The Betancourt Thread

[PrinceEatMeat]

Really, we can probably get by with Betancourt and Counsell this year. Maybe we can go after a SS in free agency after this year. Reyes, Rollins, Bartlett, Infante, and possibly Scutaro will be out there.

[joepepsi]

It's possible Hardy will be available by the All Star break. If he's having a comeback season there's no way he signs long term with the Orioles, so they should be willing to deal him. Only problem, Andy MacPhail is slow as molasses and asks for the moon when all he's shopping is a lava lamp.

[TooLiveBrew]

To quote C-3PO, "we're doomed"

At shortstop, Betancourt I saw for a lot of years with Seattle. Very familiar with him. And again with him, he’s still young enough that he’s going to get better. He’s got a very good arm, he’s got good range and he’s got the ability to be that solid, steady infielder – which is what you want for a shortstop.

That's Ron Roenicke talking about his new shortstop. Maybe Ron just doesn't know about the blue font rule?

 

I don't get how you can say a 29-yo is still young & going to get better. That's a head-scratcher.

[monty57]

TLB, I wouldn't read too much into that. If I was the Brewers manager, and was just handed a lump of coal to play SS, I'd try to spin it as best I could. I don't think he'd do any good if he'd have said "I'm really happy to have the pitching additions, but I got to see a lot of Betancourt in the AL West and he's possibly the worst SS I've ever seen. It'll be really hard pencilling in his name everyday."

 

I've complained about Macha for a long time. I'm ready to give the new guy a break. Hopefully he'll be someone Brewer fans can actually like.

[TooLiveBrew]

It's not that he didn't say Betancourt is a bad player... I wasn't expecting that. It's that he lauded him for his range & talked about him having the chance to be a good fielder. Sounds delusional, even though I hope you're right & it's just spin.

[Spidey]

Reading this Betancourt thread is putting this image in my mind:

 

http://yuniform.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/indian-error1.jpg

[Funketown]

It's not that he didn't say Betancourt is a bad player... I wasn't expecting that. It's that he lauded him for his range & talked about him having the chance to be a good fielder. Sounds delusional, even though I hope you're right & it's just spin.

I'm not concerned about it yet. If I'm a manager of some company, and my boss brings me some worthless snot-nosed hot-shot frat-boy fresh out of college and I'm asked what I think of this kid. I don't care how little I think of him, I'm going to tell everybody he's a good hire. That doesn't mean I don't think he's a worthless snot-nosed hot-shot frat-boy.

 

Edit: I just found this on an old Fangraphs article:

His name can be made into the following anagram. Batter Nine You Sucky

[kramnoj]

If that was the one thing that jumped out to at least two people here, I don't think it is "minutiae."

 

I don't think 2 people on an independent internet message board are in any way representative of the target audience of TH's writing.

 

If he had talked to scouts, he should have said as much. Actually would have been fewer keystrokes.

 

That's only true if he only talked to scouts. If he talked to front office people, beat writers, columnists, radio hosts, national writers and scouts, that becomes quite a lot of information that doesn't provide much more value for most people.

 

That's Ron Roenicke talking about his new shortstop.

 

For anyone interested in facts, and not caught up in Betancourt the Butcher hysteria, for the first 3 years that he was with the Mariners, he was basically average or slightly below average defensively. So Roenicke's first impression of Betancourt was that the would have been about average. And without knowing the specific details of the performance of Betancourt against the Angels defensively, it's entirely possible that Betancourt might have made impressive players against the Angels that informed Roenicke's impression. His performance with the Royals is not going to have as much of an impression, because Roenicke wouldn't see him as much. And for 2008-2009, when Betancourt was bad defensively, Roenicke could have understandably made the decision that the year plus of bad defense doesn't outweigh the previous 3 years of adequate defense.

[yoshii8]

Here's an informative article from a Royals blog about Betancourt.

 

http://royalsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/627

[Roderick]

Melvin said they took Betancourt back because they needed a SS, not because the Royals made them.

There was no reason for KC to retain Betancourt after acquiring Escobar. You have to think that the Brewers had to take him on to facilitate the trade.

 

I'm pretty hopeful that Melvin won't let the $3M pricetag lock him into not looking for better options. But could see him waiting until June to make sure that no other need arises that would be even more of a priority. Probably doesn't have a lot of budget or bullets left to use anymore and it might be wise to let the season play out a little.

[rluzinski]

Here's his whole career. UZR and Total Zone are in terms of runs above average. For the fan scouting report, 50 is average (standard deviation of 20):

Year: .................. UZR TZ SCOUT

2005: 60 games 0.5 / -3 / 86

2006: 157 games 0.0 / 2 / 82

2007: 155 games -4.3 / -1 / 69

2008: 153 games -11.4 / -8 / 39

2009: 134 games -16.7 / -12 / 35

2010: 151 games -9.5 / -2 / 34

Even knowing all the limitations of defensive metrics, it's hard for me to believe that Betancourt is an even average SS defensively. Couple that with his sub .300 career OBP, it's clear to me that he should not be starting every day.

[Funketown]

I had no idea Yuniesky was that highly regarded in his first two seasons. Is Yunie the case of a guy who was athletic and just got lazy or scouts overestimating his ability?

[kramnoj]

Even knowing all the limitations of defensive metrics, it's hard for me to believe that Betancourt is an even average SS defensively. Couple that with his sub .300 career OBP, it's clear to me that he should not be starting every day.

 

I don't see any benefit in focusing on OBP. The guy isn't a good hitter, but then again, most shortstops aren't either. It would be nice if some shortstops moved from Lake Woebegone, but sometimes even good teams can live with below average players.

[monty57]

...but sometimes even good teams can live with below average players.

 

I agree, but it would be nice if he were decent at something. I'd much prefer a good defense, no hit SS to him. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'd prefer Cruz to be our everyday SS... at least he could help our team in one aspect of the game.

[rluzinski]

I don't see any benefit in focusing on OBP.

 

It's an easy way to highlight his limitations as a hitter, so I found it beneficial.

 

The guy isn't a good hitter, but then again, most shortstops aren't either.

 

Betancourt 2011 ZiPS projection: .266/.292/.392 (playing in AL)

Average AL SS, 2008-10: .264/.317/.372

 

Looks like he might not even project to hit as well as even an average SS but he's probably expected to be close.

 

It would be nice if some shortstops moved from Lake Woebegone, but sometimes even good teams can live with below average players.

 

The question isn't whether the Brewers can live with Betancourt starting at SS; it's whether he's their best available option for 2011. The alternative could be below average and still be better than Betancourt.

[logan82]

rluzinski wrote:

The question isn't whether the Brewers can live with Betancourt starting at SS; it's whether he's their best available option for 2011. The alternative could be below average and still be better than Betancourt.

I think it is important to keep in mind we have pushed ourselves into a position where each marginal win is pretty huge.

[kramnoj]

It's an easy way to highlight his limitations as a hitter, so I found it beneficial.

 

Sure, you used the best available evidence to support your preconceived notion, rather than address his overall offensive contribution projection.

 

Looks like he might not even project to hit as well as even an average SS but he's probably expected to be close.

 

This is a much more reasoned response, and is something that many people don't seem to acknowledge. Yes, Betancourt isn't an asset with the bat, but given the other options that may be available, it's not really a major deficiency.

 

The question isn't whether the Brewers can live with Betancourt starting at SS; it's whether he's their best available option for 2011.

 

That's an excellent question, but it's a little different than what you said previously.

 

What you said previously was it's clear to me that he should not be starting every day.

 

Now maybe you meant that he shouldn't be starting for the Brewers. Given your previous desire for specificity, I wouldn't have wanted to assume that.

 

I do wonder how the whole getting Greinke thing could have been handled differently. If he had been more aggressive a week earlier, would he have had any interest in trying to acquire Hardy or Hall to play SS? I'm guessing no, but it's possible there were opportunities lost there.

 

As far as taking Betancourt, did the Royals need to trade him because they were short on 40 man space? Would it have been possible to take the worst player on the Royals 40 man instead and send them a C level prospect instead? I have to believe that the Royals would have been willing to trade Betancourt at a later time if the Brewers couldn't have signed a reasonable contract with Punto, Renteria, Cabrera, etc.

[gregmag]

It's an easy way to highlight his limitations as a hitter, so I found it beneficial.

 

Sure, you used the best available evidence to support your preconceived notion, rather than address his overall offensive contribution projection.

That isn't fair, IMHO, and Russ's analysis strikes me as sound. First of all, focusing on OBP always makes a good bit of sense, because OBP is the single most important component of a player's offensive contribution. Second, focusing on Betancourt's (or any lineup addition's) OBP in the context of the Brewers seems to me to make even more sense than usual, because I would say the team as currently constructed needs OBP at the margin more than it needs SLG (the other major component of a player's offensive contribution). Finally, there's nothing at all wrong or sneaky about using the strongest available piece of evidence to illustrate a point that the evidence in general bears out. Russ's characterization of Betancourt's offense may or may not have been a mere "preconceived notion" (who knows), but objectively it's a characterization with a lot to back it up. Betancourt's OBP has been very poor, and -- as Russ pointed out in the same post you're quoting to criticize -- his modicum of power isn't enough to project (per ZIPS) even a league-average OPS. Should a shortstop who, based on the best available evidence, (a) is below-average offensively, (b) is below-average defensively, and © is past the age when most players get better be starting for anybody? I can't see why he should be.

[kramnoj]

That isn't fair, IMHO, and Russ's analysis strikes me as sound.

 

Using limited evidence and only citing evidence that highlights a player's weaknesses is never sound. It's not even analysis.

 

First of all, focusing on OBP always makes a good bit of sense, because OBP is the single most important component of a player's offensive contribution.

 

I don't think that's true for every single player. It's true for the vast majority of players, but clearly, for Betancourt, his power relative to other players at his position is a positive.

 

Second, focusing on Betancourt's (or any lineup addition's) OBP in the context of the Brewers seems to me to make even more sense than usual, because I would say the team as currently constructed needs OBP at the margin more than it needs SLG (the other major component of a player's offensive contribution).

 

We don't know where Betancourt will be in the lineup, so that's not really much of a consideration. It's generally believed that lineup construction can have an effect of 1 or 2 wins over a season. Betancourt's position in the lineup just isn't going to have that much of an impact.

 

Finally, there's nothing at all wrong or sneaky about using the strongest available piece of evidence to illustrate a point that the evidence in general bears out.

 

The issue is that the evidence of OBP doesn't bear anything out with regards to Betancourt's offensive contribution. It's provided as reason with defense to make a point that Betancourt shouldn't be starting. Instead, his offense may be near average for the position, despite the weak OBP.

 

Should a shortstop who, based on the best available evidence, (a) is below-average offensively, (b) is below-average defensively, and © is past the age when most players get better be starting for anybody? I can't see why he should be.

 

That's not enough reasoning to make that decision. What is the players expected projection? What is the error bar of that projection, and how much upside does one player have over another (there isn't much upside to Betancourt, but he has been near average for his position in the past)? What are the salary demands for players that project to be better, and will they want to work in Milwaukee?

[trwi7]

I had no idea Yuniesky was that highly regarded in his first two seasons. Is Yunie the case of a guy who was athletic and just got lazy or scouts overestimating his ability?

 

From Dave Cameron during today's fangraphs chat.

 

[Comment From LlewdorLlewdor: ]

Are the Brewers seriously going to let Yuni play every day? Or at all?

 

Dave Cameron:

He'll play some, but I don't think they'll give him an everyday job. I will say that one of his big problems is a love of the nightlife, so its possible that he'll figure out that there isn't any in Milwaukee and actually go to bed at a reasonable hour, which might actually help him not totally suck.

[Comment From BassmanUWBassmanUW: ]

Regarding Betancourt and his love of the nightlife issues... is the nightlife really that great in Kansas City? I've never been there, but I have been to Milwaukee several times and can say it's an underrated city if you stay away from the parts to town you might get mugged and/or shot.

 

Dave Cameron:

I have no real knowledge of the nightlife in either place. The comment was mostly a joke.

[Comment From KyleKyle: ]

Kansas City did have some great BBQ on Man vs. Food, maybe thats what plagued Yuni

 

Dave Cameron:

He got fat in Seattle, not KC.

[rluzinski]

It's an easy way to highlight his limitations as a hitter, so I found it beneficial.

 

Sure, you used the best available evidence to support your preconceived notion, rather than address his overall offensive contribution projection.

My point was simple; when a hitter projects to have a sub .300 OBP; his offensive contributions to his team is going to be very limited. I didn't think I was going out on a limb by suggesting that.

And I'd be happy to unearth some data that would change my opinion of Betencourt, so please don't take the easy way out and accuse me of bias. Argue the facts, not the person.

[kramnoj]

And I'd be happy to unearth some data that would change my opinion of Betencourt, so please don't take the easy way out and accuse me of bias. Argue the facts, not the person.

 

You already unearthed the data when you bothered to look at Betancourt's projection vs league average. It told a much more revealing story than just looking at OBP.

 

As far as more data, just looking at the Fangraphs leaderboard for SS last year, Betancourt was 17th among qualified players at his position with -11 batting runs to go with his .288 OBP. Clearly, that's poor, but he was much closer to the 15th best hitter than not being worthy of starting.

 

Escobar, interestingly,had the same .288 OBP, but produced -21 runs. Looking at OBP only is a very poor way of giving an honest look at the potential contribution of Betancourt.

[PeaveyFury]

Yes, Betancourt isn't an asset with the bat, but given the other options that may be available, it's not really a major deficiency.

 

I think that most people here would agree with this and many (including myself) would be ok with his bat if his defense was average/above average.... the problem is that in addition to being average-ish with the bat he's horrific defensively, and that's what makes him an unacceptable starter.

[rluzinski]

You already unearthed the data when you bothered to look at Betancourt's projection vs league average. It told a much more revealing story than just looking at OBP.

 

I bothered to look at all the data when this trade went down. His 16 HRs last year has been quoted numerous time in this thread, so I didn't think it was necessary to point out that he's shown above average power as a SS. I focused on his OBP because that's what ruins his offensive value. Again, when a guy has a sub .300 career OBP, he's kind of screwed.

 

I didn't think I had to "reveal" that Betancourt's offense wasn't really a strength since most seem to already recognize that. I hope my subsequent posts were helpful to those who didn't.

[rluzinski]

I would like the Brewers to at least take a look at Renteria if he could be had for a reasonable price. He appears to still be right around average defensively and might be expected to put up something like a .260/.320/.360 line. Give Counsel 40 starts against righties and I think you might have reasonable production out of the SS position.

 

I know he was pissed off at the $1 mil offer that the Giants offered him but I wonder if $3-4 mil would be enough to entice him. You might even be able to trade Betancourt and cash to a team for an A ball reliever and save $1 mil there. Of course, Renteria's demands might be delusional but it would be worth at least checking.