Yuniesky Betancourt: What value does he bring to the team? (part 1)

[Ennder]

Escobar is an elite defensive SS in the making, he just still makes too many errors. He is certainly better than Betancourt though even with the errors. I don't know if his bat will ever be good in the majors though, I never liked his skillset. The reason Escobar is still starting is because he is young and has potential, a team like the Royals is all about the potential right now. Betancourt is no longer young, he has probably reached his potential and the results are he probably shouldn't be a full time player at SS in the majors as he is right around replacement level offensively and he is below replacement level defensively. We might be stuck with him this year but we should at least be mixing in Counsell once a week to limit the damage and I fully expect Betancourt to move to 2B or become a utility guy in the near future.

 

Stats definitely don't tell the whole story though, in any given AB no player controls more than 50% of what happens and it is probably more like 40% tops. Baseball is still a team sport and trying to give individual's value in a team sport is always going to be tricky.

[Oxy]

Betancourt is no longer young, he has probably reached his potential and the results are he probably shouldn't be a full time player at SS in the majors as he is right around replacement level offensively and he is below replacement level defensively. We might be stuck with him this year but we should at least be mixing in Counsell once a week to limit the damage and I fully expect Betancourt to move to 2B or because a utility guy in the near future.

Historically, this is true. But this is shaping up to be a terrible year for SS, which lowers the bar that "replacement level" is set at. We don't have a AAAA player to stick in there, and there don't seem to be any available, thus this "replacement" player doesn't exist right now making YB better than actual replacement level. YuBet seems pretty durable too, which is something that cannot be said for a lot of veteran replacement level IFs around the league. Later in the year, perhaps we will trade some of your bullpen arms to pick up a better option, but right now he is what we've got.

 

EDIT: grammar

[mkm13]

Historically, this is true. But this is shaping up to be a terrible year for SS, which lowers the bar that "replacement level" is set at. We don't have a AAAA player to stick in there, and there don't seem to be any available, thus this "replacement" player doesn't exist right now making YB better than actual replacement level. YuBet seems pretty durable too, which is something that cannot be said for a lot of veteran replacement level IFs around the league. Later in the year, perhaps we will trade some of your bullpen arms to pick up a better option, but right now he is what we've got.

Correct. This year he is like 13th among starting SS in OPS. Last year he was like 11th among starting SS in OPS. If that is replacement level on offense, what does that make all the guys below him in OPS?

[Ennder]

Historically, this is true. But this is shaping up to be a terrible year for SS, which lowers the bar that "replacement level" is set at. We don't have a AAAA player to stick in there, and there don't seem to be any available, thus this "replacement" player doesn't exist right now making YB better than actual replacement level. YuBet seems pretty durable too, which is something that cannot be said for a lot of veteran replacement level IFs around the league. Later in the year, perhaps we will trade some of your bullpen arms to pick up a better option, but right now he is what we've got.

Correct. This year he is like 13th among starting SS in OPS. Last year he was like 11th among starting SS in OPS. If that is replacement level on offense, what does that make all the guys below him in OPS?

OPS is flawed in one specific way, it doesn't count OBP enough. In most cases this isn't a big deal, but for a sub .300 OBP or a really high OBP player you get a poor result. Betancourt is 19th in wOBA on the year with 2 more SS just barely missing qualifying which would make him 21st. He has been 3.1 runs below replacement level as a hitter this year and SS has a +3.1 positional adjustment. Stats obviously aren't perfect but he is roughly replacement level, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse but he is right in the replacement level range.

[MJLiverock]

The problem is that having the 19th best or 17th best or 21st best player at a position isn't any sort of meaningful upgrade, especially when those guys in any given year can end being ranked in any one of those postions.

 

Sure I'd like to improve the SS position but not a the expense of giving something up to bring a player who's range of production puts him right at YB's level of production over any one given year. That is why I don't wring my hands over not getting Punto, Izturis type players to play the spot. Replacing bad with bad doesn't gain anything and when the margin of improvement is likely 5% or less over YB I just fail to see how making a change just to make a change is any sort of improvement.

 

I dont' even see that platooning Counsell at this point will be help, he looks like he may well be done as a hitter and I'd have serious doubts that he could hold up over the course of a full season playing the big half of a platoon. The real question may be that counting on Counsell for one more year as the super sub in the infield may be one year too many and you know no matter how he does this year he isn't going to be replaced until he retires at year end.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Historically, this is true. But this is shaping up to be a terrible year for SS, which lowers the bar that "replacement level" is set at.

 

I think that's an observation worth taking a look at - alot of the sample size used in recent years to define expected production levels at certain positions happened to be at the tail end of the steroid era, while at the same time having a large number of quality offensive shortstops at or near their prime. SS is again becoming a defensive position, which is more why Betancourt shouldn't be playing there everyday instead of his offensive issues...

 

I think Betancourt profiles as the "worst everyday player in MLB" statistically because he shouldn't be playing SS - he's been stuck there for teams that haven't contended for a few seasons because his bat isn't good enough to fit in at a corner IF position. I agree with Ender that Yuni B will turn into more of a utility infielder/bench player after this season, and probably would be already if the Brewers can find a way to get a better alternative on their roster at the trade deadline.

[rluzinski]

These kind of threads have no chance of not devolving into the same tired arguments. This is what happens:

 

Thread about Player A Thread:

PRO: Player A is good because of a,b,c

CON: a, b and c isn't true.

etc...

 

New Thread About Giving Player A Love:

PRO: Player A is good because of a,b,c

 

 

 

What do people expect to come next?

[TooLiveBrew]

2) ?

3) Profit!

[CheezWizHed]

What do people expect to come next?

 

d,e, and f!

[RockCoCougars]

Escobar is an elite defensive SS in the making, he just still makes too many errors. He is certainly better than Betancourt though even with the errors.

I disagree. Escobar played very poorly defensively last season during the first half when the team was starting to tank. During that time, I remember lots of crucial game changing errors on easy plays that Betancourt has thus far looked pretty dependable at converting into outs. Going further, Escobar was basically an automatic out at the plate, and generally played with his head in his rear (on the basepaths, etc.). The reason that he's so highly regarded defensively is that he can make the highlight reel, he can also make the blooper reel just as much. It's not like he's extremely young either, and based on the way he's hitting this season, I'm glad the Brewers moved him while he still had some value.

[logan82]

I think part of the reason we are not seeing more names fro Betancourt replacements is not to many people know or would take the time to know the names of bench players on every single team.

[thablingster]

I like YuniB because he kind of looks like a 14 year old Tony Gwynn in his scoreboard picture. He is what he is.

[JohnBriggs12]

Defense aside. if you think OBP is the one stat that defines a player's offensive contribution no matter where in the lineup he hits, then you won't like Betancourt. It's that simple.

 

Personally, I've always believed the value of OBP as a measure varied greatly upon where a player hit in a lineup, and the 7th spot in an NL order is without question the ideal spot to bat for a low OBP guy like Betancourt. As long as he hits for a decent average which isn't all that easy to do with poor hitters behind you, in that spot he's going to pick up a respectable number of RBI. That is the essential job of the 7th hitter in a lineup. Walking with a runner on 2nd and two out, with the 8th hitter and 9th hitter behind you, generally doesn't do much good.

 

Is Betancourt a great offensive player or even a great offensive shortstop? Of course not. But the key question is if this team can win with it's other parts and an average year from Betancourt. Absolutely they can.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Defense aside. if you think OBP is the one stat that defines a player's offensive contribution no matter where in the lineup he hits, then you won't like Betancourt. It's that simple.

 

Personally, I've always believed the value of OBP as a measure varied greatly upon where a player hit in a lineup, and the 7th spot in an NL order is without question the ideal spot to bat for a low OBP guy

OBP = not making outs. Not making outs is the single most important contribution any player can provide to an offense, regardless of where he hits in the lineup. A guy who's going to put up an OBP below .300 is a detriment to your offense regardless if he hits 2nd or 8th. You can limit how detrimental such a bat is by putting him lower in your order (and limiting his at bats), but saying that the value of OBP is varied depending on lineup location is really statistically false.

[TheCrew]

saying that the value of OBP is varied depending on lineup location is really statistically false.

I get both your points, but it is more important to have high obp guys at the top of your lineup to get on base before your 3-4-5 hitters. If you have a low obp guy, having him before the pitcher spot hides it a little better - for lack of a better way of phrasing it. Yuni's had a number of productive outs from that spot in the lineup as well.

[rwa12]

Defense aside. if you think OBP is the one stat that defines a player's offensive contribution no matter where in the lineup he hits, then you won't like Betancourt. It's that simple.

 

Personally, I've always believed the value of OBP as a measure varied greatly upon where a player hit in a lineup, and the 7th spot in an NL order is without question the ideal spot to bat for a low OBP guy

OBP = not making outs. Not making outs is the single most important contribution any player can provide to an offense, regardless of where he hits in the lineup. A guy who's going to put up an OBP below .300 is a detriment to your offense regardless if he hits 2nd or 8th. You can limit how detrimental such a bat is by putting him lower in your order (and limiting his at bats), but saying that the value of OBP is varied depending on lineup location is really statistically false.

I disagree with this. My line of thinking is more in line with JohnBriggs. There are times when simply getting on base is less relevant. Like he said, runners in scoring position and two outs, with two voids behind you, you want the guy swinging. I understand the argument for cycling the lineup, I understand the argument for the more runners the better, but I believe the goal is to get runs across the plate. I know BA is becoming a meaningless stat, but when I have the choice between YB and his mediocre BA and Nieves or a Pitcher, I would prefer the guy with the best chance at getting a hit, to swing the bat.

[rluzinski]

Does the value of OBP relative to BA and SLG change depending on BOP? Sure. If we create a hypothetical lineup where the 7-9 hitters have make an out 100% of the time, a walk by the #6 hitters has almost no value (bases loaded!). Of course, reality is not nearly as dramatic:

 

2010 NL OBP by BOP:

1 .328

2 .335

3 .364

4 .341

5 .339

6 .327

7 .310

8 .320

9 .228

 

Most batters get on base round one in every three AB. Pitchers get on about 1 in 4. The notion that OBP is of secondary importance for a #7 hitter is just false. The whole concept of assigning such rigid roles for batters by batting order position (#2 batter moves the runner over) is an outdated concept in general, IMO.

[Oxy]

Defense aside. if you think OBP is the one stat that defines a player's offensive contribution no matter where in the lineup he hits, then you won't like Betancourt. It's that simple.

 

Personally, I've always believed the value of OBP as a measure varied greatly upon where a player hit in a lineup, and the 7th spot in an NL order is without question the ideal spot to bat for a low OBP guy

OBP = not making outs. Not making outs is the single most important contribution any player can provide to an offense, regardless of where he hits in the lineup. A guy who's going to put up an OBP below .300 is a detriment to your offense regardless if he hits 2nd or 8th. You can limit how detrimental such a bat is by putting him lower in your order (and limiting his at bats), but saying that the value of OBP is varied depending on lineup location is really statistically false.

My goodness. The black and white perspectives of internet message boards is maddening. Apparently .300 is the magic OBP where a guy either helps your team or hurts your team no matter what the situation is no matter where he is in the lineup, all other statistics be damned. The difference between a .290 OBP and a .310 OBP is literally ONE less out per 50 PA. A 3TO player who bats .220 with an OBP of .310 and slugs .400 with a 25% K rate isn't as valuable in the 7th spot in the Brewers order as Betancourt, who bats .270 with an OBP of .290, slugs .400 and Ks at a 10% clip.

 

There IS a point where a high slugging and BA can outweigh a low walk rate. Is Betancourt at that point? It depends on who you compare him to. Is there anybody who thinks that, say, George Kottaras is a better hitter than Betancourt? That question is sure to provoke original, insightful discussion. It's free-swingers vs. 3TOers.

[Ennder]

Walking with a runner on 2nd and two out, with the 8th hitter and 9th hitter behind you, generally doesn't do much good.

 

Our 8th hitter is better than Betancourt so a walk there certainly would do good. The only time a walk can be considered a bad thing would be with 2 outs and a pitcher up next and even then it isn't all that bad since it clears the pitcher, increases the pitchers pitch count and gives you 1 more AB later in the game. OBP is the most valuable tool a hitter has, outs are the most valuable resource a team has in a game and not giving them away is what makes good offensive teams. Making other teams use theirs up is how you have a good pitching team.

[The Truth]

I put some thought into what I could say that would be a positive spin on Yuni B, here's what I came up with:

 

I think it would be great if Yuni B played shortstop for the Reds, Cardinals, Cubs, Astros, or Pirates

 

The fact that he is still an active MLB player means that someday he might play for one of those teams, and hey that'd be great!

 

That's all I got

 

oh, and what Stevo said "An OBP under .300 for his career is not serviceable, no". that is The Truth

[DuWayne Steurer]

Defense aside. if you think OBP is the one stat that defines a player's offensive contribution no matter where in the lineup he hits, then you won't like Betancourt. It's that simple.

 

Personally, I've always believed the value of OBP as a measure varied greatly upon where a player hit in a lineup, and the 7th spot in an NL order is without question the ideal spot to bat for a low OBP guy

OBP = not making outs. Not making outs is the single most important contribution any player can provide to an offense, regardless of where he hits in the lineup. A guy who's going to put up an OBP below .300 is a detriment to your offense regardless if he hits 2nd or 8th. You can limit how detrimental such a bat is by putting him lower in your order (and limiting his at bats), but saying that the value of OBP is varied depending on lineup location is really statistically false.

My goodness. The black and white perspectives of internet message boards is maddening. Apparently .300 is the magic OBP where a guy either helps your team or hurts your team no matter what the situation is no matter where he is in the lineup, all other statistics be damned. The difference between a .290 OBP and a .310 OBP is literally ONE less out per 50 PA. A 3TO player who bats .220 with an OBP of .310 and slugs .400 with a 25% K rate isn't as valuable in the 7th spot in the Brewers order as Betancourt, who bats .270 with an OBP of .290, slugs .400 and Ks at a 10% clip.

 

There IS a point where a high slugging and BA can outweigh a low walk rate. Is Betancourt at that point? It depends on who you compare him to. Is there anybody who thinks that, say, George Kottaras is a better hitter than Betancourt? That question is sure to provoke original, insightful discussion. It's free-swingers vs. 3TOers.

But it IS black and white when you're talking about a guy like Betencourt. He OBP's below .300 and doesn't slug NEARLY enough to make up for it (one season with 16 homeruns). There isn't a scenario, not one, where a guy who OPS's below .700 with a putrid OBP is an asset to an offense. This isn't even about Betencourt, it's about the fallacy in thinking that a certain 'type' of offensive player isn't as detrimental in certain spots in your batting order.

[giffted1]

I can certainly agree with some of the criticisms of Betancourt. He moves pretty slow in the field and has always had a low obp.

 

Still, some of the bashing is outrageous...claims that he can't get to balls unless they're hit right to him, claims that a guy like Luis Cruz would be an upgrade, etc.

 

I'm pretty sure that every time a ball gets through the left side, there are BF.netters out there that jump off their couches and run to their computers hoping to get the first "Yuni Sucks" post in.

[derflotr]

I can see the guy has no range but he's far from as bad as everyone here made him out to be.

[Ennder]

He is pretty much exactly what everyone made him out to be, poor range, no OBP player who is one of the worst players to keep a full time job in baseball. That is exactly what he has shown and done so far on the year.

 

Plus you can stop bringing up the only gets to balls hit right to him because I said it and I already told people what i meant by it. He has made maybe 1 play all year that I wouldn't expect 90% of SS in baseball to make, that is pretty much exactly what was meant by it. He has the minimum zone you will see for getting to balls in MLB, basically it has to be hit right next to him for him to make a play, if he has to take more than a couple steps it will get by where most SS have much more range than that. Quite obviously I didn't mean the ball had to literally be hit right at him, if people are going to be so nit-picky over everything said this forum is going to quickly become worthless.

[strawbossisevil]

I think part of the reason we are not seeing more names fro Betancourt replacements is not to many people know or would take the time to know the names of bench players on every single team.

Considering this thread is on page 20, and there are a lot of intelligent posters on here. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is there simply aren't any options available currently, it has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge about the players.