Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

Community Projection: Adrian Beltre

The fifth in a non-alphabetical and irregularly updated series of review pieces for each(?) of the players we predicted last spring.

LL/USSM Community: .288/.340/.506
Actual Line: .266/.327/.457

Healer of sick and slayer of evil, in 2008 Adrian Beltre put in yet another strong and underappreciated full season of work. He flew out of the gate with a scorching first month, almost singlehandedly keeping a bad lineup good enough to remain competitive, and while a lousy May pulled him back down to Earth, he was done in by a .156 BABIP that in no way reflected how well he was hitting the ball. Things started to even out over the rest of the summer, and although Raul Ibanez finished with the numbers, a convincing argument could be made that for much of the year Beltre was making the best contact on the team. And all the while he was doing it with a torn ligament in his thumb, an injury to which he finally succumbed in September so that he can be ready for spring training. 

Playing through injuries is nothing new for this team. Much to my chagrin, it seems like half the guys have done it. But the difference is that, where the Silvas and Batistas and Ibanezes of the world either directly or indirectly used their injuries to explain away ineffectiveness, Beltre downplayed his pain and somehow managed to sustain around the same level of performance as before. The discomfort was obvious whenever he caught a line drive or got jammed by a pitch, but he never talked about it, and he never made excuses. He just went out there and played, celebrating his triumphs and accepting responsibility for his mistakes. If you're determined to play through an injury, this is the way to do it. Make sure it doesn't kill your performance, and then don't talk about it. If people play through pain to look tough and heroic, pointing it out all the time kind of negates the whole idea. In this sort of circumstance, the strongest leader is the silent one.

It wasn't just Beltre's offense that he managed to keep up despite the injury - for five and a half months, his defense was absolutely out of this world. And I mean that. Just look at what he did:

UZR: +29 runs
PMR: +17 plays
RZR: +32 plays
+/-:
+32 plays

Altogether, those stats paint the picture of a guy who was 20 or 25 runs above average for his position in the field last year. 20 or 25 runs. Now obviously that isn't his true talent level, since that would be borderline insane, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. While Adrian Beltre's offense was hurt by a little bad luck in 2008, he made up for it in the field, and the overall package came together to make him the best player on the team. Which I understand is kind of damning with faint praise, but it's true nevertheless. Beltre was better than Ichiro, he was better than Lopez, he was better than Felix, and he was better than Ibanez. In 2008, Adrian Beltre was the greatest Mariner.

As of next April, he's in line to be the greatest Mariner once more. Or he might be ~tied with Ichiro and Felix. But the point remains. Beltre may not repeat as the +29 run UZR third basemen he was in 2008, but he's established a true talent somewhere between +10 < x < +20, and his offense should get a boost from a healthy left hand and a BABIP that improves on last year's .279. Put it all together and you've got a 3.5-4 WAR star player, a guy who'd be worth a good $17m or so on the open market. Adrian Beltre may not get his results in the most obvious way, but he still gets his results, and he's set to be a hell of a value, just as he's been for the last three years. Which answers the question of why we love him so much. We don't love him because he's funny, or because he has weird little ticks. We love him because he's one of the best baseball players this team has had in a good long time.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what puts him front and center this offseason. As maybe the best player on the team, Beltre stands as one of our most marketable assets, and when you're looking to rebuild an organization, desirable veterans with one year left under contract tend to be the first to go. And why wouldn't they? Veterans generally don't want to stick around and re-sign with a rebuilding franchise, so if they're going to leave down the road anyway, you might as well make them available, just to see. It only makes sense.

As painful as it is to think about, the front office needs to make a decision on Beltre, and they need to make it soon. Either they want him to be a part of this team's future or they don't. If they want him to stick around for the long run, they need to approach him, make their rebuliding intentions clear, and ask him if he'd be willing to re-sign. If he were to say yes, they'd need to start negotiating an extension before he has time to change his mind. If he were to say no (or maybe), they'd need to deal with it the same way they should if they didn't want him to stick around in the first place - make him available, take some offers, and pull the trigger on the best one if the return is better than whatever compensation picks they could get after the year. Because if Beltre doesn't want to re-sign with a project, it doesn't really do us that much good to keep him.

Assuming that we're getting ready to tear things down and start over, I can't imagine that Beltre has much interest in staying. He wants to win. He's only been in the playoffs once - for four games - and a player only has so many opportunities to pick a new team while he still has something left to contribute. So while I'm not going to draft my tearful goodbye just yet, I'm preparing myself. I expect to hear Beltre's name surface in a new rumor pretty much every morning. I expect to hear at some point that discussions are intensifying. And before too long I expect to hear that a deal went down. There're no guarantees, but given enough demand that there's a good enough return on the table, it seems like the best course of action for all parties involved. Including me. Even if it feels like someone ripping my heart through my ribs.

I guess I shouldn't get ahead of myself. As of this writing, Adrian Beltre's still a Mariner, and he's one of the best Mariners we've got. But because that may not last much longer, all I ask is that with every passing day, each and every one of you appreciates him. That each and every one of you appreciates the shit out of him. If only because somebody has to, and one man can't do it alone. No matter how fucking insane he might be.

450mari02_097mu_beltrea_medium

7 recs  |  Comment 126 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I will not be happy to see him go

But I will understand. And, in a way, I would be happy to see him end up on a good team that could put his talent to use, and get into the playoffs as a result. I will root for him with Red-like passion wherever he may end up

HA HA HA, your Grandpa's an ASS!- Tourette's Guy (R.I.P)

by tootthekazoo on Nov 30, 2008 8:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

i'm anxious to see

if red shows up to the park anymore and if so if he chooses a new favorite player. i noticed the guy so much earlier than the TV guys did, i always love to pick him out when leftys are up

by Woodinville_12thMan on Nov 30, 2008 8:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I think bretticus has referred some rumors that his 2004

was due to some heelspurs that made it too painful to swing at those low and away breaking balls, forcing him to be more selective. The results weren’t so much a fluke as they were indicative of the kind of player he’d be if he had better pitch recognition. can you imagine if he had Edgar’s eye?

by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 30, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't buy that

The last thing Beltre needed/needs to do is get stronger.

by Graham on Nov 30, 2008 10:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sigh...

Steroids don’t just help you get stronger. They help you stay healthy… being healthy is the difference between having a really good month and struggling through a mediocre month. Was Ryan freakin’ Franklin using steroids to become a hulk? No, he was using them so he could pitch at maximum effectiveness every 2-3 days.

Streroids help you rebound from tiny muscle injuries that we all incur when we play hard.

Until I see actual evidence that Adrian actually changed his approach at the plate that year, I’m not buying it. And once that proof is submitted, please explain why he abandoned the approach that made him twice the slugger he has been every other year.

Occam’s razor. Contract year. Steroids. Big free agent contract.

And personally, I don’t have a big problem with this. I’m not adding any value judgment… just stating the obvious.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 10:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Assuming pitch selectivity is the only difference...

why did it just go away the next season, never to return? It’s not like eyesight or judgment deteriorate in your 20’s. If anything, his pitch selection should have continued to get better as he got older.

Unless his batspeed was quicker in ‘04 (a possible result of steroids) and allowed him to wait longer on pitches. Slow down the bat, and he’s back to guess hitting and flailing at sliders.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or make it impossibly painful to lunge at sliders low and away

I don’t see anything wrong with the injury explanation.

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you seriously suggesting that Adrian Beltre

stopped doing something because it hurt? (Logic flaw #1… since Beltre would play through a compound fracture.)

And that once he stopped doing it, and had the best year of his life, he went right back to doing it the next year? (Logic flaw #2… since Beltre isn’t a fucking moron.)

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey... I love the guy

but it seems like people are really looking hard for another reason for his 2004 because they don’t want to think that such a cool player could have done steroids.

It is hilarious though to imagine that a crippling injury resulted in AB’s best offensive season ever. If for nothing else, I think the theory should be explored just because it’s funny as hell.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think everyone did steroids

I think saying that his 2004 was a result of steroids is really lazy

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 10:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well... not quite everyone. Don't impugn Dan Wilson!

perhaps my real argument is that Beltre’s 2004 was mostly a result of his HR/FB rate doubling that year. His K/BB% and his LD% weren’t anything unusual. My conclusion is that when he hit flyballs, he hit them much harder than any other year. The easiest rationale for this (in my opinion… which is based solely by looking at the track records of other players that almost certainly used steroids at some point) is that HGH, steroids or other PEDs were probably the cause.

What you’re calling “lazy” is just Occam’s Razor to me.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Occam's Razor isn't Occam's Razor

When it’s only bolstered by a paranoid witch hunt.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 1, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again

I’m not paranoid. It’s not a witch hunt… because I DON’T CARE that he did steroids. The rest of the country has a lot more value judgment around it than I do.

But… I do think creating a much more unusual and detailed theory about how a specific injury prevented AB from lunging at outside pitches is fun. Go to it. Also explain how he legged out 30 doubles and stole 7 bases with this crippling injury.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So you're arguing that Beltre got significantly stronger which made him better?

The man hit a home run while sitting down last year.

The last thing that would be useful to him is pure strength

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've already addressed this

Steroid use isn’t always about adding bulk.

But muscle fatigue = reduced batspeed. Freakish muscle regeneration = consistently higher batspeed.

Also: if “lunging” was impossible for AB in 2004… how did he manage to lead his league in defensive metrics as well? Given that a large part of playing 3rd base involves quick lunges and dives in either direction.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"Beltre’s 2004 was mostly a result of his HR/FB rate doubling that year. "

That’s hardly the same as saying that he was less fatigued.

Beltre had surgery to take bone spurs out of his right foot after 2004, and said that they made trying to pull pitches away impossible that season.

Therefore he took steroids?

I’m sure he did take them, of course, but it’s a really inelegant explanation to his 2004.

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 11:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm..

you’re dodging my questions about his footspeed that year and his defensive stats.

But I appreciate your demand for elegant explanations. Therefore, here’s my elegant (but completely unlikely) theory.

He used HGH for the first half of the year, but developed a strange increase in bone spur growth in his feet, therefore he switched to a Bay-area supplier of designer steroids for the second half of the year. He was scared by the likelihood of getting caught, and by the disturbing bone spur growth, so he immediately stopped after 2004.

Besides, he had a contract, so there was little incentive to keep it up. And he was willing to sign so cheaply because he’s a standup guy who felt guilty knowing that he was going to regress to his pre-2004 level of production. But not too cheaply, because he knows the run differential value of his defence.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Now I've got the Sugar Crisp theme song in my head

“can’t get enough of those low outside sliders”

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Norm Cash's 1961 power production

was not nearly the statistical outlier that AB’s 2004 was.

Cash would never hit 40 again, but he hit 39 the next year and topped 30 three more times in his career.

His biggest statistical anomaly was his .361 BA that year. He never topped .300 any other year. I’d explain that as a combination of: Luck, the league not having him figured out yet, and that outside of his Tigers (and the Yankees and the Orioles) the rest of the league sucked. But who knows, he might have been on track to be a perennial 1000+ OPS guy but for a chronic injury… or perhaps he was using greenies.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How do you explain this line of questioning?

See my post just below titled “Or a better question…”

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How do you explain Matt Williams in 1994?

He wasn’t even up for a contract.

Or Frank Schulte in 1911? He was given a car!

This line of questioning is just a less direct version of what Jeff is saying. Flukes happen, homerun spikes happen. Homerun spikes happened even before steroids were invented. Labeling his 2004 season in such a manner is lazy.

Furcal

by JI on Dec 1, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Over a five-week span in 2007, Beltre hit .321/.392/.573

Was he taking steroids?

Flukes happen. We know that Beltre has enough talent to flip out for weeks at a time, which puts the likelihood of him flipping out for six months within the realm of mathematical probability. The odds of 2004 happening were low, but they weren’t equal to zero, so such a season was entirely possible without chemical help.

The only evidence – the only evidence – that Beltre was taking steroids is the fact that he put up a career year. But this is neither the easiest explanation, nor the most rational, and it leads to one hell of a slippery slope.

Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961. He never again surpassed 40. Was he using? Was Felix using in 2005? Was Mark Prior using in 2003?

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Your definition of "career year" is pretty generous.

A career year is often picked out as the best from a handful of good years… and maybe 10-20% better statistically than the rest.

It is pretty unusual to basically double your HR production (from mid 20s to almost 50) for a single year at age 25.

I would be interested in hearing theories about how Safeco, or the Seattle coaching staff, or the switch to the AL, have depressed his numbers more than we thought possible. Maybe his Mariners production is more in line with 2004 than we think given all those factors?

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 12:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fluke.

It was a fluke.

For goodness’ sake, Beltre hit 26 home runs as a 17 year old in A ball. He always had it in him.

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2008 1:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Carlos Pena basically went from nothing to 46 homeruns in 2007.

Which is basically unusual for anybody. Obviously a steroid candidate….

Beltre overperformed in 2004. There’s no mystery here.

by ThundaPC on Dec 1, 2008 6:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pena hasn't followed up that 46 HR season

with 4 seasons of back to 22-26 HRs.

by johnbai on Dec 2, 2008 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

4 comments back I mentioned that perhaps Beltre’s 2005-2008 performance is more in line with his 2004 season that we might think… given ballpark factors and going to a tougher league.

by johnbai on Dec 2, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

#1: Bone spurs

#2: Beltre is a fucking moron

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

False

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Dec 1, 2008 12:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I will always hate this argument.

Players have always had seasons beyond their standard. Do you think Norm Cash was juiced in 1961?

by Sec 108 on Dec 1, 2008 5:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Do you think Brady Anderson was juiced in 1996?

It’s a little silly to ask it players in the early 60’s were juiced. Of course they were! But on speed, rather than steroids.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Or a better question...

How many statistically anomalous seasons have the steroid era produced? How many were produced in previous eras. That’s quite a research chore, but it would be interesting to see an answer. Assuming there’s a difference, it might tell you what the odds are that a given statistically outlying season was steroid-related.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am a firm believer that steroids have affected performance.

However, I have always said the focus should have been more on how it affected pitchers, not hitters. Added MPH on your fastball and the ability to bounce back from a 120 pitch start were bigger to me than the extra oomph behind a swing.

I just come from the camp of not wanting career years to automatically be labeled as a steroid year. There are reasons to believe that Brady Anderson was juiced for more than one year. Therefore, something beyond the juice helped him have his 50 homer year. If it was just the juicing it would have happened more than once.

by Sec 108 on Dec 1, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's an unknowable/unanswerable question

When was “the steroid era”? This construct assumes that every other season in baseball history except for whenever “the steroid era” can definitively said to have started and ended (which is pretty much impossible) was untainted by any performance-enhancement technology of any kind.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're overthinking it

Why not just compare a decade of data (from a time when certainly no one was using steroids and there were no signifcant rule changes) to the decade from 1987 to 1997.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 1:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because there's no "certainly" in the 1987-97 timeframe, either

How do you know nobody was using in 1985, or in 1998? If there was a definable “steroid era” (which I’m not sure about since, as I said, that assumes that there was never any chemical cheating in baseball before the mid 80’s nor has there been since 1997), it has to have an easily defined start and end point. That’s not possible with steroids.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It doesn't have to have an end date... just pick one between then and now

and you can throw out 1985 when selecting an era to compare to because there could have been steroid use. But there was certainly steroid use between 1987 and 1997. And there was certainly NO steroid use between say… 1912 and 1922. A baseball historian would have a better chance of picking the older era though… in order to make sure it was an era that didn’t see any major rule changes that created statistical oddities.

Just knowing how much statistical variation an average decade contained, and then comparing it to the amount of statistical variation existed during the steroids era would be quite useful in determining the liklihood that a given statistical outlier was steroid-related.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is my point, though

And there was certainly NO steroid use between say… 1912 and 1922.

Probably. But just because there were no anabolic steroids of the type prevalent in the late 80’s, that does not mean there was no medical/pharmaceutical cheating between 1912-22 (speed? other meds?), or that players didn’t drink copious amounts of alcohol (which could depress stats, maybe, if a player played hung over a lot – the point being there’s no way of knowing the effect).

It seems like picking out an arbitrary 10-year period and assuming that period is the only era in which pharmaceutical cheating happened (which is what your comparison would assume) is a bit shortsighted.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not assuming there was NO pharmaceutical cheating

just that there was none on par with the impact that steroids had. 5 of the top 10 homerun hitters of all time played during the 80’s. 4 of them are heavily suspected of using steroids. This sort of defines steroid use as something capable of causing massively significant statistical change. Some of these guys (Palmiero might fit this mold) probably created a steady but inflated career thanks to PEDs. Other players undoubtedly only used for a year… or couple of years. Their career numbers point to obvious PED use.

Take a look at Wade Boggs in 1987. At the time, everyone said Boggsy just decided to hit homeruns that year… because everyone “knew” he could (just like Ichiro) but preferred to hit singles to keep the high batting average. I don’t know if he used steroids that year, but it’s certainly possible. What would be helpful is to know how often a guy in mid career has suddenly doubled his previous high homerun total… and then regressed back to normal. If someone can show me that it has happened regularly in the pre-steroid era (and not by pulling out 3 or 4 annecdotal examples) I’d be happy to retract my “lazy” conjecture that Beltre’s 2004 was likely a case of steroid use.

It was pure conjecture to state that AB used steroids (or that Boggs did) but it seems to me to be statistically likely. Which is probably lazy… but also more realistic than assuming other fanciful and protective explanations.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not more realistic, though.

And saying that you can’t quantify it is not being “protective”. I don’t really care whether people used steroids or not. What I care about is not making blanket assumptions based on data you don’t actually have to prove a point that is essentially unprovable.

Offense was up during the “steroid years”, sure. But how much of that is attributable to steroids, and how much is attributed to the fact that, starting in the early-to-mid-80’s, players started training year-round, eating better, and taking better physical care of themselves? Up until the mid-80’s, Spring Training was designed to whip players into shape for the season, but it started being the case that if you didn’t show up for Spring Training in mid-season shape, you’d struggle to make the team.

So that’s why I (and others here) think it’s lazy to attribute a good year during that timeframe simply to steroids – there are so many other factors at play that it’s virtually impossible to isolate one era and one theory as the single cause of a season like Beltre’s 2004.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 3:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You're completely missing my point. Again.

There is no one incontrovertible “it”. An outlier season like that is not definitively attributable to any one thing. Steroids, conditioning, mood, weather, whatever – they ALL play a part, and to attribute a season in which statistics spike to steroids just because that good season happened during a time when a lot of players took steroids is lazy and reductionist.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 7:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If you go back and read my original post

when I first brought up steroids… I was responding to another poster who was suggesting that Beltre’s great year was due to bone spurs. I wasn’t being reductionist… I was suggesting that perhaps STEROIDS would be a more likely explanation than CRIPPLING INJURY to explain his amazing season.

I base that on a lot of anecdotal evidence that players like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Caminetti, etc. posted much higher numbers of homeruns during the years that they took steroids. And there are likely one year candidates for this effect as well (Brady Anderson e.g.) Does this mean that I’m certain that steroids was the cause of Beltre’s “career year”? No.

But I think it’s a lot more fucking likely than bone spurs. And given the huge discrepancy between 2004 and every other year of his career… I think steroids are more likely than just a run of good luck either.

by johnbai on Dec 2, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Again, though, I don't think there's only one explanation

Make a list of two, 15, or 37 causes, or however many you want, and it’s likely that ALL of them played a role in a performance spike (or performance depression). Your contention seems to be that steroids are the ONLY explanation (it’s either bone spurs or steroids, it’s either better conditioning or steroids, etc), and I disagree with that. I think they probably played a part, sure, but so do a lot of other factors.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 2, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough

I was just reacting to the notion that bone spurs caused Beltre’s massive power explosion in 04.

by johnbai on Dec 2, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually it seems pretty reasonable to me still

I’d have had him lower but a .288/.340/.506 year isn’t wildkly out of line with a luck-adjusted version of his 2008.

by Graham on Nov 30, 2008 9:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

With his defensive numbers from last year, yes.

But I don’t anyone expects him to be much more than a +10 run player at third next year.

by Graham on Nov 30, 2008 10:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, there is a reason why Ryan Howard got MVP votes, and it wasn't for his glove

But a .846 OPS from a right handed hitter in Safeco with +10 to +20 defense at third base? That’s good. Like, Chase Utley good.

by JLC on Nov 30, 2008 10:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Chase Utley is still significantly better

Ibanez’s 2006 line of .289/.353/.516 was worth +22 RAA. Utley’s 2008 line of .292/.380/.535 was worth +34 RAA. Utley is no slouch with the glove either so I don’t think you can argue that Beltre is anywhere near Utley’s level. (using btRuns from baseball reference)

Basically the community was projecting Beltre for around +20 RAA. Besides 2004, Beltre has never even sniffed that level of production. Beltre doesn’t walk much, doesn’t hit enough line drives, and causes his BABIP to be consistently south of .300 which makes it hard for him to sustain high BA and OBP. Combine that with unspectacular power numbers and it is just tough for Beltre to hit +20 RAA. He’s as strong as a horse but lacks the plate discipline, contact skills, or raw power to put together numbers of an elite slugger.

I don’t want to give the impression that I don’t think he’s not a great player. He is. I just think its a tough argument to say that he is an elite player in the league. The combination of above average offense and absolutely amazing defense makes him an amazing value to the team. He just doesn’t have the elite offensive skills to challenge some of the best players out there.

by Edgar for Pres on Nov 30, 2008 11:08 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

No, the community was not projecting Beltre for a +20 RAA

That’s a +15 line at best, and offense was down last year, making the projection something like +13-14 RAA from 2007. Which is like a 6 run difference.

The fact that you’re painting this projection as insanely optimistic is quite frankly ludicrous.

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Adam LaRoche

had a line of .270/.341/.500 in a park that hurts batters just as much as Safeco. This line which is almost exactly what the USSM/LL community had predicted. If you predicted that Beltre would get 650 PA which wasn’t unreasonable going off his past record this puts him at a little over 19 RAA.

Adrian Gonzalez in 2007 had a line of .282/.347/.502 which was worth 22.5 RAA if you normalize to 650 PA.

I could be off and likely am but to me it looked like the community was predicting around 15-20 RAA out of Beltre. Its not an insane projection but its a very optimistic projection. If I gave you his stat sheet without his name on it, told you he hit in a pitchers ballpark, and that he was extremely strong you would have not predicted .288/.340/.506.

I just want to point out that ZIPS had him at .268/.320/.450

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 1, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And using a real calculation of bRAA, Beltre's community projection gives him around +15.

I want to point out that Beltre’s prOPS for last year was .855. ZIPs is only right because Beltre had some flukishly bad luck – I don’t see why you’d give it credit for spitting out a batting line which although technically correct doesn’t really reflect reality.

I’d also like to point out that the community would have projected his glove to be +10 or so last year, putting him as a +25 RAA player.

Which he was.

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

K, thanks for actually doing the math for me

Yeah I know that ZIPS line in comparison to last year’s numbers is a little bogus. I was just trying to show how drastically different they were.

I still think +15 is pretty optimistic but that’s another argument.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 1, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah replace +20 with +15 in my original post

And I think I still agree with most that I said. Beltre is great but I just don’t think he’s quite in that elite top tier of players in the majors. He’s close and if he can build on this year and continue his amazing defense, he has a chance to get there but time is running out for him.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 1, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No sensible projection would have had him at +15 bat, +25 glove though

You’re right, he’s not going to be one of the best players in the league, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything glaringly wrong with the projection. He just went insane with his defence, which is likely unrepeatable.

by Graham on Dec 1, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I still think its hard for him to get that high of OBP

and the ISO is a little high. I understand why we all put out this projection but I think we were still being optimistic. I’d say this is more like a 75th percentile projection.

Agreed his defense was insane last year. Its almost impossible for him to repeat those numbers.

Actually after doing a little math and bumping his BABIP up to 0.295 which is around his career BABIP I get .284/.345/.488 which looks pretty close to the projection (minus a little power). Maybe it is that simple. Sorry for not looking at the numbers a little closer. I guess I’m still surprised by it a little. I guess I’m surprised his contact skills are good enough to get that high of BA/OBP.

by Edgar for Pres on Dec 1, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

His contact ability isn't really that bad

Last year his contact rate was the same as BJ Upton and Aramis Ramirez.

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2008 4:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

fuck you for eating my asterisk.

So assume my hatred for american macro light beer is a positive number and there is an additional multiplier of positive infinity.

by Matthew on Nov 30, 2008 11:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dont forget the home run on the pitch above his head a couple days later.

The good thing about having sex with pregnant chicks is that they cant get pregnant.

by RED29 on Dec 1, 2008 1:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good to see you commenting Red

Hope the debate over possible steroids isn’t pissing you off. I guess in wrestling there’s a lot of conjecture and judgment about steroids. It may come off that I’m judging AB, but that isn’t how I feel at all. My stance is that I’m not part of the industry (either wrestling or baseball) so I don’t really know what pressure people feel, or who they get advice from, or what the latest medical knowledge is… so I reserve making judgments about the character of people who choose to take them.

In a way, I prefer thinking that 2004 was a steroid year for AB, because then he’s absolutely lived up to his career projections. If I think that 2004 was repeatable… or a simple matter of him having to lay off outside pitches due to bonespurs… then I get pissed off at him for not working harder to replicate that success.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I still don't know why it's automatically assumed

that a good year in an arbitrarily selected timeframe automatically means steroid use. If Beltre’s career lasted from 1927-1938, and in 1930 he put up a single season that was better than all the rest, would that mean he was ahead of the curve on steroid use, or just that players can in fact have single seasons that don’t conform to their statistical averages?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Dec 1, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Now covered above

in the comment titled “I’m not assuming there was NO pharmaceutical cheating”

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I prefer thinking that 2004 was a steroid year for AB, because then he’s absolutely lived up to his career projections.

Not really, AB was a better hitter at 20-21 than he is today. Also, I am happy to report than there is a 0% chance Mark McGwire took steroids since his ISO was roughly .400 each year from 95 to 2000, no flukey spike there.

Furcal

by JI on Dec 1, 2008 2:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I really wish your argument was worth rebutting

because I’m still in a mood to argue. But you’re really not giving me anything to work with here.

by johnbai on Dec 1, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In the wrestling business steroids are everywhere.

Everybody “knows a guy” who can get stuff and its REALLY easy to obtain them. In wrestling the steroids are mostly for appearance reasons and not performance. In my opinion,It doesnt matter if its wrestling or baseball, steroids wont make you a better performer. I agree that they will speed up the healing process and thats a big plus when playing a 162 game season or pounding the mat every weekend (or in the WWE, 300 days a year). There is no doubt that it will make it so you move more weight in the gym and your body will physically transform into something better. That would give ANYBODY more confidence in themselves and that mental edge is as big of an asset than anything physical.
      Even in the small time Indy Wrestling scene there is a ton of pressure. Ive seen people offering steroids to 16 or 17 year old trainees that are trying to do WHATEVER it takes to “make it” in the wrestling business. I obviously cant speak for baseball, but I cant imagine it being all that different. Everybody wants to make it big time, thats why you put in all the training, practice and sacrifice to be the best you can be. If there is something there that can help you, legal or illegal, MOST people will at least try it.
     I dont care if people do steroids, I really dont. If I didnt have a problem with injecting myself, I would be on at least HGH right now. Sports are here for our entertainment, nothing else. If they feel that they have to do steroids to be better entertainers, than so be it. Ill pay either way. If I didnt have sports I dont know what I would do with 80% of my life.
    I dont know if Beltre was on the juice in ’04, and Ill never know. All I do know is EVERYBODY has a career year and I think its a little (but not totally) unfair to just assume it was because of steroids. Sometimes everything just comes together and you cant explain it. Steroids have been around for decades and were given to the olympic athletes to better their performance. Im sure steroids have been a part of the game for over the last 30 years, but not until it became a popular trend in other sports and everyday life that it became a big deal. Either way, steroids are here to stay whether people like it or not. Everybody in major league baseball are the elite baseball players on this planet, steroids or not. Steroids dont make a player.

I agree with your thinking, and if laying of the low and away pitch is all it takes to put up numbers like he did in ’04 and hasnt done it since, I would be a little upset myself. But, him hacking away at that pitch and all of us knowing hes going to swing at it, makes him that much more human and likeable.

Sorry I was so long winded. Thats my public service announcement for the day…

The good thing about having sex with pregnant chicks is that they cant get pregnant.

by RED29 on Dec 1, 2008 9:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for posting Red

And I particularly agree with your point that his flaws make him human and likable.

by johnbai on Dec 2, 2008 11:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone else think Beltre has a good chance of staying here?

Last year was a great one to trade big name players, but so far it would seem the trade market’s chilled out a bit (early still, I know), If the offers for Beltre are underwhelming, would it be so unreasonable to let him play his contract out here and go for the extra picks? Particularly with GMZ having such a strong scouting background and possibly wanting to shape the farm in his own image. Maybe I’m just looking for ways for him to stay on a bit longer.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Dec 1, 2008 6:17 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

There's nothing wrong with keeping Beltre for the extra picks in 2010

However, there are also a lot of teams that could use a third baseman. LAD, Boston (pending the status of Lowell), and Minnesota are all examples of such a team, and all of those groups have fine collections of young talent. I bet we’ll find a match.

by katal on Dec 1, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I would hate to see him go,

but on a purely selfish level it is really too bad the Giant don’t have anything to offer. I’d love to see him play more often.

I am no longer in Spokane, but I think I'll keep the name anyway.

by InSpokane on Dec 1, 2008 12:16 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Migrating over here from Let’s Go Tribe where a decent number of us, myself included, think Beltre would be a very good fit for the 2009 Cleveland Indians. Given his salary and contract situation, I’d be interested to get your sense of what the expected trade return for 1-year of Beltre is at this point.

My first guess is one good prospect and one or two lower level prospects. In the Indians system, I’d be thinking of something like Beau Mills and Chris Archer or Mike Pontius.

With the hope of avoiding the “my team’s players are better than your team’s players” thing…what would you all think is a fair price?

by APV on Dec 2, 2008 7:49 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Mills is probably our closest to the majors high ceiling positional prospect outside of the guys we acquired last year (Laporta, Santana, Brantley). David Huff is off limits, but we’ve got a lot of interesting starting pitchers at the young majors level (Laffey, Sowers, Reyes, S Lewis, Z Jackson)…my guess is none of those guys are good enough to serve as a centerpiece. Hector Rondon would be our best young starting pitching prospect, but he’ll just be starting AA in 2009.

by APV on Dec 2, 2008 1:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Building off APV’s comment, that’s kind of the problem with dealing with the Indians right now. There’s a handful of guys everybody wants – LaPorta, Santana, Brantley, Weglarz, Huff, Miller, maybe Laffey – but it’s really hard for me to see Shapiro moving any of those players. In his mind, he’d just be poking new holes in his 2010-2011 squads.

So yeah, I think Mills might be the best we could reasonably offer as a centerpiece. We might try to make up for the lack of immediacy with some quantity — I think we could comfortably move multiple lower-level pitching prospects and certainly a lower ceiling starter as APV suggests.

by fleerdon on Dec 4, 2008 8:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hate to put a turd in everyone’s punchbowl, but in his seven seasons as a GM, has Mark Shapiro ever traded significant young talent for a veteran player approaching free agency? Here are the main veterans Shapiro has acquired via trade:

• Jamey Carroll, for minor leaguer Sean Smith
• Kenny Lofton, deadline deal for Max Ramirez
• Guillermo Mota, in a deal where they also acquired prospects Marte and Shoppach
• Lee Stevens, in a deal where they also acquired prospects Sizemore, Lee, Phillips
• Matt Lawton, in a deal where they also acquired Escobar and Traber
• Josh Phelps, for minor league Eric Crozier
• Anthony Reyes, for minor leaguer can’t remember his name
• Jason Michaels, for Arthur Rhodes
• Jason Dubois, for Jody Gerut

You have to stretch the definition of “veterans” to include guys like Reyes and Dubois, just to get the list up to nine.

I’m not saying it should be ruled out completely, but I think it’s fair to ask if Shapiro will ever be willing to make a deal like this, or whether Shapiro would ever be the top bidder for a player like this, or whether those two questions are actually one and the same.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2008 1:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Luis Perdomo

for Reyes.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 4, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It wouldn't be a one-year rental, I don't expect

I’m fairly sure that this will be one of those where the team that deals for him signs him long-term, so that will bring the return up somewhat. That said, a) we’re obviously not getting back a Bedard-type return, and b) this market is hard to gauge, so I’m not really sure what the expected return would be, but I suspect it would be lower than what we’d hope to see. I would say this, though: we’ll probably be looking for pitching, pitching, and more pitching — one really good pitching prospect who’s reasonably close to the majors as the centerpiece, and then a couple lesser pitching prospects to fill out the deal.

by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 2, 2008 8:54 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Max_small
FootbaLL IV (Nov 21st)
Small
The Sabermetrics of Cats

Recent FanPosts

Laughing_man_elmex_small
AFL Championship game thread
Smell-the-glove_small
OFFTOP 11/19 - The Hand of Fraud
Small
Tony Blengino interview on 710 AM ESPN Seattle's Hot Stove League
Ichirocameron_small
OTFPOTD 11/16: Recipes Edition
Small
Lookout Landing as a communtiy
Small
Royals determined to unload Callaspo...
Ichiro_small
Ackley and Triunfel on MLB TV right now
Small
Xbox LLive, Pt 3

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

1_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff