Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Ed Eagle on Bay for ROY

MLB.com has dual (duel) articles posted here that deal with the Jason Bay/Khalil Greene ROY debate. The only thing I'll say about this contrived 'debate' is that it's obvious who should be ROY to anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of the way our decimal number system works. While I won't say anything more about who should be ROY, I did want to comment on some of the things said about Bay.

Offensively, Bay has no peers in his class. Despite missing the first month of the season while recovering from shoulder surgery, Bay leads all Major League rookies in home runs (24), RBIs (75), slugging percentage (.576) and OPS (.946). He's also ranked third in batting average (.294) and second in on-base percentage (.370).

Comparing Bay to this year's crop of first-year players really doesn't do him justice. Bay has quietly -- apparently too quietly, considering the amount of national exposure he has received -- put together a season that few rookies have ever matched at the plate.

True 'dat. Those are some amazing numbers for a rookie. Eagle goes on to point out that Bay's current slugging percentage would place 3rd all time among rookies. That's remarkable! However, Eagle misses an obvious matter. The reason Bay is not getting alot of attention, even from the local Pittsburgh media, is that he is an 'old' rookie having turned 26 yesterday.

Studies have concluded that the average major league player peaks around age 27. This obviously doesn't hold true for all players, but it's reasonable to conclude that when a player reaches the age of 27, he is about as good as he is going to get. Therefore, having already turned 26, how much improvement can we project onto Bay? It's hard to tell, but we can take a guess.

Clearly some players peak in their 30's. If Bay is one of those players, perhaps we can expect him to build on his power numbers slightly for the next couple of years, improve his walk rate, and cut down on his strike outs. However, being 26, it's highly unlikely that he will make that jump to the next level of performance. Frankly, he probably only has room for a marginal improvement rather than a 'leap' that you so often see with younger players. On the plus side, Bay is already an excellent player, so we can gladly pencil his name into the Buc's lineup for the next few years.

Later in the article, Eagle shoots himself in the foot a bit, talking about defense:

Overall, Bay's defensive numbers stack up with just about any outfielder in the National League, rookie or otherwise. His .990 fielding percentage is good for eighth in the league. Because he has the speed to play center field, and may switch to that position someday, Bay easily patrols the spacious PNC Park left-field expanse.
...
First off, as I mentioned earlier, who you play for doesn't matter when it comes to the Rookie of the Year Award. This isn't like the Most Valuable Player Award, where a player with lesser stats gets extra credit points for helping his team to earn a playoff bid. To reiterate, The Rookie of the Year Award is presented each year to the player who has the best season at the plate, in the field or on the mound during their first year of eligibility.

Secondly, Greene, while certainly a solid defender, hasn't exactly been Ozzie Smith in the field this season. His .965 fielding percentage ranks 10th among NL shortstops, and only Rafael Furcal and Kaz Matsui have committed more errors at the position.

There is so much wrong with Eagle's analysis that I barely know where to start. First, even small children who play the game know that fielding percentage is probably the most misleading statistic in the game. Granted, defensive metrics are not well understood by the casual baseball fan, but someone who makes a living writing about baseball should at least understand that fielding percentage is pretty much meaningless when comparing players who play the same position. Eagle compounds his error by using the metric to compare players from different positions!!

Next, Eagle says that the ROY is different from the MVP because voting should be judged strictly on the performance of the player, independent of the context of his team. I agree that it should be judged that way, but since when is the MVP supposed to be judged in team/division context? It's supposed to be awarded to the player judged most valuable to his team. It's that kind of assinine thinking that convinces people to say that 'If the Giants make the playoffs, Barry Bonds gets my MVP vote, otherwise it's Albert Pujols.'

In the final analysis, the ROY is not about who will probably end up being the better player in the long run nor is it about who played for a contending team. It's strictly a question of what rookie had the best season. Clearly, its Jason Bay.

posted by bkopec @ 11:35 AM   3 comments