Overbay, Carlos Lee just your average Major Leaguers

[RobertR]

I fully agree with the Overbay was average, although he certainly gets credit for playing time and staying healthy. Roto-wise, you would have done a lot better getting him instead of Thome.

 

As for Lee, I agree that he was fairly average, OPS-wise, but he played a lot and fit exactly what the Brewers wanted out of the position, hence the RBIs. Certainly he was the best option to hit cleanup on the Brewers. He's certainly not irreplaceable at his salary, but it was predictable that he'd produce at least as well as he did. There was very little risk involved with Lee, which is certainly worth something.

 

Did the Brewers overspend a bit on Lee? Probably, but they certainly made it up elsewhere and I've seen studies suggesting that only Cleveland was more efficient at spending money.

 

As for the Roto-analysis, OPS is a odd choice to be using for analysis. I would think a calculated value and then choosing the median would be much more useful to determine who was average for that purpose.

 

Robert

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"As for the VORP debate, if you want to normalize for Lee's durability and not give him credit for 700 PAs, use VORPr. If you rank NL LFs by that stat with min 300 PAs, Lee is 12th out of 18. Behind Jeff Conine, Ryan Church, Reggie Sanders... "

 

Sure, RA, he's 12th-best in the NL. Hell, he's downright awful. In fact, let's factor out the times he faces Reds pitching and all those games in bandbox ballparks, and he's perhap the worst player in the majors!

 

Why won't anyone give the man credit for being durable and consistent? Creating formulic ways to marginalize his day-in day-out productivity is not fighting fair. It's like hypothetically factoring out the Rangers great infield and saying they'd otherwise be as bad as the Royals.

 

Would YOU rather have a cleanup man like the always-injured Reggie Sanders, the over-the-hill Jeff Conine, the unproven Ryan Church, or a guy who you know will hit 30+ bombs, drive in 110-120 runs and allow Geoff Jenkins to relax a bit and not go for the 7-run homer every time up?

 

Yet another reason why VORP does nothing for me.

 

"I think you could find just as/almost as good of an outfielder as Lee in trade for much less money. Consider teams like the DevilRays and the Rangers have a stockpile of outfielders. They don't need another outfielder, but you could trade Carlos for pitching and then trade some pitching for an outfielder. Guys like Kevin Mench, David Dellucci, etc. make a lot less money for basically the same amount of offens

 

First of all, Ray, welcome. Haven't seen your posts here before.

 

Now, on to your post excerpted above. You write that Kevin Mench and David Dellucci produce basically the same amount of offense as Carlos.

 

Not even close.

 

Over the past 3 years:

 

CLee: .291-31-113 w/18 SBs, .499 SLG....305-31-99 w/ 11 SBs, .525 SLG....265-32-114 w/ 13 SBs, .487 SLG

 

DDellucci: .227-3-23 w/12 SBs, .352 SLG....242-17-61 w/ 9 SBs, .441 SLG....251-29-65 w/5 SBs, .513 SLG

 

KMench: .320-2-11 w/1 SB, .464 SLG....279-26-71 No SBs, .539 SLG....264-25-73 w/ 4 SBs, .469 SLG

 

These guys don't get paid as much as Carlos, because they don't consistently PRODUCE like Carlos. Sometimes the system works.

 

"I guess this shows the dangers of one stat analysis. I doubt if any GM would consider him truly average. However he may have more value to the Brewers than another "average" lf because he is a right handed power hitter. Much of a players value has to be considered in the context of how he fits with the rest of the lineup. Lee was perfect for what the Brewers needed. "

 

clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap!

 

Couldn't have written this better, myself!

 

ONE stat is taken and invoked as gospel, to tarnish a fine overall season. The Brewers badly needed a slugging partner to support/protect Jenkins, who has shown he can't shoulder that burden as cleanup man by himself. He was acquired when we needed an offensive boost the most.

 

I'll ask those of you who view Carlos as "average": Since we all pretty much agree Doug Melvin has razor-sharp instincts in terms of talent evaluation, would you say Doug was responsible for not that great a move? Me neither.

[gregmag]

I think Geno makes fair points about Lee's health and consistency.

 

That said, Roto's analysis is very sound. Lee is not a good OBP man. His age and skill set suggest a decline is likely -- it may already be happening. Plus, he's paid more than he is worth.

 

The folks who say you have to consider need and available alternatives are certainly right. Nobody is saying "Give Lee away with no backup plan in place." What I hear Colby and others saying is "Look for a backup plan, because trading Lee would be a good idea if we could pull it off."

 

The argument I'm tired of is that we sucked without Lee and we were better with him. So what? The salient facts are that we used to suck, and now we're better. Lee's contribution to that improvement isn't magical. It can be measured. The facts suggest that Lee helped, but a lot of other factors -- Hall, Jenkins, Capuano, Turnbow -- were substantially more important in the turnaround.

 

Just because Lee is a "name" doesn't make him indespensible. Just because he does some things well doesn't erase the fact that he's subpar in other areas. Any way you slice it, he's a decent but not special player. If we want to contend, we need more special players, and we need to get bang for our buck.

 

Greg.

[reillymcshane]

I think people need to realize that the article talked about average for 2005 - that's qualified LFs in the NL. That's only 11 guys.

 

However, Carlos isn't average if you put in every leftfielder in the league up against him. The sample was simply those guys who had enough ABs last year to qualify. 11 guys.

 

And remember, this is for Fantasy baseball - not real life. In fantasy, it's important in most leagues to have guys who play everyday. That makes your sample 11 guys. Putting that in context, he's average.

 

But if the real world, I'd take Carlos over several guys who's OPS rated above him in 2005. Guys like Floyd (due to past injuries), Gonzeles (age), and Holliday (Coors influence - he's a .730ish OPS guy on the road), and so on. And the same goes for a slew of guys with good OPS that didn't play as much - Reggie Sanders (injury waiting to happen), Randy Winn (fluke - now way he has a 1.071 OPS in 2006), etc. And platooning guys can have warped OPS because they're only playing against a specific kind of pitcher.

 

There are guys who, I feel, are better - Dunn, Burrell, Cabrera, Berkman and Bay.

 

Carlos is a good player. The best - not by a long shot. There are several guys (listed above) that most teams would take in his place. But there's a whole slew of guys who can't come close to what Carlos does - go out and play everyday and hit 30 HR on a year-after-year basis.

 

Carlos is average in the context of the article -- it doesn't mean he's bad or people think he's terrible.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"I think Geno makes fair points about Lee's health and consistency. That said, Roto's analysis is very sound. Lee is not a good OBP man."

 

Point well taken, Greg.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not touting Lee for his OBP. I readily admit it's not that great. But as I've always believed, he's being paid to hit cleanup, take the RBI pressure off Jenkins, and just do what he always does: 30+ HRs, 110+ RBIs. Isn't that enough?

 

There are many types of hitters to piece together to create a winning lineup. You need your OBP table-setter types who are not responsible for driving in runs (nor slugging...as much), your defense-first guys whom you're OK hitting 7th and 8th, and you need your 3-6 guys to do what Carlos does. Sure, I wish his BA would have been better, and I'd be apprehensive about him batting 3rd, as a Pujols does, but he's always out there, banging in runs. We need guys like that, so let's keep him.

 

"The folks who say you have to consider need and available alternatives are certainly right. Nobody is saying "Give Lee away with no backup plan in place." What I hear Colby and others saying is "Look for a backup plan, because trading Lee would be a good idea if we could pull it off." "

 

OK. But as I've asked earlier this week (and got no responses on) was: Could we trade Carlos Lee, and get the same pretty much guaranteed production at the cleanup spot without adding payroll (i.e., a TEN million dollar a year slugger)? I even spotted everyone a Vernon Wells or a Lance Berkman (which I'd do), but as we know, Toronto and Houston are going to hang onto those young-ish sluggers...as should we.

 

"The facts suggest that Lee helped, but a lot of other factors -- Hall, Jenkins, Capuano, Turnbow -- were substantially more important in the turnaround."

 

I agree that these 4 guys (hell, I've even grudgingly add in a shockingly good year from Clark http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ) performed much better than planned, and that obviously helped boost our fortunes in '05, by a lot.

 

But try this scenario: Factor out the Podsednik trade. In LF, batting cleanup, it's Geoff Jenkins, flailing away at every pitch in his area code. In CF, probably still leading off, it's still Podsednik. In RF, batting 5th, it's Brrrrrrrady!

 

Call it opinion, but if your 4-5 hitters in 2005 are Jenkins-Clark, that's nowhere near as productive, and we're leaving lotsa money on the table again as we did in 2004. Jenkins's numbers aren't as good, and we score a lot less runs, because, based on what Clark did when responsible for RBIs in 2004, I suspect he'd drive in around 50-60 less than Carlos did, and we're improved over '03, but still around, perhaps 74-88.

 

Fair?

[clancyphile]

gregmag

 

I tend to agree with you. Overbay's skill set (more OBP, usign more of the field) is much less likely to decline over time. His OPS, OXS, and expected runs created are marginally higher, and he'd be getting maybe $3 million in 2006 compared to $8.5 million for Carlos Lee.

[gregmag]

Geno, two responses.

 

First, I think you're right that replacing Lee's value would be a challenge. You couldn't go get a comparable, established guy easily.

 

But that isn't the whole picture. What if Lee and a package gets you a true #2 starter, and that's all you do? Then you've traded Lee plus the risk of our #5 starter situation for serious rotation improvement and the risk of Cruz/Hart/whomever in LF. I'm not sure whether that's a good trade or not, but I think the question is close, and that dimension has to figure into this discussion.

 

Second, I don't really agree with you about the centrality of the Lee trade to the Brewers' success. I absolutely agree that the trade improved us, that it was a great idea. But without it we would have had something like this:

 

Pods cf

Clark lf

Overbay 1b

Jenkins lf

Hall 3b

Miller c

Weeks 2b

Hardy ss

 

Again, I agree that I prefer what we had with Lee. But given Pods' bounce-back from his horrible 2004, the lineup above would have represented a major improvement over the 2004 Brewers.

 

The Lee trade looks especially good, I think, because of just how unspeakably awful Pods was in 2004. As I said last offseason, the 2004 Brewers' biggest problem wasn't power -- it was getting on base. The single best thing about the Lee trade, as far as the 2005 season is concerned, was the improvement of Clark over Pods.

 

My main issue with Lee is similar to my main issue with Clark. Both are useful, productive players, but neither is good enough to anchor a contender, and they're both at an age where we should expect them to get worse, not better. Lee gets some bonus points for his health and consistency; Clark gets some bonus points for being cheap and having the sort of broad (if modest) skill set that sometimes forestalls aging. But if we're interested in winning the World Series, we'll have to let go of some decent, reliable guys and take chances on some untested guys with upside.

 

So how about Lee and prospects for Milledge? We see if Cruz or Hart works out in LF this year, and we wait another year for a guy who has a real chance to be a championship-caliber offensive catalyst. I have no idea whether that's a realistic option, but it illustrates the kind of thinking that I'm trying to describe.

 

Greg.

[DHonks]

I'm with Geno here.

 

Throw in that Lee isn't being asked to hit 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. Seriously, what does everyone value most in a cleanup hitter? OBP? OPS? avg?

 

Most of us would rather have a guy who racks up the RBI's (given an opportunity, he succeeds) and homers (especially with men on base). In the 5 spot, you might want more of a guy like Jenks who succeeds when he can feed off other hitters and stay within his skillset (meaning driving the ball to the gaps and to all fields). Lee fits the needs of the team, as nobody else is really qualified to hit cleanup.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"What if Lee and a package gets you a true #2 starter, and that's all you do? Then you've traded Lee plus the risk of our #5 starter situation for serious rotation improvement and the risk of Cruz/Hart/whomever in LF. I'm not sure whether that's a good trade or not, but I think the question is close, and that dimension has to figure into this discussion."

 

While I do understand the concept in play here, the idea of giving up a top 15 RBI guy for a #2 starter doesn't work for me. I'm not saying it's stupid or anything. I'm just more of a "stick-with-what's-proven-to-work" kind of Brewer fan. I guess I've been burned so often in the past when we've salary-dumped All-Stars for maybes, that I'm gun-shy about wanting to ever face that again, even since we've been de-Seligified.

 

Under your scenario, here's what I'd expect for 2006:

 

Carlos Lee (.275-32-115, 15 SBs, .500 SLG) gone. Replaced by Cruz or Hart with the same # of plate appearances: (.250-15-50, 20 SBs, .400 SLG?).

 

In turn, Jenkins goes from a secure, insulated .292-25-86 back to only-slugger-in-the-lineup 2004 form: .267-22-70.

 

Painting with a very broad brush, and heavy on speculation here of course, I would expect this hypothetical 2006 Jenkins-4th/Hart-5th combo platter to drive in around 80 less runs. That could cost us 10 games or so in the standings.

 

Can a true #2 starting pitcher improve on Obermueller/Glover by that many games?

 

I can't say yes.

 

Think of what defines a #2 starter: These days, with 30 teams, and the top 60 starters going roughly 190 innings, that means 31-60 tend to win around 13-14 games, with an ERA around 4.10 or so.

 

Sure, Obermueller/Glover/Santos stink. But as our default composite #5 man, they'd likely combine to go 7-15 with a 5.10 or so. Agree?

 

Even if you don't, I can't share your optimism when downgrading our offense by a helluva lot, and adding a slightly above average starter in the interest of making up that lost ground.

 

Make it Jenkins for a Jon Lieber/Brian Lawrence type, and maybe we're closer, but even then...

 

But then again, that's just me.

[reillymcshane]

Quote:

---

Carlos Lee (.275-32-115, 15 SBs, .500 SLG) gone. Replaced by Cruz or Hart with the same # of plate appearances: (.250-15-50, 20 SBs, .400 SLG?).

---

 

If the club thinks Hart or Cruz is going to suck like you have them, then no, you don't consider dealing Lee. But if the team feels one of them can do better - let's say Hart's .916 OPS at AAA translates into a .800 OPS in the bigs (I believe his MLEs from Baseball Prospectus was something like that), then you consider it if the right deal came along. The team, however, has to be confident that one of those guys could replace Lee or Jenkins. Just like when dealing Overbay they have to be confident Fielder will step in and perform as a certain level.

[gregmag]

You may be right. Either way, I think your argument exactly tracks the discussion we need to have. Subjectively, for my money, I think the better of Hart or Cruz probably will do substantially more than the numbers you posited, and I don't buy that Jenkins' success or failure depends so much on Lee's presence in the lineup -- particularly because Lee's inability to get on base (which, DHonks, doesn't magically stop mattering after the first three batters in the first inning) left Geoff with a dearth of RBI opportunities.

 

I definitely get your attachment to a player who does useful things that we've been missing for a long time. My humble suggestion, however, is that such an attachment is a bit premature when all we've assembled so far is a .500 team. We're going to have to cash in at least one of our good-not-great starters -- one of the outfielders, I suspect -- if we're going to contend. Which one that turns out to be will depend on opportunity, market value, and close judgments.

 

Greg.

[DHonks]

reilly, that's actually a pretty solid season as he has projected for the kids (most likely Hart).

[Snuffzilla]

Hey ja!

 

It's a frickin' free Country & I'll stick 2 my Support of Lees Stats. What are our Offensive Stats compared 2 dismal 2004? & who was our best Run Producer?

 

Answer those 2 ?'s before You call somebody frickin' 'Stupid'.

 

You might find You should be looking in the Mirror. I don't agree w/ everybody & that's what this Forum is 4. 2 share Opinions.

 

Until Your hired as somebodys GM don't act like You deserve 2 be...

[rluzinski]

In turn, Jenkins goes from a secure, insulated .292-25-86 back to only-slugger-in-the-lineup 2004 form: .267-22-70.

 

I have a hard time believing that Lee "protected" Jenkins, allowing him to have a good season. Why so quick to believe the cause/effect relationship? Without Lee in the lineup, Jenkins would have had more RBI opportunities and more RBI's as a result.

 

Why does it matter WHO bats before him?

[endaround]

The Brewers haven't had a right handed bat better than Lee's since way back in 2003! Whatever happenedto that Sexson fella? I mean unlike Lee the Brewers didn't even have a top prospects waiting to replace Sexson!

 

I don't believe Lee will be with the Brewers in 2007 given he'll want $10 million or so a season since he'll have 7 straight years if 30 Hrs and 100 RBIs or whatever. If thats the case, Cruz or Hart are likely to palying full time in 2007. Gvien the chance that the Brewers improve by another 15 wins in 2006 is slight, and that Cruz/Hart would otherwise be rookies in the OF in 2007 I'd rather see them start in 2006 and be fully ready to contribute in 2007.

[danzig6767]

The good thing is for the first time in awhile,the team doesn't have to trade a guy like Lee.In the past,a good player making 8.5 million and in his final year was almost automatic trade bait.

 

Now the Brewers actually have some funds and a decent team.Trading Lee to save cash for the owner and aquiring three A/AA hope and prayer players doesn't have to be an option.

 

I'd assume if any trade of Lee happened,it would be to aquire a player/players for the big league club,not to help the West Virginia Power.I'd be very hesitent to trade Lee,but not having deaf ears either.The topic of trading Lee is a bit hard though without names to evalute whether it might be beneficial.

[ja002h]

Hey ja!

It's a frickin' free Country & I'll stick 2 my Support of Lees Stats. What are our Offensive Stats compared 2 dismal 2004? & who was our best Run Producer?

Answer those 2 ?'s before You call somebody frickin' 'Stupid'.

You might find You should be looking in the Mirror. I don't agree w/ everybody & that's what this Forum is 4. 2 share Opinions.

Until Your hired as somebodys GM don't act like You deserve 2 be...

 

 

Reading your posts gives me a headache.

 

I never said you were stupid, I said your comment was stupid. You never said "I think based on these stats ... that Lee is NOT average". ALL you said, was "I don't have to read this stupid article, what a joke." That's not how you offer a different opinion.

[Snuffzilla]

Ja.

 

Here's some Goodys 2 take care of Your Headache. Sorry, you're not in the Mood 2nite, honey. Come On', Dude. Growup & realize the World won't always agree w/ you.

 

Tell Ya what. I'll leave blank Statements & let You fill in MY Opinions.

 

I hold no Personal grudge or Vendetta against You. But when called out I'll reply.

 

'27 ain't Old. & how quickly People 4get his 1st Half. He'll be better next Year & more Consistant. 4 him 2 go anywhere the Deal would need 2 include STUD SP.

 

'Some People are foolish enough 2 think the Grass is Greener on the other Side...How quickly they 4get the Offensive Struggles of 2004...'

 

If this Statement from my previous Post didn't spellout My Support 4 Carlos I don't know what else I can do 2 help You understand???

[obobo55]

The main thing that everyone seems to be avoiding is that the club really needs to decide where they are going with CLee beyond next season. If they are prepared to sign him to a longer deal (or are willing to take compensation pocks if he leaves as a FA) then there is little reason to deal him. If they are reluctant to pay that cash, then holding on to him for next season (amd perhaps dealing him at the trade deadline) is foolish. His value will be much less at the deadline as teams know that we are desparate to get some value in return.

 

My position all along has been that next year is unlikely to be our main opportunity window regardless. Prince, Rickie, and JJ are still awfully young to be counted on for truly great things, but the year after and the following 2-3 years are the ones we need to really focus on (2007-09/10). If we can get that 2nd great pitcher to team with Sheets over that period for a CLee talent that is what we should do. I have no idea if that guy is available or not. If you are not blown away in any deal for Lee, I am satisfied going with him for next season, but he should definitely be shopped.

 

Many will argue that they would rather deal Jenkins. My argument there starts with the fact that we would be left with just 1 LH hitter in the lineup (Prince). Given his age, he also will likely bring less in trade. The biggest though is that he won't be holding a hammer over our head when his deal comes up again. Quite simply, we are in a tough spot with Carlos, we either bite the bullet and sign him to a big deal or risk losing his servuces for zero return. When Jenkins deal runs out prior to '08, we either shake his hand and tell him thanks for the memories or we can offer a reasonable 2 year extension at a modest price.

 

The timing of Carlos's FA is just awful. He is right at that turning point where he could slide quickly or he may have a slow decline. For a large market club, taking on a bit of a risk will not hurt them, they sign him to a 4-5 yr deal and assume that he can at least be productive for the first 3 years. For the Crew, if he falls precipitously by the 3rd year it is a MAJOR disaster--particularly since that is when we are likely in our major push for glory.

[Snuffzilla]

Do You think Carlos & DM would be comfortable w/ a shorter Deal? Like 3 Years???

[clancyphile]

GenoSeligPrieb

 

Quote:

---

Carlos Lee (.275-32-115, 15 SBs, .500 SLG) gone. Replaced by Cruz or Hart with the same # of plate appearances: (.250-15-50, 20 SBs, .400 SLG?).

---

 

How about replaced in LF by Lyle Overbay (even with a buyout of the option), who posted higher OPS and OXS numbers?

 

cf: Clark

ss: Hardy

lf: Overbay

rf: Jenkins

2b: Weeks

1b: Fielder

3b: Hall/Branyan

c: Miller

 

rotation: Sheets, Davis, Millwood (FA), Capuano, Ohka

 

Not only a still-solid lineup with several sluggers (Jenkins, Weeks, Fielder, Hall/Branyan), but the Brewers arguably have the best rotation in the majors.

[Invader3K]

Oh boy...here we go again. Someone wants to move Overbay to left field, despite the fact that Doug Melvin has repeatedly stated Overbay won't be moving to a different position. He's a 1B, everyone. He doesn't have the tools to play a different position consistently.

[strawbossisevil]

Answer me this Clancy,

 

You repeatedly say over and over again that you want Overbay to start in left.

 

Yet, Melvin has said it won't happen and Overbay has said it won't happen. Why would they lie? If he was actually capable of playing OF, that would add some serious leverage on the trade market because it would make him less expendible. Unless Melvin is stupid (which he isn't), Overbay will not ever play left field for the Milwaukee Brewers. Any thinking to the otherwise is just backwards. And repeating the idea in every one of your posts won't change that.

[pogokat]

everyone should quit responding to clancy's overbay to LF argument (if you really are tired of it)

 

and Hrold, you should be wary that Brewerfan.net appreciates not having a huge amount of repetition from one poster harping on the same idea...

[SenatorShriv]

What a frickin' Joke of an Article. & I didn't even need 2 Read It.

 

Snuff,

 

How do you know that it is a Joke of an Article if you didn't read it? The author of the article posted some pretty intelligent defenses to his statements. I normally don't read your posts because I can't decipher the middle school instant messenger scripts, but I went back through and sifted through your posts in this thread. I struggled to find anywhere that you used any facts or evidence to back up the statement that the article is a joke.

 

The article was examining OPS of Leftfielders who had enough at bats to qualify at the position. Among those who qualified Lee had an OPS within .006 of the average. In the context of this article Lee is most certainly average.

 

Now, other posters took the time to point out the weakness of single stat analysis, or they opened discussion about the additional values that Lee brought to the team this year outside of his average OPS.

 

So instead of launching off on Ja002h, maybe you should grow up and realize that most people value thoughtful discussion instead of the unsubstantiated claims you toss out as facts.