Ray Durham -- Latest: Trade completed? Ford and Hammond to the Giants for sure, no Taschner

[MoneyballMan]

There are some really whacked out expectations flying around this forum.

All in all, I think posters on BF.net are pretty realistic. There are some sentiments for and against the deal as we currently understand it. But at least no one is suggesting crazy ideas like you may see on a Cubs board! Cubs fans would just expect the Giants to give them Durham ...because the Cubs deserve it after years of suffering.... LOL

[Trowekamp]

It depends what you want, as a lefty bat bench he's fine. As a regular 2B to replace Weeks, he'll give up more runs than he'll score over Weeks and with both Ellis and Grudzilanek available he's underwhelming.

The real question is whether he is better option then Joe Dillon. We basically got him for free. I didn't see anybody predicting Hammond or Ford would ever see Miller Park so I am assuming he will replace Dillon. So is the team better with him or Joe Dillon the rest of the year?

 

I like Joe Dillon but Durham will be an upgrade to the team and hopefully light a fire under Rickie. Hall was made about Branyan coming up but it seems to have served it purpose. It bridged a gap of Hall being horrible and now he has started to hit again. Hopefully this can be the same scenario at 2b.

 

[brains and braun]

Ellis or Grudz would have been better imo.

[liveforoctober]

Rickie will play against lefties, where he is at .265 - .380 for the season. Against righties, he is hitting .199 with a .280 OBP. Meanwhile, Durham against righties this year is hitting .318 with an OBP of .398.

So we are replacing a .199/.280 lead off hitter against righties with a .318/.398 guy. Why are you complaining?

And if that's not enough (which it is) we now have either Rickie Weeks speed/baserunning and/or a switch-hitting veteran option off the bench late in games... both of which will be huge assets down the stretch... and a better option than Dillon. (Not a knock on Dillon... I like him)

[MoneyballMan]

Wish they would just announce it.... Durham must still have "the flu" as he's not in the lineup, huh?

[kramnoj]

It depends what you want, as a lefty bat bench he's fine. As a regular 2B to replace Weeks, he'll give up more runs than he'll score over Weeks and with both Ellis and Grudzilanek available he's underwhelming.

 

It's true that Durham can be expected to be a net negative. However the negative he should bring is less harmful than what Weeks has done over the last year and a half. Being less negative is still a positive. As far as Ellis and Grudz, both are certainly better than Durham, but we don't know how much they would have cost. Maybe Melvin was too focused on improving against RH and settled on Durham.

[jackalope02ca]

After everyone sees what it's going to cost us to get Huston Street (Please happen) they'll know why we had to settle on Durham who is a definate upgrade over Dillon by the way.

[DHonks]

wow...a 40-50 point improvement in OBP from the leadoff spot would probably yield a few extra runs per week, while the defense probably drops 1 run every couple weeks. Sorry, he's an improvement over Corey Patterson...I mean Rickie Weeks.

[monty57]

It depends what you want, as a lefty bat bench he's fine. As a regular 2B to replace Weeks, he'll give up more runs than he'll score over Weeks and with both Ellis and Grudzilanek available he's underwhelming.

It also depends on what you think you've got in Weeks. As of right now, he's a .689 OPS / .322 OBP below-average defensive 2B. Based on that, almost anyone would be an improvement for the team. It is entirely possible that Weeks rebounds and outplays Durham for the rest of the season. To this point, which is nearly 100 games into the season, Durham's .799 OPS / .385 OBP would be very welcome. With Weeks being a below average defender, Durham would have to be very bad defensively (considering the offense remains the same) in order for him not to be an improvement over Weeks this season.

Ellis .237 avg / .332 OBP / .393 SLG / .718 OPS (career OPS .748)

Grudzilanek .308 avg / .359 OBP / .408 SLG / .766 OPS (career OPS .728)

 

I don't really see why either of these guys would be significantly better acquisitions than Durham. Even if they are better, it is likely that Melvin has approached Oakland and KC and they wanted significantly more than Melvin was willing to give up. I'm not gaga over the Durham trade, but it will likely improve the team this season, and heck, one extra win could be the difference in our making the playoffs or not.

[endaround]

Grudz bat is very similar and he can play defense. Not sure how that isn't superior. Ellis is the best defensive 2B in the game. Durham's defense is just really bad.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Someone needs to use that Hardballtimes spreadsheet to find Durham's updated Marcel projection, so we can start using some realistic numbers when trying to guss what to expect from him this year.

 

Ask and ye shall receive. I used Sal Baxamusa's Marcel calculator (found here) for all the relevant big leaguers who would be affected. Here are their projected performances for the remainder of '08:

 

Durham: 259 / 335 / 412

Weeks: 247 / 353 / 409

Dillon: 271 / 348 / 413

 

Durham still projects as the worst hitter of the three. Yep, even worse than Dillon. Marcel doesn't know about park factors, so Durham may get a slight boost moving from AT&T to Miller Park, but it is doubtful that it would be enough to make up the difference, especially since OBP is where he's hurting. Everyone who thinks he'll fix the team's OBP problems, please note that.

 

Now, a Marcel projection isn't the best way to project someone like Dillon's performance, as he doesn't have very many ABs so his projection is regressed very heavily to the mean. But if you used ZiPS or CHONE or any other smarter projection system (one that filled in statistical gaps for guys like Dillon with MLEs from their minor league performance), he'd look even better (ZiPS pre-season was 280 / 338 / 449, CHONE was 280 / 356 / 492. 80 PA this year wouldn't change those projections too significantly - I guarantee that they'd still be higher than the above Marcel.)

 

Assuming this deal does go down, both the guy losing playing time to Durham and the guy losing his roster spot to Durham will be superior hitters to Durham, even considering his resurgent performance so far this year and the respective struggles of those other guys.

 

As for defense, Weeks is rather clearly better. Dillon is probably comparable as a bench defender. Somebody already brought up Durham's woeful RZR and OOZ numbers - it is likely that his range is totally shot. There is no way he comes out as a better overall regular player than Weeks, or a better bat off the bench than Dillon, except if you only care about this year's hitting stats. If that's how you like to project performance...

 

This is a nothing move. If anything, they are adding salary to make the team slightly worse. I don't care one iota about Ford being traded, but I like Hammond and I think he has a chance to somewhat useful in the majors (if only as a long relief guy) beginning right now. He is easily the best pitching prospect in the Brewers high minors (not that there's much competition -- but that's another reason not to trade him).

 

I hate this move in all respects. The only genuine upgrade to Weeks who might be available at a reasonable enough price to justify the move (Roberts = too exepensive) is Mark Ellis, and there's no guarantee he's actually even available (latest word was the A's were talking extension, and they're still in the race).

[giffted1]

This just seems like a move to give Rickie a kick in the butt more than anything. If the Giants will still be paying Durham, its fine because we aren't giving up much, but otherwise, I don't really care for it.

[PrimeTime955]

Did they just show Durham in the dugout with his giants gear on?

[raven2479]

Yea he had a sweatshirt on, all Giants gear still.

[Bluechip]

Someone needs to use that Hardballtimes spreadsheet to find Durham's updated Marcel projection, so we can start using some realistic numbers when trying to guss what to expect from him this year.

Ask and ye shall receive. I used Sal Baxamusa's Marcel calculator (found here) for all the relevant big leaguers who would be affected. Here are their projected performances for the remainder of '08:

 

Durham: 259 / 335 / 412

Weeks: 247 / 353 / 409

Dillon: 271 / 348 / 413

 

Durham still projects as the worst hitter of the three. Yep, even worse than Dillon. Marcel doesn't know about park factors, so Durham may get a slight boost moving from AT&T to Miller Park, but it is doubtful that it would be enough to make up the difference, especially since OBP is where he's hurting. Everyone who thinks he'll fix the team's OBP problems, please note that.

I'm assuming these projections don't factor in the likely scenario (based on his numbers) that Durham won't be playing against lefties. Is there any way to factor that into the projections?

 

[kramnoj]

Assuming this deal does go down, both the guy losing playing time to Durham and the guy losing his roster spot to Durham will be superior hitters to Durham,

 

This is stated far too definitively. Marcel is great for large pools of players, but it doesn't know how to account for some things. Durhams year last year was clearly out of line with the rest of his career. I would think his season so far and his career should be weighted far more than the aberration of last year.

 

There is no way he comes out as a better overall regular player than Weeks, or a better bat off the bench than Dillon, except if you only care about this year's hitting stats. If that's how you like to project performance...

 

If we made this trade in the offseason without seeing Durham recover from last year's awfulness, I would be concerned. That he has bounced back indicates to me that last season's results don't have anything to do with who Durham is this year. That being the case, Durham should be a nice option for the Crew the rest of the season.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I'm assuming these projections don't factor in the likely scenario (based on his numbers) that Durham won't be playing against lefties. Is there any way to factor that into the projections?

 

 

 

Sure, at least approximately. Checking his career platoon differential out at B-R, it seems reasonable to add 10-15 points of OBP and subtract 15-20 points of SLG, if you assume they'd use him exclusively against RHP. He's basically the same hitter from each side of the plate except for this small difference, which is essentially a wash anyway.

 

Half-year platoon splits are worthless for projecting performance when you have all the additional info you have for Durham. He was better against LHP as a righty in 05, 06, and 07. I didn't feel it was necessary to go back any further than that.

[monty57]

except if you only care about this year's hitting stats. If that's how you like to project performance...

 

Over and over again, we hear the "small sample size" arguement. So now there's a way to project how someone will perform over a small sample size... interesting.

 

I agree that Weeks should (or maybe I should say was projected to) do better than he has. The problem is that he's been given every opportunity to get better, and now we're about 100 games into the season and he has been horrible. Maybe I'm off, but I would guess your "scientific" method of determining how a player will perform in a small sample size assumes some sort of pre-season standard deviation for that player and then regresses/progresses that player's YTD stats to reach the assumed standard deviation. The problem is that Weeks is so far off of any assumption anyone would have given him to start the season that he will have to perform well above average simply to reach to lower reaches of his bell curve. In other words, he'll have to play very well simply to have a bad season relative to what was expected of him.

 

Conversely, since Durham has played well after a poor season last year, it is natural that such a projection would assume that Durham would have to fall off significantly over the final 60 or so games to regress to him assumed standard deviation. Actually, he's not too far over his career .787 OPS (which is low due to his poor seasons when he was in his early 20's), but last year would really have screwed up any SABR projections for him.

 

Now, it is entirely possible that you are correct. However, trying to act like you have some sort of crystal ball and can project what any player is going to do over 200 or so at bats is a stretch. Also, disregarding year-to-date performance as a fluke and stating that he'll play poorly the rest of the way out because he had a bad season last year probably isn't the best way to predict.

 

Simply put, Durham has played well this season despite his age and the fact that people thought he would have a bad season. Weeks has played poorly this season despite the fact that he was drafted #2 overall and should be getting better every year. I hope that Weeks can "find it" and start hitting better, but there has really been no sign of that happening.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

This is stated far too definitively. Marcel is great for large pools of players, but it doesn't know how to account for some things. Durhams year last year was clearly out of line with the rest of his career. I would think his season so far and his career should be weighted far more than the aberration of last year.

 

You can't simply throw out an entire season worth of data. Maybe it was an injury-ridden, struggle-filled campaign. But Durham is old. And he has a lot of miles on the tires. That kind of thing is par for the course for players in his age group (not to mention 2B age worse than any position other than catcher), and is very relevant in projecting his future performance. Marcel does care about how old a guy is.

 

You're right that I probably needed some qualifiers in there -- 'probably's and 'best bet to's and the like -- but nobody bothered to use qualifiers like that in the dozens of posts in this thread that quoted this season's hitting stats and used the present tense in declaring how much better than Weeks Ray Durham "is". We can't know true talent in a 100% definitive sense -- our best guesses are always at their core still guesses. But there are better and worse informed ways of making such guesses.

[TooLiveBrew]

So we are replacing a .199/.280 lead off hitter against righties with a .318/.398 guy. Why are you complaining?

 

But the problem, as described by the modified projection tool, is that there's really no reason to expect a .400 OBP from Ray the rest of the way (nor should Weeks be expected to only post a .320 OBP). I like the addition since it gives us more solid depth at a spot of weakness on the roster. Nothing to complain about.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Maybe I'm off, but I would guess your "scientific" method of determining how a player will perform in a small sample size assumes some sort of pre-season standard deviation for that player and then regresses/progresses that player's YTD stats to reach the assumed standard deviation. The problem is that Weeks is so far off of any assumption anyone would have given him to start the season that he will have to perform well above average simply to reach to lower reaches of his bell curve. In other words, he'll have to play very well simply to have a bad season relative to what was expected of him.

 

Conversely, since Durham has played well after a poor season last year, it is natural that such a projection would assume that Durham would have to fall off significantly over the final 60 or so games to regress to him assumed standard deviation. Actually, he's not too far over his career .787 OPS (which is low due to his poor seasons when he was in his early 20's), but last year would really have screwed up any SABR projections for him.

 

If the projection systems did what you suggest they did, they would be guilty of the gambler's fallacy. They do not. Durham's overperformance so far raises his Marcel for the rest of the year, Weeks's underperformance lowers his Marcel for the rest of the year. But the original gap in their projection was such that not even a gap as wide as has existed so far this season is enough to compensate for it.

 

As for the sample size argument, I am not telling you that these systems (for which I claim no credit) are some sort of perfect crystal ball that tells you exactly how well they'll hit. Nobody would - that would be crazy. Small sample size caveats apply in this direction as well -- anything COULD happen over the course of 1/3 of a season, and obviously no one knows what WILL happen.

 

All I'm trying to say is that there are better informed ways of deciding how good a player currently "IS" than simply looking at this year's numbers and expecting them to continue. That's all these projections are for.

[TooLiveBrew]

In other words, he'll have to play very well simply to have a bad season relative to what was expected of him.

 

If Weeks plays very well the rest of the way out, he'd hit the projections. If he improves marginally he'd be near that bottom of the bell curve you describe, imo.

[kramnoj]

You can't simply throw out an entire season worth of data. Maybe it was an injury-ridden, struggle-filled campaign.

 

Why not? I mean that sincerely. Has there been exhaustive research into seasons that are so aberrant for established major leaguers that come back and continue to be average or better major leaguers?

 

Marcel does care about how old a guy is.

 

It sure does, but Durham's projection is weighted far more because of last year's stats than his age. Durham would certainly be expected to decline due to age. But I wonder why you cling to last year's performance when they aren't showing any relevance to how Durham is performing this year.

 

You're right that I probably needed some qualifiers in there -- 'probably's and 'best bet to's and the like -- but nobody bothered to use qualifiers like that in the dozens of posts in this thread that quoted this season's hitting stats and used the present tense in declaring how much better than Weeks Ray Durham "is".

 

I think most people use "is" to describe recent and current performance, given large enough sample to work with. There isn't any doubt that Durham has performed better this year. And most of us expect Weeks to be better. But I don't want to gamble this year's playoff hopes on the regression to the mean of a player that has performed as poorly as Weeks has this year.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Why not? I mean that sincerely. Has there been exhaustive research into seasons that are so aberrant for established major leaguers that come back and continue to be average or better major leaguers?

 

I don't know of anything I'd call "exhaustive". Sure, guys have fluke bad seasons. Guys also have fluke good seasons. It is somewhere around equally likely (given his age and position) that Ray Durham is now legitimately as bad from a true talent perspective as last season's numbers suggested (thus, this season's goodness is a statistical aberration), as it is that Durham is now legitimately as good as this season's numbers suggest (thus, last season's badness was a statistical aberration).

 

But Marcel isn't doing what you say it's doing -- it's not projecting him to hit as badly as he hit last season -- it is simply splitting the difference between those two equally not-very-likely extreme scenarios. And doesn't that make the most sense? That Ray Durham today is somewhere between how bad he was last year and how good he's been so far this year?

 

I think most people use "is" to describe recent and current performance, given large enough sample to work with. There isn't any doubt that Durham has performed better this year. And most of us expect Weeks to be better. But I don't want to gamble this year's playoff hopes on the regression to the mean of a player that has performed as poorly as Weeks has this year.

 

Then most people are using the present tense when they should be using the past tense. And I don't want to gamble this year's playoff hopes (at a fixed cost of one sorta useful minor leaguer) on a bad bet that Ray Durham will somehow continue to defy Father Time and the laws of statistical probability (in the form of regression to the mean). Not to mention that once you factor in defense, Weeks and Durham have been worth about the same number of runs this year so far anyway.

[brewmann04]

so if the crew has added their Lh Bat ,then you would have to believe Melvin is still searching for that bullpen arm.