OPS — I’ll bring him north just because the other options are so bad. But I do so fully expecting to cut him before the season’s over.
Noted. And I think that’s a solid example of an argument that could be against Byrd. I just don’t think you can look at ST numbers as confirming or rebutting anything. The objectives & personnel involved are just too inconsistent with the regular season to call the results meaningful. And that’s setting aside the issue of 2 or 3 grounders finding holes or line drives finding gloves resulting in several hundred point swings in OPS.
Ultimately, the Mets have to look at the arguments against each of the OF candidates and decide which 5 have the fewest (or most complimentary) warts. Including statistics from Spring Training games in that analysis is a fool’s errand, IMO.
That’s the most frustrating thing about Spring Training games, I think. They look like real baseball games, especially after a long winter of nothing, but they just aren’t. Nothing more than a series of two-team practices.
ST stats are NOT worthless in all cases. Guys who are improving rapidly and are destined for the ML sometimes show they are now ready…I believe Valdespin in one of these. The last (and only) time I’ve been to ST was in 1999 and Melvin Mora tore it up batting .418 and driving in clutch runs. He didn’t make the team but the Mets promised he would be called up soon and he WAS up within a month and never went back. A pitcher may show you he has improved a secondary pitch enough that his PREVIOUS track record is what should be ignored. IMO, it’s a mixed bag…you can’t generalize at all.
Then, there is the hot hand factor. Wouldn’t you rather have the hottest OFs go north if you can keep the others at AAA and call them up (if they get hot) if the 1st batch cool off? Now I’ve heard that Byrd will retire if he doesn’t make the team and some of the others chose FA rather then a minor league assignment. So, does anyone know who has been promised a release if they don’t make the squad north? Or is automatically free or has to be waived for lack of options and can choose FA instead of being assigned to AAA? With so many ques., you want to keep as many as you can and they were signed to minor league contracts. That may determined who goes north…how you can hold onto the most.
If Mora had batted .218 & driven in no runs that Spring Training, I sincerely doubt things would have gone differently. It just wouldn’t stick out in your mind.
“Guys who are improving rapidly and are destined for the ML sometimes show they are now ready”
True, however…
Guys who are improving rapidly and are destined for the ML sometimes do nothing in ST. Guys who are not improving rapidly and are not destined for the ML sometimes tear it up in ST. If you think ST stats can help you pick out which is which, then I wish you the best in that endeavor. I don’t think it’s possible.
I’d rather have the best, most ready to succeed OF go north with the team. I don’t believe ST stats or who’s hot in ST give you an accurate gauge of who those guys are.
As for guys on minor league deals with opt outs, Byrd, Byrdak, and Hawkins are the 3 with the right to request a release if they don’t make the OD squad (per the new CBA).
i don’t understand the double standards set for the players in Spring Training.
If you’re established and you have a good spring, pundits will proclaim this guy “ready”. If you’re established and you have a bad spring, pundits will proclaim him “ready” and say he was “working on stuff” or cite the fact that this guy usually has bad springs.
If you’re fighting for a job, spring stats somehow count. People justify this fact by saying that players who aren’t guaranteed a job “try” harder. While this might be true for fielding and base running, i do not think it is true for hitting. How can one try more in hitting? Are you going to swing faster and harder because you’re fighting for a job than if you’re established? Are you going to watch the ball “more closely” because you don’t have a starting job?
Spring is spring. It’s a time for players to get ready, at their own pace, and get accustomed to playing baseball everyday again. It’s about the only time that i would agree that a qualitative assessment is more accurate than a quantitative assesment.
That all harkens back to reporters using narrative in their attempts for analysis. You can find examples across all sports (and probably other areas of journalism, too).
If an experienced team wins in the playoffs – it’s because they’ve been there before and are battle tested.
If an inexperienced team wins in the playoffs – it’s because they don’t know how big the moment really is.
If a team wins after a long layoff – then the rest was just what they needed to recover and heal various injuries
If a team loses after a long layoff – the break got them out of sync.
It all comes down to irrefutable evidence
[…] Matt Harvey March 19, 2013By Charlie HangleyAs we all know, Spring Training statistics mean next to nothing. The hot young hitter finds all his power sapped when the wind shifts from left field to right. The […]