Community Projection: Jose Lopez
The third in a non-alphabetical and irregularly updated series of review pieces for each(?) of the players we predicted last spring.
LL/USSM Community: .277/.319/.416
Actual Line: .297/.322/.443
In a season of black comic tragedy, it was Lopez who shined as the greatest - and perhaps only - true highlight on the team. Always in possession of considerable talent, Lopez won fans without ever having put it all together on a Major League field. "Watch this kid," they'd say. "He's going to be a good player someday. You just have to give him time." And time he was given. Year after year Lopez would hit a new roadblock, and year after year skeptical arguments were met with age-based disregard. Lopez was still plenty young, see. He just needed more time.
But it was only when even some of his loyal supporters grew concerned that Lopez finally started to showcase that talent that for years he'd kept in the dark. It wasn't the way he started the season. It was the way he finished that drove the point home. After four consecutive letdown second halves, including one in 2007 that stands among the worst offensive second halves in franchise history, Lopez got going early on and sustained it through the summer. He hit .315 in June. Then .311 in July. Then .264 in August. Then .304 in September. August wasn't great, but it was a good deal better than the August before. More importantly, he started hitting for more power over the course of the season. Lopez only had two home runs through his first 56 games, but he'd go on to hit 15 over his final 103, and his 27 extra-base hits in the second half were eight more than he hit in the second halves of 2006 and 2007 combined. This was a different Jose Lopez. This was a good Jose Lopez. The sort of Jose Lopez about whom legends were told but never confirmed.
Lopez closed out the season on a three-week tear during which he hit .337 with a .943 OPS. That hot streak was enough to give him his first above-average wOBA of his career. While that may not sound like anything great, it represented a massive improvement, and for the sake of Lopez's living as a big leaguer, it couldn't have come at a better time. I wrote last March:
I'll say this: while I can't be sure about which path Lopez will take, his future in Seattle will depend on his taking some substantial strides forward. We know the front office and coaching staff are dissatisfied. The onus is on Lopez to come out of the gate playing well, impress McLaren from the two-slot, and avoid another summer collapse. Another year like the last two will probably be his last as a Mariner. Lopez needs to get going, because before long it will be too late.
Lopez took those steps forward in 2008, and in so doing, he re-established his value as an everyday regular. A talented 25 year old coming off a wOBA of .346 looks a hell of a lot better than a talented 24 year old coming off a .294, after all. The Mariners couldn't hit last year, but Lopez was still the third-best on the team, and no matter how bad an offense may be, that says a little something.
Of course, the biggest question with Lopez is just how much value he has going forward. If you call him an average defender (and, even granted his occasional lapses in concentration, I think that's about right), last year he was worth about 2-2.5 wins over replacement. That's a good player. That's a guy who can help a competitive team. However, the year before he was below replacement-level, and that year happened, too. We can't just throw it out. You'll see people all the time posit arguments that boil down to "if you ignore X, then Y," but that's not how statistics work. Unless we have good reason to throw away a certain clump of data, we have to look at the whole picture, and the whole picture for Lopez isn't that pretty. Marcel, for example, projects a park-adjusted wOBA of .322, which drops Lopez into the 1-1.5 WAR range. And if you call him a -5 defender instead of league average, then he comes off looking even worse. And let's face it: Lopez has to work pretty hard to be an average defender. He's not the most nimble guy on the team.
Here's the bottome line: if you think 2008 Jose Lopez was legit, he's a neat little player. If you think 2008 Jose Lopez overperformed, then he doesn't look so hot.
Me, I'd like to think that Lopez's improvement was real. He made more contact. He swung less often, and less often at bad pitches. His HR/FB increased. He hit a lot of doubles. There are indicators - good indicators - suggesting that Lopez started making better use of his talent last season, and that he's a reasonable bet going forward. If someone came up to me and said "Jose Lopez is going to OPS .770 next year," I wouldn't look at him like he was crazy.
But statistically speaking, 2008 is the outlier, and outliers for young players don't always mean a new level of performance is on the way. They can and often do signal imminent regression, and if Lopez regresses back to something like .280/.315/.415, then all of a sudden he's not really that valuable anymore, especially if his defense declines. In that scenario he's just a guy who doesn't hurt us but who also doesn't help us, just a guy who hangs out and takes up space until the team finds a better second baseman to help it compete.
I don't know which path Lopez is going to follow. I don't know. He's a volatile young player, and while there are perfectly sound and solid reasons to believe that he'll hold on to his gains, there are also perfectly sound and solid reasons to believe that he'll regress. It's up to Lopez to decide how good he wants to be. All I can really say is that, no matter how much I'd like to see Lopez develop into a star, it would behoove the new front office to place a few calls and see what people might offer for a "young middle infielder on the upswing." I know there are some early signs of this being a buyer's market, but the fact of the matter is that the Mariners aren't going to compete for a little while, and Lopez may never have more trade value than he does at this writing. He's young. He just had a big bounce-back season. He hit for a good average. His second half was encouraging. He's under contract. These are good selling points. There may be a GM or two out there eager to take Lopez in exchange for a player who can help out the next Mariner team to make the playoffs.
I can't speak to that. And while it's related, I guess that's a different subject anyway. What it really comes down to is that, no matter what happens from this point forward, in 2008 Jose Lopez re-inserted himself into the organizational discussion. Lost in the mix of what we can expect from him in the future as a regular is the fact that he even has a future as a regular, something which was far from a certainty a year ago. Lopez's hard work paid off, and as a result he had himself a career season. That's significant. And I think I speak for all of us when I say I hope he's able to hang on to his gains, regardless of where he's playing in 2009 or 2010. Because if nothing else, it'd be reassuring to know that this organization is indeed capable of developing decent position players. Even if they don't develop in Seattle.
Comments
"There may be a GM or two out there eager to take Lopez in exchange for a player who can help out the next Mariner team to make the playoffs."
Yeah know who could use a 2nd basemen……
by Goose on
Nov 25, 2008 6:40 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
The Phillies have a 2nd baseman
We’re not getting Ryan Howard :(
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on
Nov 25, 2008 6:56 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And yes, we should try to sell on Lopez.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 25, 2008 6:50 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd be ok with this
With the amount of shortsighted people in baseball, he’d be an easy sell. Because around the league, the “throw out X, and then it’s Y” argument is always ok. He’s on the rise! He’ll continue to get better and better! This may just work, and net us some good stuff in return
HA HA HA, your Grandpa's an ASS!- Tourette's Guy (R.I.P)
by tootthekazoo on
Nov 25, 2008 8:30 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The important question is if he is capable of getting the bunt down in the future.
by Robert on
Nov 25, 2008 9:39 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Not as well as Jamie Burke.
It's hard to convince people to let you eat them if you're an asshole. - Thingray
by Faux on
Nov 25, 2008 9:53 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jamie is a god in the bunting world.
Man do I love midgets.
by Thingray on
Nov 26, 2008 10:55 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Contract Specifics
Another huge factor in Lopez’s value to the M’s or to a potential trade partner is his contract.
Lopez is locked up through 2010, with a team-friendly option for 2011:
2009: $1.6 million
2010: $2.3 million
2011: $4.5 million club option with $450K buyout
Lopez just turned 25, and is under team control through his age 27 season.
If Lopez maintains his current level of play, he is a valuable asset given his contract. If he gets any better – which would be the normal developmental track for a guy his age – he is a bargain.
The M’s are in a pretty good spot with Lopez right now. They can definitely afford to keep him, as he is above average today and likely to improve. They could consider a move to 3B if they deal Beltre and Valbuena becomes a long-term option at 2B. Or they could trade him now and put Valbuena at 2B.
It might be a bad decision to deal Lopez now, though. The M’s might be wise to wait another year and see what happens. If he takes even a small step forward, he would have a lot of value. And although he could regress, it is just as likely that he take a big step forward. With a contract that any team in baseball can fit into their payroll, Lopez is a valuable asset now with a good chance of becoming an absolute bargain.
by Jerry on
Nov 26, 2008 4:40 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Points of contention:
If Lopez maintains his current level of play, he is a valuable asset given his contract.
What current level of play? 2008? 2007-2008? 2006-2008? Because these are very different things.
If he gets any better – which would be the normal developmental track for a guy his age –
Better than what? 2008? 2007-2008? 2006-2008? Because no matter what a guy’s age, you can’t ever just use a single season of data as as jumping-off point.
as he is above average today
He was above-average in 2008. We don’t know if he’s above-average today.
and likely to improve.
Or regress.
And although he could regress, it is just as likely that he take a big step forward.
Alternatively: And although he could take a big step forward, it is just as likely that he regresses.
Lopez is a valuable asset now
Only if he carries 2008 into 2009, really.
with a good chance of becoming an absolute bargain.
with a good chance of becoming an absolute bargain.
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 9:09 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lopez strikes me as a guy who will continue to improve as a hitter, but his defense will get worse and worse.
Kind of reminds me of a Cabrera kind of body.
Man do I love midgets.
by Thingray on
Nov 26, 2008 10:56 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Generalizations
I think that I am focusing on the upside, while you are focusing on the downside. Like most discussions, the truth probably lies between the extremes.
However, I do think that my assumptions are pretty strong.
First, players tend to get better between ages 22 and 27. That is a generalization, but it is true more often than not. Lopez improved between 2007 and 2008, which is pretty expected for a guy his age. If you look at his peripherals, Lopez’s 2008 seems closer to his true talent level (his BABIP in 2007 was .269 suggests his numbers were at least a bit flukey). Some guys do regress, but most don’t. As a general rule, it seems more likely that he will continue to improve, or at least maintain his level of play. I don’t think this is a controversial issue.
Second, I agree that you have to look at a players entire track record, and not just a single seasons worth of data. That said, a players most recent numbers are more useful to project future performance than previous years. Every projection system I know of is based on this tendency. I don’t think this point is controversial either.
It will be really interesting to see what PECOTA projects for Lopez. I think his plate discipline and approach will keep him from being a really excellent player. But I also think he has some power potential that remains untapped, and definitely has upside.
I am also sorta intrigued by the idea of moving Lopez to 3B down the road. It would mitigate the issues with his defense. And, if he does develop a bit more power, his bat would be acceptable there, at least in the short term. Obviously, this scenario would only work if he continued to improve as a hitter.
If I were the M’s, I would definitely explore the trade market for Lopez. But I would be careful not to underestimate his value.
by Jerry on
Nov 26, 2008 2:57 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lopez & Safeco
While it’s clear he took some steps forward, it’s entirely possible that Safeco isn’t a park suited for Lopez. That he actually hit BETTER in Safeco than he did on the road in 2008 makes me wonder how much of this is improvement or something else. Maybe Hargrove DID hurt his hitting, and he only now is starting to recover and get back on track. The key, for me, going forward is to watch his home-road splits. That they turned upside down in 2008 seems more interesting than anything else. Logic tells me, though, that Lopez and Safeco shouldn’t be a good combo.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on
Nov 26, 2008 9:39 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Of interest:
Lopez XBH, home, career: 34
Lopez XBH, road, career: 25
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 10:05 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know...
That’s why I say that it shouldn’t be logical, considering the type of hitter he is and his handedness…
But if you look at trends of the splits — 2006 was pretty much mirror opposite of 2008. I’d say a big factor in his progress was the fact that he actually showed that he could hit in Safeco, which seems contrary to what you’d think.
My hypothesis was going to be that Lopez’ value might be higher to a team other than the Mariners precisely because of Safeco Field. But when I peeked at his home/road splits, I thought it was interesting that his power numbers were noticeably higher at home in 2008. In previous years, the trend was somewhat in the other direction (2006 his XBH totals were slightly higher on the road, 2007 they were nearly equal, 2008 they were clearly better at home…) Considering his age and experience, I’d take that as a step towards improvement, especially when you figure in the coaching changes that took place last year, and the coaching changes that will affect 2009 as well.
I’m not saying it’s significant — I’ll leave the real analysis to you and Dave (I’ve already disclaimed my lack of analysis ability, somewhat famously) — but I will say that it’s something I noticed and found mildly interesting.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on
Nov 26, 2008 11:10 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Most his XBHs are right down the left field line
So the huge OF doesn’t hurt him as much as normal.
Thats my guess.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 12:04 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Those are from this season, but the numbers still remain over his career
Home XBH, career: 94 in 1047 AB
Road XBH, career: 80 in 1121 AB
by Gomez on
Nov 26, 2008 8:24 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We're about to subject Lopez to entirely new coaching
Coaching that might involve coaches who actually know what the fuck they’re talking about. I say we keep him. Even if 2008 isn’t his true performance level, it certainly demonstrates that he’s capable of 2008 performance. And GMZ’s coaches don’t look like the sorts of guys who’ll be happy when he hits weak grounders to 2B.
I think Lopez can be big.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on
Nov 26, 2008 9:45 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
I stand corrected.
Trade him.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on
Nov 26, 2008 2:22 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Let's just try an experiment
Let’s say Lopez’s absolute ceiling is something like a .365 wOBA (I’m using FanGraphs wOBA, not StatCorners, because I know what David put in his formula, and I don’t know that with Matthew – no offense M+G) – that’s Carlos Baerga in his 1993 prime. With his skillset, he just can’t really do any better than that. Hopefully, everyone agrees with this – there’s just no valid reason to think Lopez can go beyond where Baerga went. Anything is possible, of course, but we’re dealing with probabilities, not possibilities.
Baerga’s .367 wOBA in 1993 was .030 better than league average, which translates to 16 runs above an average hitter per 600 PA. Assuming average defense, we’re saying Lopez’s ceiling is a +3.5 win player. This is the best case scenario.
More likely, he just plateaus at something like his current talent level. Our current estimates would put that at something like a .325 wOBA. That makes him a +1.5 win player or so.
His downside is probably something like 20% better than ‘07. As bad as he was, there was some bad luck in there too, and it’s pretty hard for a guy with his contact rate and gap power to be that terrible. So, we’ll say his downside is a .285 wOBA and makes him a replacement level, +0 win player.
That’s a decent spectrum of probable outcomes for Lopez. Now, all we have to do is toss our guesses out to the respective likelyhood of each outcome and we can pretty easily figure out the value of Lopez, upside and downside included.
I’m going to use 20% upside, 60% median, 20% downside as my guesses. Reasonable people can differ some, but I doubt anyone’s going to be that far off from those numbers. A weighted average of those would result in a valuation of a +1.6 win player. Even if you bump the upside up to 30% and the downside down to 10, that only goes up to +1.95 wins. A 40/60/0 split gives you a +2.3 win player, and that’s a ridiculously optimistic viewpoint of the probabilities, I’d argue.
Even if you think I’m undershooting his current value, and we call him a +2 win player right now, a 20/60/20 split makes him only valued as a +1.9 win player. The downside risk of Lopez turning into a replacement level player is very real and cannot be ignored. It brings down his value quite a bit.
Teams get burned by ignoring downside all the time. The Mariners shouldn’t make that mistake. Sell now.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 10:25 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
How likely, in your estimation,
is it that Valbuena develops into a +1 win player? Because if one were to take as a given that Valbuena can be a +1 major leaguer by 2010 (let’s say he starts to get regular playing time in July/August 09) then the team loses nothing in trading Lopez.
by Bearskin Rugburn on
Nov 26, 2008 10:48 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised if Valbuena were a .320-.330 wOBA guy by the break
Trading Lopez costs us nothing of real value unless you think that Lopez will build on his success in 2008.
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 10:52 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Valbuena also plays defense in his sleep better than Lopez does on five Red Bulls.
Man do I love midgets.
by Thingray on
Nov 26, 2008 10:58 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It would be different if Lopez had hit like Alfonso Soriano last year
I just have hard time seeing him get much better as a hitter, and it’s pretty much impossible his defense will hold steady going forward.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 11:06 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure he isn't already
If Valbuena is a +5 defender at second base (which, based on the range he was flashing in September, might be conservative), then he only needs to post a wOBA of about .305 to be a +1 win player. Brian Cartwright’s OLIVER system, which basically takes MARCEL and adds minor league data and park adjustments, spits out a .306 wOBA for Valbuena next year (and a nasty, nasty .312 wOBA for Lopez).
What we know of Valbuena’s skill set is that he will take a pitch, has a little pop (definitely less HR power than Lopez, but could be a decent doubles hitter), but won’t make as much contact as Betancourt or Lopez, so his BA will be more variable since there will be less BIP throughout the year. Instead of the Carlos Baerga upside, maybe he has Orlando Hudson upside instead.
I know that personally, I’m more inclined to believe that Valbuena is the best option at second base for 2010 and beyond. Lopez is probably in the way of a better long term player.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 11:30 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Quick disclaimer
I haven’t vetted OLIVER as a projection system yet. My first reaction is it’s got a ridiculous bias in favor of minor leaguers, so you can basically ignore the part of the above paragraph that talks about the relative OLIVER projections for Valbuena/Lopez. I think the point is the same, in that I wouldn’t be surprised if Valbuena was already a +1 win player, but I’m not standing behind OLIVER’s results.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 11:53 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m using FanGraphs wOBA, not StatCorners, because I know what David put in his formula, and I don’t know that with Matthew – no offense M+G
J/K hugs I love Statcorner
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 10:49 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ok so you trade Lopez because you want something of value
I can get that and I agree he is probably “on average” a 1.5 win player.
What can we get for Lopez? If we trade him for a hypothetical minor leaguer to get somebody who has equal value we need something good. We will also probably be trading stability (Lopez…yeah i know, he isn’t very stable) for a more risky investment in prospects.
I don’t know how much we will actually be able to get from a team. Will we be able to get impact minor league players? I don’t think we need a team’s top minor leaguer but we probably would require a player in their top 3 most talented prospects. Is a team really gonna give that up?
Also, I’m still a little worried that trading Lopez would give up cheap depth in our system. We are pretty barren in our upper minor leagues in up the middle IF prospects that can hit. Valbuena is a very nice player to have around but if you take out last year from his career, he hasn’t really shown he can hit enough to play in the majors. People talk about his defense but it probably is not much better than a few runs above average so if he can not hit at least a little then he won’t stick. The fact that he really lacks much pop just makes him a little more risky offensively because he has one less skill he brings to the plate.
Lopez is locked up for a while in a cheap deal. Valbuena still needs a little more time to prove he is talented enough to play for a significant time in the majors. While trading Lopez does make some sense, I worry that it will leave us with a hole that we can not fill and during a rebuilding period shouldn’t we be filling holes and not making new ones. Its a tough one and I can see going either way on this move because we have so many holes and so little value to use to try to fill them that it will require us to take some risks we just don’t want to take.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 12:34 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tug Hulett would be the Valbuena replacement if need be, I imagine
but you raise a good point. In the buyers market that seems to be developing it’s hard to say what Lopez can bring back. However, his contract, age, and genuinely productive year at the plate should be attractive to both contenders and rebuilding teams. Off the top of my head, I think the Mets should be interested in a Castilla replacement.
The thing is though if all we get back for him is a good reliever the Ms still come out on top. He’s blocking a guy who is as good as him, so any useful prospect/current roleplayer would be gravy.
by Bearskin Rugburn on
Nov 26, 2008 1:12 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Valbuena and Hulett are significanly worse than Lopez
There is no track record that supports the stance that either player would be able to give us more than 1 WAR if you make sure to look at their histories. Lopez has significantly more offensive upside than these players based on his track record in the minors and his skillset. Valbuena has one year in the minors where he was an average hitter.
Tug is an interesting player but it seems like I’ve heard his defense is a little suspect at times. If he is an average defender I would rather have him out there than Valbuena probably.
Unless Lopez can net us a prospect that is expected to become a positional starter or starting pitcher that would actually play full time, I don’t really think trading him helps us.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 1:31 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Valbuena is already a better defender and a worse bat only if Lopez reaches his best case scenario
and Valbuena does not. In a vacuum maybe Lopez is a better pure hitter, but being a lefty with an eye for the zone Valbuena may be more valuable to the M’s.
If you want to talk about their lack of track record you should not ignore Lopez’s bad one.
by Bearskin Rugburn on
Nov 26, 2008 2:21 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Valbuena can't hit a HR
so the short LF won’t help him and Lopez appears to not get killed by Safeco so I don’t think handedness matters that much.
Compare Lopez’s entire career (including minors) to that of Valbuena. Lopez has better hitting talent. I’m not ignoring it. I’m using it to develop a better idea of what kind of player he is. He is only 24 yrs old and his minor league record is still extremely useful in projecting the type of player he can become.
Valbuena isn’t an amazing defensive player. Lopez isn’t a horrible defensive player. I think the maximum difference between the two would be 10 runs.
How good do you think Valbuena is going to hit next year (or the year after that) in the majors? There is no way that Luis Valbuena is a better hitter than Lopez. I just can not agree with that. I don’t think there is much evidence that Valbuena has what it takes to become more than a backup middle IF until he at least shows some evidence he has the power to hit doubles.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 2:34 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lopez...
will bring back more as a potential type-A free agent in 2 years than in trade. He’s nowhere near the top of the list of the organization’s problems right now. He’s an above average bat at 2B, and Dewan’s +/- system actually has him as the 10th best defensive second baseman over the last 3 years, too. He’s also young and very cheap, and could contribute if enough other things go right that competing in 2010 isn’t too far out of the realm of possibility.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 1:16 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not last year, not for his position
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 1:27 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lots of assumptions there
1. Lopez as a Type A free agent in 3 years? Maybe, if he keeps playing well, doesn’t get hurt, doesn’t shift positions, and free agent compensation still exists in the summer of 2012. That’s a lot of ifs.
2. That his defensive ability isn’t diminishing. +/- had him at +9 in 2006, +5 in 2007, and +0 in 2008. If we’re going to accept those numbers on their face, then aren’t we required to accept the pretty obvious downward trend at the same time?
3. That 2008 was his true talent level. He’s not “an above average bat at 2B” if you think 2007 still reflects some of his true ability.
4. That Valbuena won’t be better for this team by 2010. Given their respective skill sets, Valbuena’s left-handedness, and the exponential value in improving the pitching staff through better defense, that’s not a sure thing at all.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:23 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
that I’m assuming things about his performance in the near future, but what’s the benefit of jettisoning him now if all we’re going to get is maybe a couple of B-level prospect or a major league reliever? The team doesn’t save much money, and doesn’t have a ready replacement that doesn’t hurt the long-term interests of the franchise (unless Valbuena somehow proves between now and opening day that he deserves to start).
Yes, I know i’m making another assumption about his trade value.
I buy that the defensive decline was real, and admit to a vague level of hope that he started phoning it in with the glove once the season was lost last year.
As far as Valbuena goes, he might prove in a year that he’ll be comparably valuable or even more so, but right now I’m not prepared to bet on him as a solid contributor as soon as 2 years from now.
If the situation realigns in a year (Valbuena develops nicely), then you can revisit trading Lopez, but I see it as a move with very little upside and a lot of downside at the moment.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 1:31 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not sure why you think we'd have to trade him for prospects
Wilson Betemit, who sucks, got Nick Swisher. Call the D’backs and pitch Lopez as a Hudson replacement. Call the Indians and pitch Lopez as a cheaper Casey Blake who can let them move Peralta to 3B and AsCab to short. Call the Mets and say “Spanish speaking second baseman available”. Call the White Sox and offer Kenny Williams a toolsy young second baseman who Ozzie can share Venezuelan stories with. Call the Nationals and say “Spring Break WOOO!”
I’m not talking about dumping Lopez for nothing. I’m suggesting that his value is unlikely to ever be much higher than it is right now, and the M’s should flip him for a major league player who fits the team’s needs better. If Wilson Betemit gets you Nick Swisher, Jose Lopez isn’t going to get you a B- prospect or a reliever.
As for the defense part, he was actually much worse (by +/-) in the first half, something like -12 at the All-Star break. His number went way up in the second half to get hm back to +0, so that theory is probably out the window.
As for Valbuena, I think I can make a pretty good case that they’re comparable valuable right now.
Keeping Lopez is the move with a lot of downside. If he’s hitting .230/.280/.350 at the all-star break and Valbuena is still flashing the leather in Tacoma, then you’ve now got a pretty expensive backup infielder with no trade value.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:44 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How good of a hitter do you think Luis Valbuena is?
I think he is probably a +5-10 run glove at 2B but if he’s a replacement level 2B hitter then I don’t know how happy people are gonna be with that. He won’t be the Adam Everett of 2B because he can he hit much better than that but his defense isn’t nearly as good either. He had a good offensive year in AA last year but AAA caused him to drop off a little. Being able to walk some is a nice skill but if you make your name by making contact and taking walks in the minors, I just don’t know how much I buy that those skills will transfer to the pros.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 2:22 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trade Value
I think that pretty much everyone scratched their heads when they heard about what the White Sox accepted for Swisher. That was a terrible trade by Ken Williams. I don’t think you can use that as a good proxy of Lopez’s trade value. You can’t expect other GM’s to fuck up that bad.
by Jerry on
Nov 26, 2008 2:34 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree that if you can pull of a one-sided trade you should do it every time
But I don’t think anybody is arguing that. If a team wants to be stupid and we come out the winners, I think we all agree with you then.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 2:36 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trade value...
Yeah, Betemit got Swisher, but on the flip side of the coin, for the White Sox, Swisher only netted Betemit and some weak prospects. I guess it depends in part on how good Z is in trade negotiations and whether he’d be defined as a buyer or a seller.
If we can make a lateral move by acquiring another major leaguer for Lopez, I’m all for it. I’m just not sure the interest is there. Absent that, I really don’t think trading him for prospects now is the best move.
And if we’re going to discuss the downside, we should be discussing the upside of keeping him as well. Post-AS break he hit .294/.327/.487. I understand the reluctance to consider that his true value, but if we’re looking at the range of future possibilities, it’s hardly unheard of for a 24-year-old to improve to a new level of offensive ability.
If he can be average with the glove and repeat his post-AS break numbers in the first half, his value goes up considerably both in trade and to the team. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed or even more likely than not, but I don’t think it’s significantly less likely than the potential for utter collapse that has you worried.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 2:54 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Post AS break numbers
I also am hesitant to use only second half numbers to project future performance (lessons learned from Bret Boone and Richie Sexson). However, Lopez’s youth does make improvement pretty likely.
I don’t see him improving with the glove much, though.
One way to deal with this: move him to 3B.
If the M’s don’t deal Beltre this offseason, they could go with the same infield they have now. This would give them a chance to evaluate whether or not Lopez’s gains are real, while giving Valbuena more time in AAA (which he could definitely use). If Lopez is impressive with the bat, but continues to play subpar defense, they could move him to 3B and promote Valbuena.
That line above – .294/.327/.487 – isn’t much different than what we have been getting from Beltre. If that is an attainable level of play from Lopez, then he would be a great fit at 3B. At the hot corner, he would likely be above average defensively.
by Jerry on
Nov 26, 2008 3:04 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If the M's don't deal Beltre
why on earth would they put Lopez at 3rd?
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Nov 26, 2008 3:10 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lopez's bat won't play at third unless he fields like Beltre
He doesn’t field like Beltre
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 3:10 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If Lopez is a +5 to 0 run 2B
because he lacks range but has a decent arm then maybe moving to 3B should probably make him a better defender pushing him to the +5-10 level. This would negate his offensive abilities for the most part. We would go from having an awesome 3B to an average 3B but it fills the hole.
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 3:17 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
but but but but
there’s no “hole” to be filled if Beltre sticks around. There’s zero reason to do this if Beltre is still wearing a Mariner uniform next year.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Nov 26, 2008 3:21 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My memeroy is that Lopez blew at throwing
Anyone care to confirm/deny this?
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 4:00 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would you believe me if I said that was a pun
done on purpose?
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 4:02 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ditto
but even if he didn’t blow at throwing, Beltre’s still a better defender.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on
Nov 26, 2008 4:02 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well obviously
We’re just trying to gage Lopez’s value at third, and so far it looks like “suck”.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 4:03 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you put any stock in the Fans' Scouting Report
Lopez would rank among the worst third basemen in baseball, around Atkins/Huff/Castillo territory.
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 4:05 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is when I would rather have a real scout
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 6:23 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think there's a compelling case to be made that the Fans' Scouting Report is likely to be more accurate.
by acblue on
Nov 26, 2008 8:13 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I will disagree with that emphatically
by Edgar for Pres on
Nov 26, 2008 11:05 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
I understand that there are some valid concerns about this mode of thinking, but I think the underlying logic is quite sound.
It’s not that I’m not a believer in the importance of scouting; far from it. I just think that there are some serious blind spots at the professional level when it comes to defensive evaluation.
I am certainly willing to admit that a professional scout is far more likely to accurately evaluate the defensive abilities of a player in a controlled laboratory experiment than a group of (even the most well informed) fans. I just don’t think that such conditions are realistic to expect in the context of major leaguers.
by acblue on
Nov 27, 2008 12:42 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think he'd be this bad because he'd have more range
but I think projecting him as an average 3B is quite optimistic.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 27, 2008 12:38 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nope
Guys who float between 2nd and 3rd perform almost identically at both positions. This isn’t to say every second baseman would be the same at third, since a subset of them can’t throw for crap, but Lopez obviously doesn’t fall into that category.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 6:30 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
.294/.327/.487
If you think that’s his upside, I rest my case. With average to below average defense at second base, that’s not a great player. That’s Alexei Ramirez, basically. A .340 wOBA, even in Safeco, is +8 runs above an average hitter, making him a +3 win player. And this is his stated upside?
This gets back to my earlier example – feel free to swap in your own upside/median/downside probabilities and let me know what you think he should be valued at – I can’t imagine any scenario where it’s higher than +2 wins, even factoring in the upside potential.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 6:26 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And...
doesn’t putting him as a +2 win player make him an incredible bargain at $1.6 million next year? Even at 1.5 marginal wins, he’s valuable to the team. Doesn’t that set the bar pretty high for what we’d have to receive for him in order to make getting rid of him a good idea? I know you see Lopez as a phenomenally risky property, and I don’t disagree with you, but I do think you’re overstating the risk a little bit.
I don’t think the Ramirez comp is a good one. .294/.327/.487 might compare almost directly to Alexei Ramirez’s statline, but when you factor in Safeco vs. the Cell, it makes Lopez’s upside significantly higher than Ramirez’s present value. I don’t know how to translate the lines to wOBA, but for a rough measure, Lopez’s 2nd-half was good for a 112 OPS+ while Ramirez’s season line was 103. That’s a substantial difference.
I don’t know what to make of the huge 1st half/second half split in his +/- (which I didn’t know about since I’ve never actually bought the FB), but if we trust Dewan’s system, it seems like he still has some defensive potential. For the sake of argument, though, I’ll accept your ‘average to below’ appraisal.
Given that, I think we disagree on 3 fundamental things. You think Lopez is far more likely to hit his downside than his upside, you think he’ll return more in trade than I do, and you think Luis Valbuena needs less time in AAA and has less left to prove than I do.
Only our second disagreement is something that could yield an empirical answer (the other two depending on results-based analysis). I’ll be interested to see how it shakes out if we start hearing Lopez’s name in reasonably reliable trade rumors.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 7:02 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually...
looking at the .294/.327/.487 line, it looks very similar to Beltre’s 2007, where his .276/.319/.482 line translated to a .354 wOBA. I know it doesn’t translate directly and the park adjustment won’t be exactly the same every year, but i think we can assume that .340 is a little low.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 7:07 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Same conclusion as above
The .354 wOBA you’re quoting for Beltre is park adjusted (the raw number is .346) and includes a 14/2 SB/CS performance that Lopez just won’t match. But even if we give Lopez a park adjusted .354 wOBA, that’s +10 runs compared to an average hitter. That makes him a +3 win player if he’s average defensively, worse if he’s not.
That was my original premise – that’s Lopez’s upside. If everything works out, and he develops to his full potential and doesn’t get any further out of shape, he’s a +3 win player. There’s no potential all-star that we might be giving away.
The fact that he’s just 24 seems to offer this glimmer of breakout potential that just isn’t there.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 8:06 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lost a long reply
So here’s the bullet points.
1. I don’t think Lopez is more likely to hit his downside than his upside – I think both are equally probable, with the most likely scenario being that he performs at a +1.5 win level for the next few years.
2. I think Lopez has more marginal value to other teams than he does the Mariners, thanks to the likely rebuild that’s underway here and the presence of Valbuena.
3 I think Valbuena should begin 2009 in Tacoma whether they trade Lopez or not. I’m not arguing that he should be the M’s opening day second baseman next year. I do think, however, that over the next three years, the total win contribution difference between Lopez and Valbuena is probably around 2 wins. The salary difference is $8 million over that same time frame, which makes Lopez not nearly as much of a bargain, and once you factor in what you could get in return by dealing him, Valbuena + Swag > Lopez + Valbuena.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 8:00 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My only objection...
is that the value of the “Swag” matters in that equation. If you’re right, and Lopez brings back a good return of young, major league-ready or near talent at a good price, I’m on the bandwagon. I’m not sure he’s valued that highly around the league, but we shall see.
Back to studying for finals.
Happy thanksgiving.
-JH
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 8:14 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure
I’m not suggesting the M’s give him away. If there’s no market for him, then you keep him and hope for the best. But I think they owe it to themselves to try to create a market for him. If the Mets are willing to toss you Nick Evans and Mike Carp, for instance, that’s certainly a deal the M’s should make, and it makes a good bit of sense for the Mets as well.
I think there are teams out there, like the Mets and White Sox, who would see a pretty decent amount of value in Lopez. He’s certainly a more vaulable property to them than he is to us.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 8:30 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
wOBA
Where are you getting your wOBA of .346? Fangraphs has it at .328.
by slamcactus on
Nov 26, 2008 1:00 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
He's getting them from StatCorner
http://statcorner.com/batterAJAX.php?id=430946&team=SEA&year=2008&leag=A_L
There are some huge differences between FanGraphs wOBA and StatCorner wOBA. It has to be how the IBBs are being handled.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:07 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could steals and caught stealing play a role, too?
I know Fangraphs incorporates those things, but I’m not sure if SC does.
by Teej on
Nov 26, 2008 1:09 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I doubt it
Lopez had 6 SB/3 CS – there’s no way that should push his wOBA significantly higher, unless Matthew had a typo on the run value of a steal or something.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:11 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Statcorner throws out IBBs, I believe.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 1:28 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I throw out reached by error, when I calculate it.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 1:30 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Then I have no idea why Matthew's numbers are so high
They’re almost certainly too high, though.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:31 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know, one version of the formula does.
I don’t have that info, so I throw it out.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 26, 2008 1:32 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The FanGraphs wOBA implementation is laid out
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/woba_year_by_year_calculations/
Tom basically walked David through it, and then posted the whole thing on his blog.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 1:57 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Looks like no RBOE then.
We’ll have to wait until Matthew gets back from Australia to figure this out.
by Graham on
Nov 26, 2008 2:03 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Using Excel
Tossing out IBB, SH: .342 wOBA
Tossing out IBB, SH, RBOE: .327 wOBA
League-wide, I get a difference of .338 —> .328 by tossing out RBOE.
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 3:56 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pretty much
I’m not real wild on including RBOE into wOBA, but that’s the way I was taught.
by Jeff on
Nov 26, 2008 4:09 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure whether you guys include IBB in PA or not
If you do, that would account for basically all of the difference (and RBOE the rest I suspect).
by Graham on
Nov 26, 2008 3:38 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I still think that's a mistake.
Reaching base is reaching base. Unless you think IBBs are always situational and the quality of hitter has nothing to do with it, you should give credit to the hitter who drew a walk, whether he drew it through patience or the threat of power.
Now, there’s still a problem here in that counting IBBs will unduly credit guys who bat #8 in the NL (assuming anyone gets walked to bring the pitcher’s spot up), but no counting them significantly disadvantages Barry Bonds.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on
Nov 26, 2008 2:21 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
wOBA isn't really about assigning credit
It’s about measuring the win value of a player’s production, and the IBB just doesn’t have much of a positive impact because of the non-randomness of when they are issued. There’s a whole thread on The Book blog about this right now.
by davidcameron on
Nov 26, 2008 6:33 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
StatCorner has .340.
Looks like Jeff either meant to say wOBA* or looked at the wrong number.
by Teej on
Nov 26, 2008 1:08 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wish LFOJL were here to brag about this
by Fogel on
Nov 27, 2008 12:20 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
That guy was a gay faggot and no one misses him.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 27, 2008 10:30 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs









