Brandon Phillips Might be Having the Worst Offensive Season of His Career

We've heard this argument countless times before.

Traditional stat guy says, "RBIs are good! ... Run production! ... Clutch hitting! ... No fear!"

Advanced stat guy counters, "RBIs are pointless! ... A product of teammates getting on base! ... Clutch hitting is a myth!"

Both guys win the argument in their own minds, but in reality, nobody wins. Progress takes another punch to the gut, begging its captors for mercy.

This argument has popped up again this season because of Brandon Phillips, who has a career-high 99 RBIs (fifth in the majors) through Tuesday, Sept. 3 while the rest of his numbers have been mediocre, at best. Phillips yelled at a Reds reporter last week, apparently because the reporter, C. Trent Rosecrans, sent out a tweet criticizing the Reds for putting Phillips and his low OBP in the second spot of the batting order. Phillips' tirade was music to the ears of traditional stat backers who think it's ridiculous to criticize a player who's driven in that many runs. Rosecrans was providing a similar melodic tune to the ears of sabermetric folk, who disregard RBIs and think Phillips is overrated because of that stat.

The truth is, Phillips hasn't simply been overrated. In his eight full seasons in the major leagues, this season might be the worst one he's ever had from the plate.

The traditional stat crowd is obviously going to point to Phillips' high number of RBIs and hold that stance firmly. What's interesting about Phillips, though, is that his RBI total is probably the only batting statistic any baseball fan would say has been good this year.

Look at his other more traditional numbers in 2013 (through Tuesday): .267 batting average, 17 home runs, four stolen bases, 72 runs scored. To put those in context, compare them to his stats from the seven other full seasons in his career.

Besides his .261 average in 2008, Phillips has hit at least .275 since 2006 (his first full season).

His 17 HR total is actually right in line with his per season rate, so it would be unfair to say he's fallen off in that category. That said, unless he hits a bunch of dingers in these final 23 games, his HR total compared to the rest of the league will be nothing more than pedestrian. And that's before you factor in the ballpark he plays in, which is a holy land for power hitters.

It isn't surprising to see that Phillips' stolen base numbers have gone down the past four seasons, considering he's an aging player in his 30s, but he still averaged 15 steals in the three seasons leading up to this one. Unless he channels his inner Billy Hamilton these next few weeks, people will look at Phillips' steals total and think, "Man, he's lost a ton of speed."

His runs scored figure will probably increase by the end of the season, so we shouldn't judge Phillips in that category just yet. But it's going to be hard for him to score if he doesn't get on base*. As Rosecrans noted, Phillips isn't so hot in the OBP department (.316 through Tuesday), but like most of Phillips' numbers this year, his OBP has been even worse than it's typically looked during his career. The only time he's had an OBP below .321 with the Reds other than this season was in 2008.

*By the way, can we stop lumping OBP in with other sabermetrics? Just because Billy Beane and Peter Brand Paul DePodesta valued it in Moneyball doesn't mean it's some advanced stat for loser nerds. It's literally just batting average with walks and hit by pitches included. This isn't an advanced concept.

Phillips has upped his BB% from last year, but at 5.8%, he's still well below average in that area. He's rarely -- if ever -- been an elite hitter, but he's usually performed better than this with the bat. Phillips hasn't put up a wRC+ this low since 2008, either, nor has he struck out as much since then (2008 wasn't his best offensive year, to say the least). He's never had a lower slugging percentage or wOBA during any season with Cincinnati, and his ISO is dangerously close to hitting that "lowest ever" mark.

Whether you like those numbers or more traditional ones, it's hard to find a full season in Phillips' career that's been worse than this one...

... unless you look at his RBIs. Anyone who's read or listened to a sabermetric-minded baseball journalist has probably heard them say something along these lines (like the fake advanced stat guy at the beginning of this piece): "A batter's RBIs are a product of runners getting on base in front of him." It's true. If every batter in baseball history came up to the plate without ever having teammates on base, the all-time single-season RBI leader would be Barry Bonds with 73. Baserunners are as vital to a hitter's RBI total as his bat. If you think performing well with runners in scoring position is a skill certain players like Phillips possess that others don't, you should read this. If you're still not sold, well, you're probably not reading at this point, anyway.

But regarding Phillips, specifically, let's investigate the his runners on base situation this season. Among all of his plate appearances in 2013, 438 runners have been on base for Cincinnati. Since 2006, he's only inherited more baserunners in a season twice -- 461 baserunners in 2007 and 449 in 2009. He has more than a good chance to surpass those numbers this year, especially considering Shin-Soo Choo (.415 OBP) is batting in front of him. His RBI totals in 2007 and 2009, by the way, were 94 and 98, respectively. Those, along with his 99 this year, are by far the highest in his career. Have I mentioned how much baserunners affect RBIs?

Of the 438 baserunners Phillips has inherited, 85 have scored (to be clear, not all those runs have counted as Phillips RBIs). That's also a career-high. His batting average with runners in scoring position this season is currently .349, which is near the top of league. So maybe he hasn't been great in all situations this year, but in the situations that have mattered most, he's delivered. That sentence is 100 percent factual. He's performed much better in run-producing scenarios. But that doesn't mean Phillips has a discernible skill when he comes to the plate with runners on second or third.

Here are his BA with RISP figures from every season since 2006 (his overall batting averages are in parentheses):

2006 -- .297 (.276)
2007 -- .269 (.288)
2008 -- .261 (.261)
2009 -- .291 (.276)
2010 -- .246 (.275)
2011 -- .311 (.300)
2012 -- .305 (.281)
2013 -- .349 (.269)

You could construct a narrative saying Phillips has become more clutch since 2011 because he's hit over .300 with runners in scoring position each of those seasons. I mean, it's your story. Who am I to stop you from writing it?

You could also look at eight years of evidence illustrating that Phillips hasn't consistently performed better or worse in clutch situations than he has overall (another thing: notice that he hit .269 and .291 in his 94- and 98-RBI seasons; say it with me: RBIs are a product of runners getting on base).

The last three seasons do make it seem like he's become more skilled with runners in scoring position, and maybe he has. There's a decent chance not even his teammates or coaches know if he's changed his mechanics and/or mindset in ways that have helped him perform better in those situations. If he keeps improving for years to come, this "clutch" debate surrounding Phillips will even make people like me rethink my stance. At the moment, though, his 2013 RISP average simply looks like an outlier in an otherwise normal major-league career.

Phillips has also had just 163 plate appearances with RISP, good for less than 30% of his overall plate appearances. First of all, that's a small sample size, but it also illustrates just how much Phillips has hurt his team. Sure, getting hits that drive in runs is extremely valuable, but if you're making outs during the majority of your other PAs, you're not giving your teammates chances to drive you in, thus preventing runs from scoring. In other words, for every run Phillips drives in, he's taking just as many potential runs off the board by failing to get on base. Again, this isn't an advanced concept. You need baserunners to score runs.

Phillips is by no means a bum. He's still a plus defender at a position where defense is critical and offense can be scarce. His numbers are actually better than they look simply because he plays second base.

Unfortunately, though, none of that masks the fact that Phillips is having a bad season at the plate. He's not getting on base, he's an average baserunner, he doesn't hit for much power, and he strikes out too much. He's not getting any younger, either. This might be his worst offensive season ever, but it hasn't been too far below his other seasons, so this might not be a fluky season, either. It's entirely possible he reached his peak in 2011 and he's starting to steadily decline. That might seem sad to some people, but baseball aging curves aren't very sympathetic.

Still, if Phillips' career ended today, he could look back on it as an overall success. 2013 would just be a down year in an otherwise healthy baseball life. Unless he finishes on a hitting rampage, that's how people should view this season. He might've set a career-high in RBIs, but that doesn't change the fact that he hasn't been very good. Without guys like Choo and Joey Votto constantly getting on base in front of him, everybody would realize how much Phillips has struggled. Given how bad his other numbers have been, everybody should realize this, anyway.

Sabermetrics and the Importance of Youth

It’s no secret that people’s opinions as adults are shaped by events during their youth. Whether we’re talking about politics, social issues, entertainment, or baseball, there are many people who believe everything they believe right now because of how they grew up.

In regards to baseball, this is a big reason (maybe the biggest) why so many people disregard the sabermetric point of view. Sure, advanced stats are a little more complicated than pitcher wins or home runs, but if these people grew up during the 21st century reading articles from writers like Rob Neyer instead of writers like Mitch Albom, it’s hard to imagine their views would still be so old-school. They weren’t brainwashed, they just fallaciously trusted the most visible authority figures, and no one else was really providing more accurate viewpoints. At a certain point, the windows for a new way of looking at baseball were slammed shut. Their minds had been made up, and nothing was going to change them. Some people, like Peter Gammons, kept an open mind and eventually embraced sabermetrics, but he’s the exception to most baseball consumers.

ESPN’s Keith Law talked about this concept on his podcast last week, and he’s mentioned it before that. He says that people should question the opinions spouted from the mouths of talking heads and from the fingertips of writers, even saying that he should be scrutinized. He’s absolutely right, but he probably knows as well as anyone that many people are going to keep valuing extremely flawed, outdated stats and utter things like “grit,” “clutch hitting,” and “the will to win” no matter how many columns Law and other sabermetrically-minded people write.

Baseball fans are more than aware of last year’s AL MVP race between Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout and are probably tired of hearing about it at this point. The arguments between old-school (pro-Cabrera) and new-school (pro-Trout) baseball consumers became so loud and constant that it made sense for people to make WAR puns. It truly was a war, maybe the biggest one the baseball world has ever seen between traditional stat backers and traditional stat detractors.

But the most interesting part about this debate had nothing to do with those two schools of thought. The people in the middle – who had a hard time deciding which player deserved MVP the most – had the most compelling POVs.

Jim Caple wrote an excellent piece breaking down his thought process in what was an extremely difficult award to vote for. He kept going back-and-forth before eventually deciding on Trout, but he still wasn’t sure he made the right choice. Caple also thought the outrage from the louder sides of the debate was ridiculous. This was a refreshing viewpoint on an issue that felt about as refreshing as a crowded bus during a summer day in St. Louis.

Caple seemed to be struggling between the completely logical Trout side of the argument and the more traditional Cabrera side. I don’t know Caple, but I’m willing to bet he grew up constantly hearing things like “RBIs are extremely important” or “a player who gets his team to the playoffs is more valuable than one who doesn’t.” Maybe Caple’s struggles stemmed from the fact that he couldn’t let go of these ideals he grew up hearing and (likely) accepting.

This brings up one of the more interesting examples from the whole debate: Bill Simmons and his buddy JackO on the BS Report this past October.

Here’s JackO’s opinion on the MVP race:

“I think Trout is the better overall player given he can steal bases and play defense,” he said, “but I just think if a guy wins the freaking Triple Crown he’s gotta be the MVP.”

Again, someone sees the arguments from the sabermetric side but has a hard time looking past that shiny Triple Crown. In JackO’s case, he couldn’t look past the Triple Crown at all. Neither could Simmons.

(Related note: Right after JackO made that comment above, Simmons sarcastically said, "But, Johnny, runs batted in don't matter! It's an arbitrary stat!" He was making fun of the advanced stats defenders, and the way he said it sounded a lot like a jock making fun of a nerd in high school. A few minutes later in the podcast, Simmons referred to himself as a "secret stat nerd." I'm a pretty big Simmons fan, but this section of the podcast was not one of his best moments.)

JackO and Simmons made a couple of other points in favor of Cabrera: Cabrera’s team made the playoffs (without mentioning that Trout’s team won more games), and Cabrera “put the team on his back” the last three months (without crediting Trout for playing nearly as well in that span, especially when considering his defense and baserunning advantages).

The whole conversation consisted of "Trout was amazing, but..." arguments. JackO and Simmons both realized how great Trout was and understood the logic from the pro-Trout side, but old-school baseball viewpoints kept clouding their thoughts. They were like cigarette addicts, unable to get over their terrible habit because they've been smoking their whole lives. No number of studies proving their habit was bad for them could ever completely convince them to make a change.

This old way of looking at baseball will surely become endangered -- if not extinct -- in the next few generations. The fact that last year's MVP debate was so heated is actually a step forward for the sabermetric community even though "their guy" didn't win. Still, while some may want to change the opinions of every traditionally-minded person, that's just not going to happen. Hell, Simmons has talked at the Sloan Conference multiple times in the past and often refers to himself as a stat nerd, yet he still has these old-school ideals. 

Sabermetricians still have a way to go, though, as far as getting their message across. Many people still grow up watching programs like Baseball Tonight and reading old columnists who love to bash advanced stats. Although several MLB players have expressed interest in this newer way of looking at baseball, the majority of them still lean on stats created in the 19th century. They were told those older stats and ideas were meaningful, and they, too, have gone on to tell other players and fans to look at baseball that way. Until players start to accept sabermetrics, or networks stop filling 99% of their TV analyst positions with former players, baseball consumers will inevitably believe what they hear.

Not everyone decided to read Moneyball at the age of 19, or started listening to the (now-extinct) Baseball Today podcast at the same age, or had a college buddy who consumed sports in a sabermetric fashion. I'd probably laugh at a piece like this today if I didn't experience those three things. I'm no smarter than anyone else, I just benefited from good timing. People need to experience things like this at a young age if they're going to adapt. 

Sabermetrics certainly aren't perfect, and people should question them all the time, like Law said. People like me prefer them, but if someone would rather look at traditional numbers, they obviously have that right. But that doesn't mean they are right, and their constant rejection of new methods of baseball consumption is extremely close-minded and stubborn.

It's hard to blame these people too much, though, because they probably grew up hearing about the greatness of the traditional baseball viewpoints and can't imagine a world where these values are misleading or flat-out false. You might have more success convincing a devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew to question his/her religion than convincing a traditional baseball fan to embrace advanced stats.

Hopefully, generations in the near future will grow up looking at baseball through the clearest lens available to them, questioning everything they hear, whether it's "old-school" or "new-school." The further they get into adulthood, the less likely it will be for them to change their minds.

The All-Star Game's Identity Crisis

People inside and outside of baseball need to start making some decisions about the All-Star Game. What do we want it -- and the players participating in it -- to be? Someone might say it's foolish to look at an exhibition game and make it sound so meaningful, but people are even torn in this area. Is it just an exhibition game or is it more?

The fact that it determines home-field advantage in the World Series sure makes it seem like more than an exhibition game. Plus, there are managers that seem intent on winning the game like it determines a playoff spot. Look at Jim Leyland, who gave every Final Vote spot in this year's game to a reliever. More deserving players like Evan Longoria, Adrian Beltre, Josh Donaldson, and Carlos Santana won't even get a chance to get voted on in the final ballot, although can you blame Leyland for wanting more relief help? He's managing a Tigers team that has a great chance to get back to the World Series, so he has every incentive to win the All-Star Game and get the all-important home-field advantage. Bullpen depth is always key and All-Star teams go through pitchers faster than position players (playing in the field and getting a few at bats for 3+ innings would not be considered as much of an injury risk as leaving a pitcher in for that amount of time, so managers also feel more pressure to use more arms).

So, even though Leyland's Final Vote decision is ridiculous, he shouldn't be the one to blame. If the game didn't count, maybe he just goes with the more deserving position players or starting pitchers. That's Major League Baseball's fault.

In the other league, Yasiel Puig is causing a similar stir because he's played in a very small amount of games, not just for this season but for his entire career since this is his rookie year. Many people think it's ludicrous for someone with a 32-game track record to make it over someone who's played for twice as many games this season and has been in the league for years. Others think it's the All-Star game is simply a marketing event, so since Puig is such a big, exciting name, he should get a spot.

(Related note: I highly doubt Puig will draw more fans to the All-Star Game if he's voted in, given that he'll play for an inning or two at most. People aren't going to be saying, "I can't wait to hear Puig's name announced, and possibly see him make some nice defensive plays with maybe -- fingers crossed -- two at bats!" Fans will likely vote him in, which is fine. If the fans are so eager to see him, let them decide. That said, the increase in eyes he'll bring to the game will still be insignificant. People who normally don't watch the All-Star Game aren't going to be glued to their TV waiting to see Puig when they're not sure if or when he'll even get in.)

But Puig is just one extraordinary case. What about Bryce Harper, who has missed a lot of time this year in just his second big-league season? He's exciting, but does he deserve a spot over a proven veteran who's played more this year?

What about Chris Davis over Prince Fielder? On last week's "The Baseball Show with Rany and Joe," Joe Sheehan said Fielder should get the nod because he's been better for several more years than Davis. But Davis has been one of the most exciting players during the first half in which he's played much better than Fielder, so should that overrule a better track record?

The same argument could be had about whether Matt Harvey should start over proven guys like Clayton Kershaw or Adam Wainwright.

Every year, we have these debates and they seem to have been magnified this year with Puig and the relievers in the AL Final Vote. One big step towards clearing up this murky situation would be to stop making the game count. Evidence has shown that home-field advantage has a large effect on the eventual World Series champs, so it's moronic to give a team like the 90-win Wild Card Cardinals from 2011 home-field over the 96-win division champion Texas Rangers -- who played in a tougher division and league -- based on one game in which players from both teams had little-to-no impact. The Cardinals, by the way, won that Series in seven games, with the final two wins coming in front of their home crowd.

Getting rid of this home-field advantage rule would also increase the likelihood that managers would pick more exciting, deserving players as All-Stars instead of relievers who no one has ever heard of.

However, there would still be a divide between the "it's a marketing event" group and the track record group. People like Keith Law -- who's in the former group -- and Sheehan -- who's in the latter -- would probably feel just as passionate about their sides of the argument even if the home-field advantage travesty was eliminated. Managers, players, and fans would likely still feel split, as well.

There will never be an All-Star Game in any sport without people complaining about players who are undeserving or snubbed. It's part of what makes it so fun. I personally think Davis's spot as the starter is well-earned but I certainly don't ignore larger samples and better track records. The MLB All-Star Game will always have some type of identity problem, which isn't really a bad thing.

Still, there needs to be less ambiguity. The AL will have six relievers on this year's All-Star team, which is four, maybe five more than are necessary. There are several starting pitchers and position players who are more deserving.

Plus, there's still a divide between the new-school and old-school way of looking at baseball. Guys with gaudy win, save, and RBI totals (*cough* Brandon Philips *cough*) are still making it over players with much better numbers in actually meaningful statistical categories.

The first step towards eliminating some of this ridiculousness would be getting rid of the "it counts" nonsense, but the All-Star Game will still be more frustrating than it should be. The debating is fun but if people involved with baseball can start to agree on more aspects of the game, the outrage over snubs will feel more like a spousal argument over what movie to see instead of an argument about one of them cheating on the other.

The Orioles and Their Young Stars are Spitting on Regression

Chris Davis launching a three-run homer off the Yankees' David Phelps on Saturday

I feared this would happen. The Baltimore Orioles have not come back down to earth and likely won't for the rest of the season -- not much, anyway -- after vastly overachieving in 2012. I'm certainly not an Orioles hater -- I really like this team, in fact -- but after a such a fluky 2012 season, part of me wanted them to regress to the near-.500 record they should've had last year.

While people like me looked at Baltimore's 29-9 record in one-run games as an unsustainable, once-in-a-generation outlier that wasn't indicative of the team's true performance, other people pointed to the fantastic bullpen (valid argument), Buck Showalter's managerial skills (ditto), magic (oh boy) the Orioles' grit (please stop), and their "will to win" (/barfing). It wasn't as annoying as the Trout vs. Cabrera MVP debate, but it wasn't too far behind.

People were so reluctant to admit that the Orioles were lucky. Teams with winning percentages over .700 in one-run games have been as rare as, well, teams with the same winning percentages for entire seasons. There's just too much randomness involved in games of such a close margin. Sure, having a good bullpen and a smart tactical manager are major advantages going late into games, but plenty of teams have had those two things and not come close to the .763 winning percentage Baltimore had in one-run games last year.

As a sabermetric-minded baseball consumer, I wanted the "will to win" side of the argument to (hopefully) understand this fact by witnessing major regression from the 2013 Orioles. Problem is, the 2013 Orioles have continued to be good, and even if they're average the rest of the season, they still might make the playoffs. Like I expected, confirmation bias has infected the brains of many people in the "2012 wasn't a fluke!" crowd. Here's an example. And another (out-gut!). One more.

These people are like a guy who's convinced a girl is into him even though she's done everything short of saying, "I'm not interested." "But she had this look in her eyes," he says. The Orioles' record hasn't gotten worse because they've made significant improvements this year. Last year, they were an average team playing well above their heads. This year, they're simply a good team playing just about up to their ability (47-36 actual record, 44-39 Pythagorean record).

The biggest contributor, of course, is Chris Davis, who's gone from a decent hitter with power who strikes out too much to one of the best hitters in the game with all of the power who still strikes out, just not as much.

They've also seen Manny Machado make the leap. He's now one of baseball's best young hitters and an absolute phenom defensively.

J.J. Hardy, Nate McLouth, and Adam Jones have also been having solid seasons. As a whole, Baltimore's offense is 2nd in the majors in WAR and 3rd in wOBA. They're also one of the best fielding teams.

The pitching staff has actually been pretty bad so far this season, so if they improve, this team could get close to the 93-win mark. Legitimately.

Baltimore's record in one-run games right now: 12-11. They've already lost more games in one-run contests in 2013 than they did all of last year, and we just started July. So, people who screamed "regression!" before the season have actually been correct, so far, but because the Orioles have improved their talent level so much, the regression in close games hasn't cost them.

Let me reiterate, I really like this team. Davis, Machado, Jones, and Matt Wieters (if he'd ever hit) are some of my favorite players. Camden Yards is gorgeous. In fact, I didn't even hate last year's team; I just couldn't stand the narratives surrounding it.

That's why the 2013 Orioles have also been frustrating. People still don't think the 93 wins from last season were fluky, and the continued success this year has confirmed their false claims in their heads. The Orioles have been building a quality roster for years and are now experiencing the results of good draft picks, trades, and signings.

This is the first season of a prolonged run of excellent baseball in Baltimore. Not last season. It's OK to admit your team got lucky in 2012, Orioles fans. You got to enjoy a playoff team, regardless of how fortunate they were. From the looks of it, that will be one of many Baltimore playoff teams in the '10s.

Mike Trout, underrated?

I'm by no means a slave to WAR, and it's still early in the season, but check out FanGraphs's leaderboard:

1) Miguel Cabrera -- 4.4 WAR

t-2) Chris Davis -- 4.2

t-2) Carlos Gomez -- 4.2

4) Mike Trout -- 4.1

Baseball-Reference doesn't even have him in the top-10 for position players, so, again, this doesn't mean a ton, but I still find this incredible.Trout's 2013 campaign hasn't been much worse than his historic rookie season, yet he seems to be getting far less recognition.

There are plenty of logical reasons for this lack of acclaim, of course. The three guys in front of him, especially Cabrera and Davis, are having absurd seasons. Cabrera has a .456 wOBA with an absurd .361/.452/.632 slash line. Davis has been Barry Bonds without as many rubber chickens, hitting .337/.413/.720 (.468 wOBA). If Gomez took any walks, he'd basically be replicating Trout's 2012 season. 

So, Cabrera has somehow improved from the plate this season, while Davis and Gomez have come out of nowhere to put up dominant numbers. Trout has not just played below their levels, but his 2012 level, as well, so while his numbers are spectacular, they haven't stood out. 

He also plays for the Angels, who are 8 games under .500, with two highly-paid, struggling sluggers in Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton, and an ace (Jered Weaver) who has been injured for most of the season. Trout's success has been massively overshadowed by the disappointment surrounding his team, which isn't surprising given how high expectations were in Anaheim before the season.

There's also Bryce Harper, who has been Kevin Durant to Trout's LeBron after also having a fantastic rookie season. Harper came mashing out of the gate this season, causing people to focus more on the him than Trout. Like Cabrera, Harper went from great to greater, whereas Trout has been about the same. People always gravitate more towards players who take a step forward (or a step back, like Pujols) than those who stay consistently dominant. 

It's not even insulting for people to be underrating Trout's 2013 season. All of us would rather focus on someone like Davis or Harper. It's human nature. Still, the fact that Trout is having almost as good of a season this year as he did last year -- a year that very few players in MLB history have ever approached -- is just ridiculous.

He's hitting for about the same amount of power this season, and he's still running the bases exceptionally well (3rd in Ultimate Baserunning Rating), while walking more and striking out less. His UZR is only 0.5, although I wonder if his increased playing time in left field is the main reason.* I haven't watched him enough this season to know how good of a defender he's been.

*He has less ground to cover in left, which means there are less UZR-increasing plays available for him to make, especially with defensive wizard Peter Bourjos manning center field. That might not be the reason for the low numbers, though.

It's obviously way too early to tell if Trout will finish the season with numbers as good or better than last season's. His sophomore slump might occur after July. That said, it's insane that this guy hasn't stopped producing like Willie Mays in his prime. If he keeps playing this well for the rest of the season, we will have a hard time distinguishing his performance this year from last. He also might finish second in the MVP race to Cabrera again.

Can Wil Myers lift the Rays?

On Sunday, the Tampa Bay Rays called up Wil Myers. I was going to write that it was about time the weak-hitting Rays called up one of the top hitting prospects in the league, but then I looked at the team's hitting stats.

They're tied for 1st in the majors in wRC+, they're 5th in WAR, wOBA, and BB%, 7th in ISO and HRs... whatever hitting stat you look at, the Rays are in the top 10-15 in baseball. Far from weak-hitting.

In fact, when you look at their entire team, pitching is by far the biggest reason why they're in fourth place right now. It hasn't been atrocious, but it hasn't been good, especially considering their pre-season expectations.

So, will adding a bat as potentially dynamic as Myers's make much of a difference? Well, it's a complicated situ... NO, he will not make a significant impact.

The best-case scenario is that he'll provide around 5-6 wins of value. That's if he lights the world on fire, a la Trout last season, which isn't likely. 4 wins would even be a stretch. But let's say he does get close to that level. There are 24 other factors -- his teammates -- out of his control. 

Evan Longoria is on the short list for AL MVP at this point in the season, but with his health history, it's probably safer to bet that he'll miss some time and/or play hurt than it is to expect him to keep this pace up. James Loney has been one of the biggest surprises so far this season, but given that his current WAR (1.6) is almost the highest he's ever had in a single season, expect some major regression to the Loney in the second half. I'm a little more optimistic that Ben Zobrist, Matt Joyce, Kelly Johnson, and Desmond Jennings will either continue hitting or get better, but they're probably 3-win players, at best, when it's all said and done.

Jennings might actually be a good comp for Myers. Jennings was also a top outfield prospect for the Rays, and he had a very nice rookie season in 2011, netting 2.3 WAR in just 287 plate appearances. Myers will likely play more than that, so if he can approach Jennings's .259/.358/.449 line over these next four months, he'll be an upgrade over anyone besides Longoria.

But that won't make a difference if his teammates regress like I mentioned above. Sure, if he's worth 2-4 wins more than the guy he replaces, he might be the difference between a playoff team and a team that just misses, but that would have to coincide with sustained success from his fellow batters and huge improvement from the pitching staff. The division is too good for them to be average or worse in one of those areas.

Then, there's the very realistic chance that Myers barely produces. None of us know if he'll make any impact in the big leagues, much less an immediate impact. 

Like I said, if he plays anywhere near his potential, the Rays might get the extra boost they need to win a close division or wild card race. But he's not going to turn the current 36-33 team into a juggernaut all by himself. The Rays are going to need every pitcher not named Alex Cobb or Joel Peralta to improve and improve dramatically. The other hitters have to keep up their success, as well. As we saw with Trout last year, even a historically good season by a player on a good team doesn't guarantee a postseason appearance.

R.A. Dickey trade a good deal for both teams

Earlier today, the Toronto Blue Jays agreed on a contract extension of two years and $25 million for R.A. Dickey. In order for Dickey to be traded to the Blue Jays, Toronto needed to agree to extend his contract, something he had requested from the Mets many times during this off-season.

The entire trade goes like this: Dickey and catchers Josh Thole and Mike Nickeas will go to the Jays in exchange for catcher John Buck, minor-league outfielder Wuilmer Becerra, pitching prospect Noah Syndergaard, and elite catching prospect Travis d'Arnaud. 

Some people are comparing this trade to the one the Royals and Rays made last week, but I don't think this is nearly as one-sided. On the surface, this trade does seem similar because one of the best hitting prospects in the game (d'Arnaud) and a solid pitching prospect (Syndergaard) are being traded for an above-average major league pitcher (Dickey)*. The big difference is that the Blue Jays are much closer to contention than the Royals.

*Thole and Buck are basically the same player, so they cancel out, in my mind, like Wade Davis and the Royals' non-Will Myers prospects that were sent to Tampa Bay in last week's big trade.

Unlike the Royals, who still have many holes in their roster even with the acquisition of James Shields, the Blue Jays have an playoff-looking team on paper. We all remember the blockbuster trade Toronto made with the Marlins about a month ago, acquiring Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, Mark Buehrle, Emilio Bonifacio, and the trade-magnet John Buck. Reyes, Johnson, and Buehrle could be worth a combined 10 WAR next season if they stay healthy and perform like they have in the past. Even if these three don't perform up to that level, they should still be an upgrade from what the Blue Jays had in those spots last year.

Toronto should also expect some improvement from several of the players on their roster last season. Jose Bautista only played 92 games last year due to injury. Brandon Morrow also missed a bunch time because he was hurt. Ricky Romero went from a +3 to +4 win pitcher his first three seasons to barely above replacement level last season. Brett Lawrie, Colby Rasmus, and J.P. Arencibia are all young and talented but were average to below-average last season. This team probably would have won around 80 games had they merely avoided those major injuries to Bautista and Morrow (among many other players who suffered injuries last season). Better years from Romero and those three young position players might have propelled them into playoff contention.

If these key players can stay healthy and perform better than they did last year – along with significant contributions from their new acquisitions – this team could be scary in 2013. In fact, Toronto looked like a fringe contender even before this trade for Dickey was finalized. Given all the pieces the Blue Jays had, they could have realistically said that they were one or two players away from being a legitimate playoff contender.
                                                                                                              
This is why I’m fine with this trade from Toronto’s side. They have a very real shot at making the playoffs this year, unlike the Royals who will need a ton of things to go right in order to contend. Sure, giving up d’Arnaud and Syndergaard (Toronto's #1 and #3 prospects, respectively, according to Baseball America) is a steep price to pay but those players most likely wouldn’t have made the impact in 2013 that Dickey will.

Dickey, by the way, has been an excellent pitcher for three straight seasons , not just 2012. He is fairly old (38) but he’s also a knuckleball pitcher, and knuckleballers have proven to be both durable and effective well into their forties (as guys like Tim Wakefield and Phil Niekro have shown). Dickey’s a pretty safe bet to continue to be a good pitcher.

The Mets, meanwhile, made a very smart move given the state of their franchise. Giving up a fan-favorite who just won the Cy Young Award is not an easy decision but given the prospects the Jays offered in exchange for Dickey, it was a no-brainer.

The Mets finished fourth in the NL East last season while getting a Cy Young-winning season out of Dickey and an MVP-caliber season out of David Wright. This shows the lack of depth the Mets had among the rest of their roster, and I’m sure the front office took this into account when they decided to shop Dickey instead of giving him an extension. The Mets knew their team wasn’t on the verge of World Series contention and decided to try to build up their farm system.

They have some very talented young players, too. 23 year-old pitcher Matt Harvey was excellent in the 59.1 innings he threw for the Mets last year after his mid-season call-up and looks like a potential top-of-the-rotation starting pitcher. Zach Wheeler (22 years old) is one of the best pitching prospects in baseball and will probably see the big leagues in 2013. Ruben Tejada (23) is a promising young shortstop and first baseman Ike Davis (25) – who does strike out a lot – is a very powerful hitter who can get on base. Now with d’Arnaud (23) and Syndergaard (20), the Mets have a promising core of young players to go along with their superstar, Wright (who’s only 29).

The Mets are getting the better end of the deal just because d’Arnaud and Syndergaard are such promising prospects, but the Blue Jays certainly didn’t get robbed. Even if Dickey massively disappoints, Toronto should still be happy they made this trade. Playoffs are not an unreasonable expectation and Dickey was one of the more risk-free players on the market. If you’re going to go all in for one or two seasons, this is the way to do it.

Josh Hamilton signs with Los Angeles' second-richest team

Josh Hamilton signed a 5-year, $125 million deal with the Los Angeles Angels earlier today. This not only has important implications for the Angels (who lost Zach Greinke to the Dodgers a few days ago)but also on their division rivals, the Texas Rangers. Hamilton was one of the Rangers' best hitters last year and he'll now be contributing to a team Texas will almost certainly be battling with for the division title or a Wild Card spot next season.

Overall, I like this move by the Angels. Maybe it's because we saw two 10-year, $200+ million contracts get dished out last year (one of them by the Angels), but this and the Greinke deal seem very reasonable.

The main thing I like with this Hamilton contract is the length of the deal. Hamilton will be 37 by the end of this contract, which will definitely be past his prime but not so late in career that we should expect him to be at or below replacement level. Will he be the 4+ win player we've seen him be every full season he's had so far in his career? Probably not, but if I'm the Angels, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make as long as he provides a very productive first two to three years of the contract.

Even if he completely falls off the cliff, this won't be like the Alex Rodriguez contract with seemingly no end in sight.

Hamilton also fills a need. Torii Hunter left the Angels for the Tigers earlier in the off-season, leaving the Angels with some less-than-ideal options for two of the three outfield positions.

Currently, the Angels' depth chart has Mike Trout in left field, Peter Bourjos in center, and Mark Trumbo moving from third base to right field. Trout would be in center on almost any other MLB team but Bourjos is maybe the only player in the majors who's better defensively in center than Trout. The problem is, Bourjos is not a very good hitter, so he'd be giving back a lot of his defensive value with his poor hitting and on-base skills.

Trumbo is the opposite of Bourjos, a very powerful (albeit impatient and inconsistent) hitter who is not good defensively. Moving him from third base to right or left field wouldn't mask his defensive deficiencies.

The switch-hitting Alberto Callaspo is not a bad hitter and is better suited to play third base than Trumbo, although the Angels would probably rather platoon him with Trumbo at third and Howard Kendrick at second than play him at third every day.

Vernon Wells is also an option to start in one of the corner outfield spots, but the Angels don't want to get into a situation where Vernon Wells starts in one of the corner outfield sports. He's Vernon Wells.

So Hamilton makes everything look much less troublesome for manager Mike Scioscia. It's still not going to be easy for him to decide what to do with Bourjos, Trumbo, and Callaspo, but this is a good problem to have. An outfield with Trout, Hamilton, and Trumbo would be fearsome offensively, although pretty average defensively. The same outfield with Bourjos instead of Trumbo would still be good offensively and elite defensively. Scioscia can't really go wrong.

And I haven't even mentioned how good Hamilton is, yet. His worst OPS in any of the last three seasons was .882 (in 2011) and his 2010 MVP season was incredible. He doesn't walk a ton and he strikes out a lot (career 19.7% strikeout rate), but he hits dingers. Lots and lots of them.

Now, he is going from one of the best home ballparks for hitters in the AL to one of the worst, so he probably won't hit as many home runs in LA but that doesn't mean he'll only hit 20. Prince Fielder went from a good hitters' ballpark to a bad one last year and still hit 30 homers. Adrian Gonzalez hit 30-40 dingers basically every year he played in San Diego. Poor hitters' ballparks don't always mean that certain players won't hit a bunch of home runs.

This isn't a cheap deal, by any means, but the Angels are getting an excellent hitter for what looks to be the rest of his most productive years. Hamilton's contract is half as big as the one Pujols signed last year, so if Hamilton does stop performing, the Angels won't be stuck paying him for a ridiculous amount of time.

The key factor is injuries. If Hamilton misses huge chunks of the next five seasons, this deal will look horrendous, but if he can avoid the big injuries and play at least 120 games per year, the Angels will be glad they signed him.

Youkilis signs a one-year deal with the Yankees

Yesterday, former Red Sox and White Sox third baseman Kevin Youkilis made a verbal agreement to join the New York Yankees on a one-year, $12 million deal. The Greek God of Walks is coming off by far his worst season in the majors, hitting .235/.336/.409 with 1.3 WAR.

Some may think Youkilis is done being the productive player he was in his prime years in Boston but I expect him to have a rebound season in 2013, although I think his numbers will look more like his 2011 stats (.258/.373/.459, 3.7 WAR) than his they did in his 2008-2009 seasons.

Youkilis has played six full seasons in his career (I'm including his injury-shortened 2010 season), and the lowest WAR he had in the five years before 2012 was 2.6 in 2006, which was still a very good season from the plate. For a player who isn't too old (33 right now), last season seems much more like a fluke than a sign of progressing regression. I feel much more confident projecting Youkilis based off of five previous good seasons than one bad one.

Youkilis will probably never again perform like he did in 2008-2009, but if the Yankees get close to the 2011 version of Youkilis, this deal is a theft. However, even if Youkilis performs like he did last year, this is still a good deal by the Yanks.

Before signing Youkilis, the only third baseman on the Yankees' roster was Alex Rodriguez, who is going to be out 4-6 months after he gets hip surgery in January. Eric Chavez was a solid fill-in for A-Rod when he was hurt/slumping last season, but Chavez signed with Arizona about a week ago. So Youkilis is not only a historically good player, he also fills a huge need in the Yankees' roster.

His defense at third base has been declining the last few seasons but A-Rod hasn't been a Gold Glover at the hot corner, either, and as we saw with the Tigers this past season, a terrible defender at third base doesn't always kill a team.

Youkilis had a bad offensive season in 2012 but he still did the two most important things a hitter can do (at a reasonably high level): got on base and hit home runs. His OBP was .101 points higher than his batting average at an above league average .336 and he hit 19 home runs combined between his time with both Sox teams. He's always going to draw walks (hence is nickname), which is always a valuable commodity for a team.

All Youkilis has to do is be decent during A-Rod's absence. The Yankees have a very good lineup regardless of who plays at third base, so as long as he's not terrible, he'll provide value.

Also, one year deals are always good investments. This is more true of a team who doesn't have loads of money like the Yankees, but the same principle applies to rich teams. Regardless of how Youkilis performs, the Yankees won't regret signing him.

The Royals traded potential long-term greatness for a short-term chance to win 80 games

A few weeks ago, Dave Cameron from FanGraphs wrote an article about the Royals possibly trading super-prospect Wil Myers for pitching help. Cameron argued that making such a trade would fill the large hole in the Royals' weak pitching rotation but would only give them another significant hole in an outfield where Jeff Francoeur played 148 games and had 603 plate appearances last season.

I couldn't have agreed more with that article, as you can see from a little comment I made in this blog's first post written a couple of days ago.

Well, the Royals obviously don't care what Cameron or I think, trading Myers, another top prospect in Jake Odorizzi, and two other prospects for James Shields and Wade Davis.

The issues I have with this deal aren't with who Kansas City got in return. Shields has been one of the most consistent pitchers since his first full season in 2007, pitching 200+ innings each season and being worth 3.7 Wins Above Replacement every year other than 2010. His strikeouts per 9 innings have significantly increased since his first few years and his xFIP has almost consistently gotten better each season. Shields is practically a lock to pitch 200+ innings and be worth 3-4 wins for the Royals in 2013.

Davis was a mediocre starting pitcher with the Rays in his two full seasons in 2010 and 2011, but he was very good in the 70.1 innings he pitched out of the bullpen last year, so he can provide some value for the Royals. Plus, he's only 27 years old.

These two players were worth about 5 WAR last season, which is very good value, but Myers is one of those players who many expect to be worth more than 5 WAR every season for many seasons to come. He's that good. Keith Law had him 13th on his Top 100 Prospects list going into last season but only four of the players in front of him didn't end up going to the big leagues last year. He's hit at every minor league level he's been to, for both average and power. He's not a prospect that comes around very often.

But even Myers' huge potential isn't the main problem with this deal for Kansas City. The problem is that the Royals were a bad team last year on basically every level. Sure, their hitting wasn't awful, but of the major holes in their lineup, center and right field were the Chicxulub and Sudbury craters*. Myers is an outfielder who could have a massively disappointing rookie year and still be more valuable than Francoeur or Lorenzo Cain.

*Full disclosure: I Googled "largest craters on Earth" before writing that sentence.

This brings me back to the main point of Cameron's article: picking up a solid pitcher or pitchers (Shields and Davis) while giving up a good outfielder (Myers) fills one important hole while leaving another one wide open. The Royals weren't a pitcher away from contending last year; they were an entire starting pitching rotation and multiple hitters away from contending. Picking up one and a half good pitchers is not going to turn them into a juggernaut, even if players like Eric Hosmer start playing up to their potential.

Royals defenders might say that they'd rather have Shields because he is much more reliable than some player who has never seen a major league pitch, which is sort of fair because Myers might end up being a bust. Although, by that same logic, the New Orleans Hornets should have traded Anthony Davis for Rajon Rondo before the season because they needed a point guard. Young players are unpredictable but when you have a special talent like Myers, the potential is too good to pass up.

They're also a small-market team. The Royals probably can't afford to keep Shields past 2014 (he has a club option in 2014) but Myers would have been theirs for at least six years. They'd be saving money and very likely be getting more per-year and long-term value out of Myers than of Shields.

And through all of this attention to the Royals, the Rays continue to smartly build their franchise. They now don't have to worry about spending a bunch of money on Shields or letting him walk without getting anything in return.

If you're wondering why the Rays have been one of the best franchises over the past five years and why the Royals have been among the worst, just look at trades like this. The team that should be rebuilding went for a short-term solution that probably won't even get them into the playoffs, whereas the perennial 90-win team got a little worse (theoretically, at least) this season in order to save some money and be very good for many years to come.