The Unbelievable Bret Boone
I don't quite have the heart right now to write about the idea of trading Felix Hernandez. In part because I've already done that, a few times, at considerable length, and in part because it's just not something I want to be thinking about. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe I won't. Who knows! I could go in any direction!
I also don't know what to write about with regard to the Mariners making moves. There's nothing new to be said about Prince Fielder. Like at all. All angles have been explored. There have been no new public developments. We're all just waiting on Fielder to make a decision, which means we're really all just waiting on Boras to make a decision. As for other moves, I don't know what's going on. There's still that talk about adding a starter, and there's still that talk about Seth Smith, but nothing's hot. There's no burning rumor, so that's also a waiting game.
As is usually the case when I don't know what to write about, I found myself browsing Baseball-Reference. My laptop is mere feet away from my bed. Sometimes I wake up and start browsing Baseball-Reference before I know what I'm doing. The other day when my brain kicked in a few minutes after the rest of me awoke, I realized I was looking at Augie Ojeda's splits page without knowing how I got there. It's a disease, a disease that is wonderful and illuminating.
Long story short, I was on Baseball-Reference, and Baseball-Reference reminded me of this:
Friday, December 22 (2000)
SEATTLE -- Second baseman Bret Boone is making a return trip to Seattle.
Pat Gillick, the Mariners' general manager, announced Friday that the team signed the free-agent second baseman. The deal was reported to be a one-year, $3.25 million contract.
It was on this date in 2000 that the Mariners brought Bret Boone over from San Diego as a free agent. Incidentally, it was on this date in 1999 that the Padres acquired Bret Boone from the Braves in a trade. Exciting consecutive Christmases for the Boone family.
Now, I probably don't need to remind you of what Boone went on to accomplish. I'm going to anyway, because that's kind of the whole point of this post, but first, what was Pat Gillick expecting? A quote. I should say "a quotation" because that is what would be correct - I remember, Mr. D'Onofrio - but writing "a quotation" would seem unnecessarily pompous and there is an art to words such that you can't always just follow the rules. Okay, moving on:
"We think Bret is a nice fit for our ballclub," Gillick said. "He's a proven run-producer who will add a little pop to our line-up while providing solid defense for our pitching staff."
Sounds about right. Boone was 31 at the time. Nearly 32. He'd just hit 19 home runs, a year after hitting 20 home runs, a year after hitting 24 home runs. That's what you say about a guy like Boone when you sign him to a one-year contract worth $3.25 million. You say that you expect him to help a little bit, because you expect him to help a little bit.
And then Boone went on to help a lot of bits. Crediting an offseason training regimen that added either 15, 20 or 30 pounds of muscle, depending on who you ask, Boone flipped out. He didn't get going immediately, but once he did, he was nearly impossible to stop. This was his final slash line:
.331/.372/.578
That was a slash line from a right-handed middle infielder in Safeco Field. A 32-year-old right-handed middle infielder in Safeco Field, whose slash line the three years previous was .256/.319/.432. The Mariners were expecting something close to the latter. What they got instead was practically Alex Rodriguez, the season after losing Alex Rodriguez.
Something else strange that goes kind of unnoticed - justifiably so, I suppose - is that Boone appeared to get better at defense out of nowhere, too. I know, I know, defensive stats, but Baseball-Reference pegs Boone at -25 runs between 1998-2000. In 2001, he vaulted up to +12. I recall that UZR liked him a lot, too. I've said a few times that I trust defensive stats an awful lot more for infielders than for outfielders, and here's evidence that Boone might have suddenly gotten way better with the glove. I do remember thinking he was good, although in fairness I was a young idiot.
Baseball-Reference put Boone's 2001 WAR at 9.3. We could quibble about that, but this isn't for science, so we're not going to. That is the fifth-best single-season WAR for a position player in Mariners history. It is higher than any WAR Edgar ever posted. It is higher than all but two of Alex Rodriguez's seasons, and higher than all but two of Ken Griffey Jr.'s seasons. It's higher than every Ichiro season, and it's just generally kind of amazing. Bret Boone's career WAR before 2001, over more than a thousand games, was 3.1. His season-high was 1.7.
Put another way, over the three years before Boone signed with the Mariners, he was about as valuable as Tony Womack and Luis Alicea. He was in his early 30s. In 2001, he found himself in the company of guys like Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi. One-year contract. $3.25 million.
I know that people have their suspicions about Boone. I don't care. Even if Boone had been taking a chemical or two, tons of players were taking a chemical or two, and what Boone did at 32 is almost impossible to believe. It wasn't just a one-year fluke, either. He was good in 2002. He was awesome again in 2003. By that point he had been re-signed to a larger contract, making him less of a surprise and less of a bargain, but Boone had an incredible multi-year peak that nobody, nobody could've seen coming.
You remember that Boone was a guy who conquered Safeco Field because he was a righty who could hit homers the other way. He's one of the only righties the team has had who could hit homers the other way. He's still the player who comes to mind when I think of righties who can succeed with the Mariners. Boone figured it out. Boone stood 5'10 in stripper heels.
I don't bring this up in some attempt to rally the troops during what's been a disappointing offseason. I'm not trying to make the point that you never know who could turn out to be amazing, although, in truth, you can't. Maybe John Jaso slugs .550. Who knows? It's possible, because Bret Boone. In that way, the Bret Boone story has something in common with the Ryan Vogelsong story.
No - I bring this up because Bret Boone signed a cheap one-year contract with the Mariners on this date in 2000, and then he went on to have one of the most inconceivable seasons in baseball history. I bring this up because I wonder if Boone's one-year contract might stand as the best one-year contract ever. I doubt it - there's probably someone who signed for the minimum who turned out fantastic - but Boone's got to be up there. What a weird and terrific thing to have happen.
89 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My first favorite players were Mike Parrott and Leon Roberts.
They signed autographs for me. So what I’m saying is, get off my lawn.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 22, 2011 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
you guys are young!
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Dec 24, 2011 12:55 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Baseball players don't take steroids...
they take “Boones”.
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Dec 24, 2011 12:57 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Man I loved the bat flip.
So cocky yet so awesome.
by Hopefulmsfan on Dec 22, 2011 1:05 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Pay no attention to those PEDs and beers behind the curtain
by lemonverbena on Dec 22, 2011 1:13 PM PST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
I hope the entire 2012 M's roster take PED's as part of their daily routine.
by EnglishMariner on Dec 22, 2011 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 16 recs
I view it a lot like my other favorite sport, cycling
It used to be a part of the culture. A certain era, which (we hope) has come and passed, condoned it. No one currently condones it, at least, functionally “no one.”
Just like Lance Armstrong probably did dope and I don’t really care, it wouldn’t break my heart to hear that Boone did.
Now Edgar, or Griffey, or even Buhner
That would break my heart.
by Aly Edge on Dec 22, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Funny, that
I have the same sentiment…
Boone was a goon, and goon’s are supposed to cheat. Wouldn’t have felt wrong at all.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 22, 2011 9:56 PM PST up reply actions
I know there's all sorts of outstanding performances that we can Monday morning quarterback
and attribute to PEDs, but Boone’s just as much of a poster child of that period as Bonds as far as I’m concerned.
Bret Boone's ass made women come to Safeco
God bless him.
by seiferguy on Dec 22, 2011 1:25 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Didn't Boone have a bone bruise that took him out of much of 2000? I imagine that messed up his defensive stats.
I thought his numbers for 1999 were supposed to be good…
Gah Felix and Pineda.
Every time I see their names I want to write something about trade value, then I think that and want to throw up, which makes me want to look up names, which makes me dread possibly looking like a Rosterbator, which makes me not to consider anything to do with them, which then leads me to read other stuff, which somehow has Felix or Pineda in it. It is an awful curricular curse.
Trading Pineda would probably be more interesting than trading Felix.
Trading Pineda most likely means the team is making a move to upgrade, get a top bat and win now. (Not likely to happen, but that’s what it would mean.) That’s much more fun to talk about. Pineda isn’t being traded for multiple lesser prospects at this stage in his career; even twits like Jim Bowden and Ken Rosenthal wouldn’t suggest such a thing.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 22, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
Oh. Well...
At least he’s not proposing to cash in Pineda for two or three lesser arms (and makes the point that pitchers are high-risk prospects). And some of the players he suggests are pretty good, though not available anymore. And at least he knows something about the organization, rather than the people who argue that the M’s should trade Felix for a couple of pitchers who aren’t necessarily better than Walker, Hultzen and Paxton.
Nevertheless, touché. You got me.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 22, 2011 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
He’s been mostly dismissive of Pineda. First it was “keep him down to learn a secondary pitch”, then “hurry up and trade him for some good pieces”. He doesn’t see Pineda as part of the young core that goes with Ackley, Smoak, etc.
by Chris_FB on Dec 22, 2011 4:16 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don't see it that way at all.
The first concern was legit, and still a problem for Pineda. While his fastball is just that overwhelming, and his slider is “nasty”, “diabolical”, etc, he doesn’t have a changeup or curveball to dominate the lefties as well as he dominates the righties.
As for the second, how is it dismissive when he thinks Pineda would net the Mariners a huge return value in trade? There’s a difference between trading from a strength to fill other holes and not thinking someone is part of the young core.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 23, 2011 3:35 AM PST up reply actions
I think many people disagree that what Dave suggested constituted a huge haul
by Matthew on Dec 23, 2011 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Which time?
The Votto proposal or the one where he thought he could get basically what the Reds got for Latos?
I just don’t see it as Dave being dismissive of Pineda nor thinking he’s not part of the core. Being expendible because of value is not disrespect.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 24, 2011 8:20 AM PST up reply actions
God it would be awesome if Ackley can bust out a Boone season (without the Boone implications of course)
Probably won’t happen, but still
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
Because he doesn't have the ass to pull it off
Carlos Silvelite
by OceanBird on Dec 22, 2011 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lets start up the "Buy Dustin a Thigh Master campaign."
Dave Krieg!
by Pebohead on Dec 22, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't know about you,
but Ackley’s bat has shown way more pop than I thought it based on everything we read about him in the minors. I don’t think 20+ HRs is out of the question for the dude sometime in the near future. As long as he’s not sacrificing average to get there, of course.
I was thinking 30+ but for me I always figured he would get close to 20 in his prime
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Dec 22, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Lance Berkman just put up a pretty nice one-year-contract year. Frank Thomas did it. Of course, those guys had much different careers than Bret Boone. But then it makes me wonder what Carlos Beltran may do next year.
follow @casetines
His bleach blonde hair was too.
by thehemogoblin on Dec 22, 2011 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I remember when he signed
and I hated the contract. Wanted to see what Jermaine Clark and Ramon Vazquez could do.
I wanted Phil Nevin!
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 22, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Phil Nevin sounds great... for 2012 even.
Frowny face.
by fiftyone on Dec 22, 2011 3:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Doubt it. The Mariners' official twitter always announces when a new player has joined Twitter. (Ex. Gimenez recently)
Considering that “Ackley” has been tweeting since July and the Mariners’ twitter hasn’t said anything, it is safe to assume it is some one with too much time on their hands.
It's boring enough to seem like it might be him.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Dec 23, 2011 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
Boone had same-field power, too
I had season tickets in ’01 and ’02 in dead left field (glorious time to be a season ticket holder.) At least twice in ’01 he went upper deck to the left-center power alley that I can remember. In Safeco, yes. He just absolutely killed the ball that season.
Boone was the spirit of that 2001 team.
But too much what the hell was that? Ichiro to win the MVP.
Boone had spirit, yes he did.
But Ichiro was the souljap….
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Dec 22, 2011 9:59 PM PST up reply actions
If UZR can't be "trusted", what can be?
Should we just never talk about defense? UZR is as accurate as 1 1/2 to 2 years of OPS, so one year values do tell us something about the true-talent level of a defender.
Also, Bret Boone was even better than I thought he was.
UZR is not as accurate as 1 1/2 to 2 years of OPS
The typical claim is that it takes 3 years for UZR to stabilize to the level that OPS/wOBA gets to in one year. And stabilizing is different from accuracy or true talent, since there are serious concerns about persistent biases (LD vs FB scoring, for example) inherent to UZR. When you have statistical biases in your data, they don’t wash away with larger sample sizes. It doesn’t mean that there is no value in UZR— it’s just hard to know what you’ve got. And really there isn’t any freely available defensive metric that doesn’t have just as big, or bigger flaws than UZR, at least at an individual player level.
by MangoLiger on Dec 22, 2011 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The creator of UZR,Mitchel Lichtman, says 1 1/2 to 2 years.
I have found other sources claim that MGL said 3 years, but in this 2010 article(In Sample Size and Reliability section) in a paragraph about the reliability of UZR he concludes, “So a year of OPS data is roughly equivalent to a year and half to two years of UZR.”
UZR isn’t as reliable as some commonly referenced stats, but that doesn’t mean it should have a less than trustworthy reputation. Regress UZR 50% to the mean when talking about it, if you please. It would still be very clear that Boone went from a below-average defensively to above-average.
MGL is a bitchtastic wad.
And these days, there are a lot of reasons to believe that UZR is just way, way off – more than they thought previously by a hefty margin. You can use it for brief numbers to back up your eye theories, but it’s a bad idea to assume it’s accurate anymore.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 22, 2011 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=11476
by Graham MacAree on Dec 23, 2011 7:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't see the 3 year figure in there.
And he quotes MGL and the research he has done, so???
I do not think you read the article. The three year figure is also wrong. UZR is wrong.
The entire article is about why the assumptions in UZR are wrong, and he also links to an entire discussion/thread about the problems with the metrics. UZR measures what it measures, but what it measures is full of potential problems that cause errors with how they evaluate defense.
The original belief was that the flaws in UZR would be systematic and ultimately could be factored out. But the reality is that there are plenty of errors that are simply errors. It was then argued by MGL that over a large enough sample, those errors would even out. But that involves the assumption that the errors with UZR cannot build up, and they can. Finally, there is a serious issue with the way they not only classify FB/LD, but also how they factor them into the math.
UZR is not very good, and while it can be closer to accurate for some players, there is also the serious and not-unlikely risk that other players are getting UZR numbers that are vastly different than their true talent that aren’t evened out over a 3 year period, not to mention that over a 3 year period, players age and slow, and improve, etc., and anything in baseball that takes 3 years to understand is probably something you shouldn’t be trusting, because if it gets numbers wrong one year, there is a likelihood it will get numbers wrong other years.
Here are some thoughts on this site about the topic, and I’m sure there are others in comments if you search around. You don’t have to trust this site’s valuation of the metric, but right now it seems like UZR is fairly worthless. At best, it’s a way of justifying something you see with your eye, and even then you should be a bit skeptical.
...and now I'm here
Also, since I'm sure you were BEGGING for my take on the subject.
I outline it here! I forgot I wrote this!!
...and now I'm here
So try reading it again and think about what it's saying
by Graham MacAree on Dec 24, 2011 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
That article doesn't say anything noteworthy.
Think about some of the points it’s making.
Here’s one of the main points: “Even using the same data, though, you can come up with drastically different results. Fangraphs publishes two defensive metrics, UZR and Defensive Runs Saved. These are both derived from the same BIS batted-ball data, and purport to measure the same thing (a fielder’s value above average, compared to his peers at his position). The correlation between the two for 2009 for qualified starters, as reported by Mitchel Lichtman, UZR’s creator, is .79.”
The fact that the methods do not correlate completely doesn’t mean there is a problem with BOTH methods. I could use the same BIS batted-ball method and develop a metric that weights errors committed extremely highly. I could then purport to measure the same thing as UZR and find there is little correlation between the two. What have I actually done? I made a bad metric and compared it to a decent one and found out they aren’t very much alike. So what matters is how the metric is calculated.
What is important is finding the metric that matches up with the desired objective measure- the degree to which defense contributes to a team winning. Since UZR is used in WAR calculations that do a nice job of measuring winning- http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/war-it-works/ – I’ll conclude that UZR is not meaningless.
P.S. Still waiting for someone to quantify eye theories. Will be tough to decide if “looks like a ball player” should be rated better than “has soft hands”.
by silverbook1 on Dec 24, 2011 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
You're still under the assumption that UZR is a decent one.
Even Dave Cameron has started stating his doubts in UZR in the Fangraphs posts. The issue with UZR, which is listed in both the article Graham linked to and the comments of The Book article, is that there are considerable scoring biases based on things like how the player looks catching the ball, whether or not the ball “looks catchable,” whether they want to consider it a line drive or a sharp hit grounder… All of those things are considered facts in UZR, but they’re subjective biases that don’t necessarily even out over time.
And your jab against “eye theories” is both misguided and childish. No one is saying, including myself, that defense should be measured by looking at the play. But the defensive metrics have taught people to look at range over errors when watching baseball, so the eye isn’t exactly a bad indicator of talent – not as much as it used to be. Similarly, there is a tremendous component of UZR that is based specifically on eye theories. BIS classifications are caused by some dude watching the game and deciding whether something was a line drive or not. UZR is not an objective measuring system, nor is it an effective one.
Finally, UZR even has questionable calculations. Anything classified as a line drive doesn’t count against a fielder. Hard hit ground balls are sometimes considered “uncatchable” even when they are hit directly at a player because of his positioning. These play a tremendous role in defense, are not included in UZR, and can cause serious errors in calculations (a hard fly ball a fielder should have caught may be counted as a line drive and excluded). MGL’s own theory believes that the number of scoring errors will even out over time, but he has zero evidence of this, and it goes against what we know about human error. It would be like assuming that if Felix throws a pitch that was called a ball but was actually a strike, we shouldn’t worry about it because he’ll get a strike called a ball next to even it out.
This is not meant to prove or disprove the point, but there was a time last year where Chone Figgins missed several balls hit directly at him (didn’t even flinch or take a step in any direction) and otherwise made no good plays. His UZR went up that week by 2 runs, presumably because the calculation either excluded them or the person marking the play considered them out of his zone.
There was also another point where MGL decided to alter his metric’s calculations, and it gave Jason Bay another 14 runs (1.4 wins) added to his WAR. MGL, first of all, doesn’t let anyone see the calculations, so no one can verify what was done. Second of all, what “good metric” can be “altered” to add 1.4 wins to someone’s defensive value?
As Matthew wrote as well, UZR doesn’t correlate well at all with BABIP. Exactly how is it possible for a team to have a high UZR but also allow a high BABIP?
It appears you’re blindly trusting a defensive metric based on nothing but it coming from someone with a voice in Sabermetrics. And indeed, about 2 to 3 years ago people were told that UZR works. But it’s been seriously questioned not only on this site, but also on Fangraphs over the past couple of years, and there are more reasons to believe it’s a flawed metric than think it still works as it was originally designed.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 24, 2011 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
That picture was from the last playoff game that the Mariners ever won!
by Robert on Dec 22, 2011 6:25 PM PST via Android app reply actions
I have to say not only did I love the bat flip,
but also loved the corresponding commercial.
I'm so excited!
“…Prince Fielder…signed…a one-year, $3.25 million contract…He’s a proven run-producer who will add a little pop to our line-up…What a weird and terrific thing to have happen.”
If Prince Fielder signs a one year $3.25 million dollar contract
I’ll base jump off SafeCo field’s roof…… And I’m terrified of heights.
by sofa_king on Dec 22, 2011 7:44 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Prince Fielder is a free agent?
They should sign that guy!
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever

by 



















