November 29, 2006

Manny And Protection

[Please vote. (See #13)]

Peter Gammons says the White Sox are also interested in Manny Ramirez, in addition to the Giants, Padres and Dodgers. Jeff Goldberg of the Hartford Courant passes this along:
The White Sox are reportedly attempting to trade for Angels starter Ervin Santana, who could then be flipped to Boston, perhaps with 23-year-old righthander Brandon McCarthy, for Ramirez.
Michael Silverman (Herald):
According to multiple sources, the Red Sox are close to a satisfactory deal for Ramirez but still have not concocted one good enough to justify trading away David Ortiz' primary source of lineup protection. Talks with the Angels, Rangers, Dodgers, Padres, Giants and possibly the White Sox have been productive but no team, or pair of teams, has yet come up with the proper mix of young and proven talent that the Red Sox could live with.
The Globe hints there are "strong indications" that the Sox would pay at least a portion of Ramirez's salary. (Well, if they trade him, they sure ain't gonna pay all of it.) ... Jonathan Papelbon wants Manny to stay.

Speaking of "protection", a SoSH lurker named "Laschelle Tarver" looked at the numbers for Ortiz since 2003 without Manny in the lineup. He found that Ortiz played in 55 games in which Manny did not have an AB. The Sox went 33-22 (.600) in those games.

In 186 AB, Tiz hit .301 and slugged .624 with 17 HR. Over a 162-game season, that projects to 50 HR with 133 RBI with 133 walks. ... In 2006, he slugged .636 with 54 HR, 137 RBI and 119 BB.

SoSHer "Crazy Puppy" adds that
Ortiz hit behind Manny for all of 2003, a good chunk of 2004 (including the playoffs), the first few months of 2005 and most of September 2006. Ortiz put up a .983 OPS hitting behind Manny in 2003, a .958 OPS during the part of 2004 that he hit behind Manny, a .960 OPS when he was behind Manny in 2005 and an OPS over 1.200 in September of '06.

I'm not suggesting the loss of Ramirez will have no effect on Ortiz, but the impact is dramatically overstated by a lot of people. Plenty of hitters put up terrific numbers without having Manny Ramirez batting behind them, and Ortiz is one of them.
Also, Gordon Edes writes that the Red Sox
are nearing the completion of a deal with J.D. Drew that would pay the free agent outfielder $14 million a year for a total package of around $70 million if he stays with Boston for a full five seasons.


Jack Marshall said...

Thank you, Redsock, for taking the time to track down those Ortiz splits. (I expect no less from the best damn sports blog in Canada!) I hadn't seen them, but they come as no surprise, obviously. Every time the protection issue has been checked against the figures, the results show essentially the same thing. It may be that Barry Bonds is an exception, but 1) the decision of NL managers to walk Bonds as much as they do is more chicken-shit than strategy, and 2) it doesn't seem to matter who bats behind Bonds...they still walk him.

Anyway, great work, and not just because it backed me up.

Woti-woti said...

Jack, I think you pointed out earlier that having guys on base when Ortiz and Manny come up is the best 'protection'. Pitchers then have to be around the strike zone. Makes the 1,2 and 8,9 guys all the more important. As much as I loved AGon's fielding, there's no hiding his rally-killing .299 OBP and league-worst RISP. But he wasn't alone. Remarkable how the 1-9 pitcher-killing lineup of 03/04 and most of 05 turned into Swiss cheese. Would be nice if after it's all said and done that the Sox return to a 'keep-the-line-moving' crew.

redsock said...

And in the MVP post, I wrote about how well Manny hit last year with complete dreck in the 5-hole.

The only time protection might matter -- like bunting -- is in specific in-game situations.

(I'm assuming those Crazy Puppy numbers are correct.)

redsock said...

Remarkable how the 1-9 pitcher-killing lineup of 03/04 and most of 05 turned into Swiss cheese.

Injuries had a lot to do with that, especially in 2006.

In 2006, Ortiz batted with 485 men on base, 9th most in MLB. The next Sox on the MLB list are Lowell (19th, 449), Loretta (25th, 443), Ramirez (56th, 406) and Youkilis (58th, 405).

If Yook and Loretta came up with so many guys on base, maybe our 8-9 guys weren't so bad. (Yook batted all over the place though.)

AL ranking: Ortiz 4th, Lowell 11th, Loretta 16th, Ramirez 33rd, Youkilis 34th.

(Who batted with the most ROB last year? Good ole Slappy McBluelips, with 534, followed by Ryan Howard at 509.)

Also, the three consecutive 900+ run seasons were nearly unprecedented in baseball history, so we shouldn't expect that too much of the time.

9casey said...

5 years for JD Drew when did the five year contract come into Theo's vocab.

I am going to have a hard time rooting for this chump.......

if you are going to trade Manny to the white sox can we at least ask for Dye.........Jesus Christ we are going to give away a hall of famer..

9casey said...

I just vomitted in my mouth.............

while watching sportscenter Steve Phillips said the red sox are interested in Bonds.....

Woti-woti said...

I hear you Redsock, but aren't you looking at a counting stat, which is directly related to total AB's? Ideally, what is needed is the % of AB's a guy came up with runners on, where he was hitting in the lineup (And what he did with them. And close and late .....)

Zenslinger said...

I wouldn't worry about Bonds -- why would we be interested in him when we have the DH Extraordinaire on our team?

If it somehow happened, it would compromise my Redsox fandom -- and that's saying something.

L-girl said...

I hear you Redsock, but aren't you looking at a counting stat, which is directly related to total AB's? Ideally, what is needed is the % of AB's a guy came up with runners on, where he was hitting in the lineup

I thought the same thing.

On a separate note, damn, would I ever love for the Sox to show real interest in Bonds, just because it would piss off so many fans, including a large percentage of Joy Nation. (And our esteemed host, don't tell me you haven't had the same thought!)

I can't imagine that they would really want him, but it would be too sweet.

redsock said...

I posted the AB with ROB to show that our big guns -- or at least most of the guys near the top of the order -- did come up with the most guys on base.

Ideally, what is needed is the % of AB's a guy came up with runners on, where he was hitting in the lineup (And what he did with them. And close and late .....)

I covered some of that in the MVP post. I know I can get # of guys on each base, I'll see if I can find % of PA with ROB.

I'd love Bonds in Boston. L-U-V.

Jack Marshall said...

If Bonds comes to Boston, I'm joining an Alex Rodriguez fan club and moving my business to Manhattan.

I'd rather see Manny Ramirez traded for Craig Counsel and a piece of swiss cheese. I'd rather see Jason Johnson in the pitching rotation and Rudy Seanez make a comeback.I'd rather see Fenway Franks replaced by Deep Fried Tofu Krispies. I'd rather see them tear down the wall and import left field from Riverfront Stadium, install Astroturf and an exploding scroeboard. I'd rather have them replace "Sweet Caroline" with "The Pina Colada Song."

I'd rather see David Wells in a nude fold-out, have dinner with Ann Coulter and dessert with Howard Dean. I'd rather chew up and swallow my feet the next time I insert them in my mouth.

You guys have a real sadistic streak that I hadn't detected before. It ain't pretty. You're lucky I already voted today.

redsock said...

Hmmmm, I'm sensing you're not a big Bonds supporter.

L-girl said...

Oh baby, this kind of fun is just too easy. All that's needed is a mention of Bonds possibly coming to Boston.

You guys have a real sadistic streak that I hadn't detected before. It ain't pretty. You're lucky I already voted today.

LOL, very good Jack, and very true. But don't hold my sadism against Allan, this blog is solely his. I'm only a guest, just like you.

I would say Jack Marshall and others must have a masochistic streak if you'd rather have a team without Barry Bonds than with him. I wonder who else you'd (theoretically) pass up. Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? Madly immoral, those two.

Meanwhile, I'm still gaggin over that David Wells centerfold image. And you think I'm a sadist!

Woti-woti said...

Yep, Bonds in Boston. I can see it. Late innings, Sox at bat, camera shows Bonds and Schilling, standing side by side, leaning on the dugout railing, watching the action, Schilling yap, yap, yapping in Bonds ear. Bonds with that look. Bonds turns and says, "Jesus, Schilling, don't you ever shut up?"
Yes, it would be lovely, plus he'd take all the media heat off Nancy.

Jack Marshall said...

Immorality I don't care about as far as off the field conduct goes. I'd even accept putting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame as a player, because his gambling offense occured after he retired.Badasses who play great ball? Fine with me, until their lousy conduct starts influencing kids. Babe Ruth didn't advertise his catting around. Nobody became a racist because of Ty Cobb...not even his own family. I went to school with Ty Cobb III, and a better guy you couldn't find. He's even a Red Sox fan.

Barry Bonds is going to be indicted, for perjury if nothing else. Bet on it. He's a baseball criminal and proud of it, and I will be thrilled if he, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro and anyone else we find out about never see the inside of the Hall of Fame without a ticket.

But we know he's never coming to the Sox, so it's not worth sniping over.

redsock said...

I'd rather see Wells nude than have dinner with Coulter.

I'd rather see a nude Wells eating than listen to one minute of Coulter.


Rose was placing bets while managing, wasn't he?

redsock said...

The sheer entertainment value of Bonds in Boston boggles the mind.

Bonds vs the CHB?


Jack Marshall said...

Let me clarify on Pete. I wouldn't vote for him, period. But if he had never managed, he'd be in; I can see the logic of those who want to partition Pete the player, who was clean, and Pete the manager, who broke baseball's first commandment. I don't agree with it, but it's a defensible position.

I don't find any of the rationalizations put forward for Bonds to be defensible, logical or persuasive.

redsock said...

If Bonds had decided to retire instead of starting to juice, he'd still be a sure-fire Hall of Famer.

Sean O said...

Bonds is one of the top 3 hitters of all time. nuf ced. Put him in the hall.

Jack Marshall said...

And Re Coulter vs. Wells' fold-out... One would render me deaf, the other blind. It's a tough call.

I certainly agree on non-bulked Bonds as HOF material, no question (unlike Sosa and McGwire, to name two). But you can't put just one-half of a player's playing career in the Hall of Fame. If you could, Shoeless Joe would be in too.

Woti-woti said...

Could we have a poll on what influences teen-age boys, please? I want to know if more of them bulk up because they think it will make them better at sports, or because it might make getting laid easier. Just askin'.

L-girl said...

Oh right, I forgot Jack is all about the role model angle.

I feel the doping epidemic is a function of a hypercompetitive society that values winning at any cost, and the images of bulked-up men that surround young athletes (much like their female counterparts are surrounded by images that encourage eating disorders).

Jack blames Barry Bonds.

Please note, this is not sarcasm!

Also please note, Babe Ruth had no choice about what he advertised or didn't. In those days the press kept his secrets for him.

L-girl said...

Woti makes a good point.

Also, my comment above assumes that there is a doping epidemic. I don't know that there is. It could be more of the usual anti-drug hysteria. Just say no, blah blah blah.

Jack Marshall said...

L-Girl: Same with JFK. The effect and consequences of one's conduct varies with the conditions that exist at the time, and one cannot justify current misconduct because conditions no longer in effect allowed others to get away with it.

Slavery once was legal, you know. Today it gets you thrown in jail, and deservedly so. The "But Thomas Jefferson did it and he's on Mount Rushmore!" defense is NOT a winner, and neither is "But Ty Cobb was scum too!"


Not sarcasm; distortion by over-simplification. No one person is responsible or "to blame"; the Beatles didn't cause teenage drug use in the 60's, but as role models and idols, they contributed to the problem, and have admitted as much, in their solemn middle-age. Bonds is part of a big societal problem that you accurately diagnose. But he IS part of the problem.

L-girl said...

the Beatles didn't cause teenage drug use in the 60's, but as role models and idols, they contributed to the problem, and have admitted as much, in their solemn middle-age.

This just goes to why you and I can't discuss these things, Jack. I don't think there's anything wrong with most teenage drug use; it is often a positive part of growing up. What a few middle-age men say once they're past that stage doesn't mean much to me.

Having spent a lot of time with teenagers in my adult life, I've concluded that role models mean very little to them. Younger kids may seek adult role models, but teens are generally only interested in their peer group. Their adult models are usually ones who reinforce the values of the peer group.

All that aside, my criteria for ballplayers is only the work they do in baseball. Period. Until every thing everyone does is laid bare for us all to see - players, fans and members of the media - and that's a world I don't want to live in - I won't judge anyone's ethics.

L-girl said...

Not sarcasm; distortion by over-simplification.

Not that either, by the way. I thought in an earlier discussion about Bonds and steroid use, you actually did blame Bonds for a supposed epidemic of doping among youth. Perhaps I misremember it, my memory does suck.

Jack Marshall said...

Woti: Simple logic would dictate that a high profile athlete who gets famous and rich with a hardy assist from performance enhancing substances will encourage young athletes to try a similar course of action. And the getting laid part is not unconnected to this.

In the 40s and 50s the he-man movie stars hardly ever showed any muscle; neither did most of the jocks. Guys didn't think you needed muscles to get laid, any more than girls thought they needed Double-Ds.You think teenaged girls today get the idea that they need breast enhancement without being influenced by Jessica Simpson, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears?

Role models and celebrities are very powerful in shaping attitudes and culture. I'd be surprised if there are any reputable psychologists or culture scholars who dispute that. It means that those in role model positions have an obligation to be responsible and accountable. To some extent, that's what many of them are paid for.

Jack Marshall said...

L-Girl: That memory problem comes from all that drug use....

Just for the record, THIS middle-aged man had exactly the same attitude toward drug use when he WAS that age, in an envoronment (Harvard campus, 1968-72) where just about everyone I knew agreed with you. After having three good friends severely and permanently injure themselves using "recreational" drugs and two drug-related suicides in my immediate family, my views on the topic have not changed.

But I'm always interested in contrary opinions, even from non-middle aged men...and even though they are 100% wrong.

Proposed New Rule!
If the only way one can discusss the merits of a player is by also debating the validity of illegal drug use, he probably doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

L-girl said...

That memory problem comes from all that drug use....

Could be. Or early-onset Alzheimer's, also in my family. Either way, I have no regrets. :-)

For the record, I am also middle-aged, and my life is as peppered with loss as befits my age. However, I maintain my open attitude towards teenage experimentation. Most kids who use some drugs don't grow up to be addicts, just like most adults who consume alcohol are not alcoholics.

By the way, there were Double-D role models for girls as far back as Jayne Mansfield and Rosalind Russell. The wafer-thin models concern me more than the implanted ones. You need money to get implants. You only need a wooden spoon and a toilet to starve yourself.

Propsed New Rule!
The Baseball Hall of Fame be about baseball!

What a concept.

L-girl said...

Role models and celebrities are very powerful in shaping attitudes and culture. I'd be surprised if there are any reputable psychologists or culture scholars who dispute that.

It's part of that thing called "common knowledge". Whether or not there's any evidence for it, whether or not it's true, is another story.

I think it's more likely that celebrities - who is annoited for fame - is a product of culture than the other way around.

Jack Marshall said...

L-Girl: You meant Jane Russell, of course. But she was no DD, until SHE hit 50. Jayne, on the other hand, was widely regarded as a the good sense of the word, but still.

I like your rule. But it doesn't let McGwire or Bonds off the hook.

(JUST got off the phone with a Hall of Fame voter who wanted my professional opinion about whether he should vote for McGwire! Guess what I told him...)

Woti-woti said...

Jack, I don't discount the influence of role models, but simple logic tells me that a kid is more likely to be directly influenced by what the kid sitting beside him is doing. Plus whatever attitude the kid has towards parental and authority pressure. I'm not convinced that a totally squeaky-clean pro athlete environment would negate the other peer and environmental pressures (plus the biological urges that need attention).

Jack Marshall said...

Woti-Woti: Absolutely true. I have no disgreement with that at all.

L-girl said...

Jane Russell, yes. But whoever you name, there were busty influences in earlier eras.

But these days, Marilyn Monroe would be considered a fat slob and made to drop at least 50 lbs. I see that as a very sad trend, much more damaging than the proliferation of implants - although both are symptoms of the same disease.

Woti, well said. Jack, please note that Woti re-stated and expanded on what I said earlier re adult role models and the peer group. Perhaps I didn't explain it fully enough.

Jack Marshall said...

L-girl: Only because that expansion included his key introduction, "I don't discount the influence of role models." If you endorse that, why then I agree with you too.

That statement about Marilyn is oft repeated, but it just isn't true. I've seen HER fold-out, and she was no David Wells, believe me. But your observations about women and weight are very astute...and that situation is also very role model driven.

L-girl said...

That statement about Marilyn is oft repeated, but it just isn't true.

Jack, I truly had no idea it was ever repeated, never mind oft-repeated. Not that I imagined I had a wholly original thought, but I've never heard anyone else say it.

I'm quite familiar with what Marilyn Monroe looked like. (You'll have to trust me on that one.) She could never get a job in today's modeling industry. One needn't be Boomeresque to be considered zaftig in that biz.

I don't completely discount the influence of role models. I just think you and others over-rate their influence. That opinion is based on extensive personal contact with teenagers, rather than reports about them. I do think the role models kids choose reflect the values of their peer group, and not the other way around.

Enough of this. Enough for me, anyway.