Jeter, Rose, Rodriguez & Record Projections

The question of whether or not Derek Jeter will pass Pete Rose's all-time hit mark is not a new one. From what I can find on these here internets, Rob Neyer addressed the possibility in a mailbag back in 2006 as Jeter was approaching 2,000 hits and was, like he is now, slightly outpacing Rose based on seasonal age and number of hits accumulated. It came up again in 2008 as he neared 2,500 hits and probably a few times in between.

Since then, essentially nothing has changed except the people who bring up the question - usually not bloggers but relative outsiders who haven't heard it discussed ad nasuem already. Back in that 2006 Neyer mailbag it was a reader named Yehuda Hyman and yesterday it was the pinch hitter at LoHud named Lucas Vanderwarker. Lucas's post got picked up over at Baseball Think Factory and Neyer got in on the action again, adding some new relevant assumptions to the equation:

Now, let's think about how Derek Jeter's career is likely to play out. One, everyone seems to think that Jeter will retire as a Yankee; that they'll do anything keep him around and that he won't be interested in playing elsewhere. Two, he's a shortstop. There's essentially no such thing as a 42-year-old shortstop. Three, the Yankees have Mark Teixeira under contract through 2016, when Jeter will be 42. They've also got Alex Rodriguez under contract through 2017, when Jeter will be 43.

David Pinto also chimed in, offering up Robin Yount as a comparable who, as a 35 year old was over 100 hits ahead of Rose but played only two more seasons and finished with 3,142 in total.

As Rose said Joe Posnanski, "You tell Derek the first 3,000 are easy". Of course, the implication is not that they're actually easy, but they're a lot easier than the next 1,256, which, as every other person ever to have played the game has figured out, is a true statement.

Jeter is 35 and a half years old and although we've seen very few indications to the contrary, the Cap'n is not invincible. No one is.

I learned this the hard way last year when I took issue with Nate Silver's projected home run totals for Alex Rodriguez, which predicted he'd end up with 730. I eventually ventured a guess as to what his career home run tally would be. I used an exhaustive 8 step methodology and arrived at the number 792. That involved a prediction of 42 for the 2009 season.

Much to my chagrin, not even two weeks later A-Rod was out in Colorado having surgery to repair a torn hip labrum, missed over a month of the season and had to hit two home runs in the same inning in Game 162 just to reach 30. Not only that, but his hip injury also cast serious doubt on his long term health.

While it's still a distinct possibility that A-Rod breaks Barry Bonds' Hank Aaron's record, it doesn't seem nearly as likely as it did just a year ago. But the picture is a lot rosier than it was the day after he had surgery. And that likelihood will probably fluctuate countless more times before he either breaks the record or retires.

I understand why fans like to talk about these far-flung possibilities and we are outrageously lucky to have two players on the Yankees pursing perhaps the two most hallowed career offensive records in Baseball. But at the same time, I'm not interested in reassessing what a projection system - using a bunch of players as comparables who, by definition didn't break the record - predicts the odds are that A-Rod or Jeter will reach that milestone every time one of them passes a round number, gets injured or the offseason news cycle grinds to a halt.

Projections can be a very useful tool in the right context but these kinds of records get broken on a very infrequent basis and only then by extreme statistical outliers. And besides, the left side of the infield still has a long, long road ahead.

What About Paginski?

Here's an interesting thought experiment from the Orioles Blog Camden Crazies (via BBTF):

This idea came up when discussing the possibility of the Yankees signing Matt Holliday on Twitter:

Doesn’t make sense for NY to spend that money on him now. The could put me in LF and still maybe make the playoffs.

Which begs the question, just how many wins could I cost a team if I played a full season? Any guesses, before I try to figure it out?

Seems easy enough to figure out. Same procedure would be used as when evaluating any other player. Take a guess, and then let’s work it out.

First off, the stipulation was that I would get 600 plate appearances in left-field, but I think it’s the case that if I had to play in the field all the time I wouldn’t actually make it to 600 PA. So instead, I’ll go easy on myself and just DH for the season.

The author, Daniel Moroz, is very conservative in projecting his offensive contributions, giving himself a .050/.100/.050 line for the season. Much of that comes from the assumption that if you just kept your bat on your shoulder, you'd work the occasional walk.

Click through to find out just how many runs and wins below replacement a .150 OPS is and to see whether or not the Yankees could hypothetically make the playoffs with him at DH.

It also reminds me of the following classic New York State Lottery commercial:



"Paginski" in the commercial was only batting .027 and he was also costing him team lots of runs with his awful defense at third base, meaning the Designated (Anti-)Hitter Moroz probably isn't the worst player in imaginary baseball history.

The moral of the story is that even the worst major leaguers are several orders of magnitude better than the average person watching from the stands or their couch at home. Although Joe Schmo would probably walk more than Bengie Molina, Yuniesky Bentancourt or Jeff Francoeur.

A Hypothetical Ponderance - How Much For A Year Behind Bars?

This one comes to you from a follow-up post Jason at IIATM,S did about his new site "Vote For Manny". The original post suggested that people vote Manny Ramirez for the All-Star Game mostly to promote chaos and see what would happen if Manny did work his way into the top three vote-getters. I wholeheartedly support the movement, mainly because I'm in favor of anything that makes Bud Selig uncomfortable. Get out there and vote, friends. 

In under one day, the site got some serious publicity and with that came lots of people who took the name of the idea at face value and left a lot of stupid anonymous comments and probably some angry email in Jason's inbox. All of that caused Jason to put up this post Wednesday night, clarifying his intentions. (Of course, some people are still missing the point.) 

As so often happens, I found a really interesting nugget in Jason's post. Trying to frame the usage of PED's in over the years in baseball, he asks:

Here's my question: If you were promised $200 million once you were done serving a 1 year jail sentence, would you serve the time? Would you risk the shame and embarrassment for generational wealth?

This is an extreme example, obviously. For most players the question would have been closer to "several million dollars if there was a chance of being sent to prison for a year", but I like Jason's hypothetical better. 

How much money would you need in return for one year in prision?

Let's assume that it's a maximum security joint and you go in a week from now. There are no TVs. You have a roommate and it's not John Coffey. No conjugal visits. You are in with the regular inmate population, and they all think that you committed, say, armed robbery or whatever crime you choose. We've all heard about the terrible things that happen in jail and you get no guarantees on your safety and no special treatment. Odds are you will make it out alive, but there's no promises you do. 

You eat the slop they serve you. Your toilet is right in your cell. You have to listen to whatever inmates who are serving life sentences scream throughout the cell block to each other at night. You can't chisel your way our behind a Rita Hayworth poster and you don't have the Squirrelmaster to protect you. Michael Scofield isn't bailing you out of this one. You are locked up in the clink, behind bars for one full year, no getting out early for good behavior. 

How much would it take for you to trade in one year of your freedom and dignity? 

-----

I'll go first - For me, $200 million would be an absolute no brainer. Lock me up! But I think it's more interesting if you treat it like the Price is Right: You can't go over. Make your lowest offer and if it's too high, it doesn't get accepted. 

I'm going with twenty five million United States Dollars, after taxes. I'm 24 years old and single, so I don't have a family I would be pining to see on a daily basis when I was locked up. It would be like doing all the work you would ever have to do in your life in a one year span. Except instead of "work", you'd be reading books, doing a shitload of push-ups and trying to steer clear of dudes named "Roach" who could potentially shiv you in the courtyard.  

I took three one week intensive courses in college where you take the same class for 5 days from 9-5 and receive full three credits upon completion. Sure, listening to a professor drone on about fucking Discrete Probability for two three and a half hour sessions a day was mind numbing. However, every memory of those classses were blocked from my memory within about a week and during the following semester, I didnt have any classes before 10:30 and had every Friday off. 

Money can't buy you happiness, but it can certainly buy you freedom. $25 million bucks isn't that much money, when you consider that 11 guys on the Yankees are in the middle of deals with higher total values (and they get to play baseball, not go to jail). But even if you could get a 1% a year return on it, that's a $250,000 per annum, and you would be able to take advantage of it 24/7/365. Travel, write, golf, get a couple graduate degrees, take a badass baseball road trip, whatever. 

Your turn. 

One Mo Thought

Mariano Rivera issued his first walk of the season today, and that might not be a bad thing. It was the only baserunner he allowed on his way to converting his sixth save of the season in a 5-3 victory over the Orioles. 

Given that Mo has been touched up pretty good recently, it might do him some good to work off the plate more often and get hitters to chase instead of just pounding the strike zone. With diminished velocity, he might have to change his approach a little, and not be afriad to issue a walk if it might diminsh the chance of surrendering a home run. 

Torre: A-Rod Is A Taint

Oh, I'm sorry, I may have misquoted you, Joe.

I'm happy that Alex admitted it. Knowing him personally, I know how proud he is of what he's done and how hard he works. I haven't been around anyone who works harder. I know it's important to him to continue to add to his numbers, because he has a chance to do a lot of special things numbers-wise, but now they're going to be tainted, because people don't forget.

It's laughable that this is even a headline on my ESPN Widget.

When it comes to steroids, the meejah thinks that calling someone's numbers "tainted" is tantamount to saying they are the biggest dirty fucking cheater who ever pissed on Babe Ruth's grave. The fact of the matter is that his numbers, and everyone's from this era, are now indisputably tainted, and that should be obvious.

Think about the word "taint". Awwww, not the Urban Dictionary definition, sicko. This one:

• taint (tnt)

v. taint·ed, taint·ing, taints

1. To affect with or as if with a disease.

2. To affect with decay or putrefaction; spoil.

3. To corrupt morally.

4. To affect with a tinge of something reprehensible.

All it takes is "a tinge". This is "a truckload". To me, if something is tainted, it means it can never be the same again. No matter what happens from here on out, history has already been written. Alex Rodriguez used steroids and that's never going away. Eight years from now, when he's 56 and dating Stevie Nicks, he's still going to hear "Aaaaayyy-Raaawwwd!!! Yaaawwwaah aaaahhh faaacccckkkinnn cheeeeaaataaah!!!!!!" every time he sets foot on the grass at Fenway Park.

If your girlfriend (or boyfriend for our six female readers) cheats on you, it's not something that goes away. You might smooth it over and get back together, but you don't erase the past.

Which is why A-Rod might be a taint, but Bud Selig is an asshole; that which makes the taint vile to begin with. Even though he backed off his earlier statements about suspending A-Rod and reinstating Hank Aaron as the Home Run King, the fact that he would ever say either of those things gives you some insight into some of the specific ways in which he is such an insufferable prick.

He thought about suspending A-Rod based on the results of a test that was supposed to be anonymous, and didn't turn out to be so because HIS LEAGUE didn't destroy the results as was originally agreed upon. If you didn't think he was in the tank for the owners already, he basically forgot the MLBPA was part of the MLB. I'm guessing when one of his daughters did something wrong, he'd her sit down and say "Honey, just tell me what happened and you won't get in trouble, okay?" And then when she admitted it, he would slap her across the face and say "HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME??!?"

And the Home Run Title... Bud Selig thinks you, baseball fan, are an idiot. An ignoramus incapable of even the most basic objective analysis. Because if you walked into a hypothetical museum and saw a photo retrospective of each player's career with, aside from pictures and captions, just some basic career stats and no other details, you would just assume that Barry Bonds is the All-Time Home Run Leader because he has seven more round-trippers than Hank Aaron. You wouldn't find it suspicious, you dumbass, that Barry Bonds' career exploded at the same time as the size of his head and biceps, when he was 35 and turned into the greatest hitter to ever walk the planet. The fact that he put up the greatest offensive season of all-time at the age of 39 after his middle-aged metamorphosis, wouldn't seem odd to you. Because you are that fucking stupid. You asswipe.

That wasn't me typing, that was Bud Selig. He needs the record books to be changed because you can't decide whether or not PEDs were worth eight, EIGHT - fucking eight - of Barry Bonds' 762 career home runs.

The Next Great Debate

Yes, the "Next Great Debate" (that's sure to be played out by the time I'm done writing this post.)



What position would LeBron play if he was in the NFL?

In that freeze frame above, it looks like he's lined up wide, but #23 is a RB's number. He's listed at 6'8" 240 or 250 (or 6'9" 270). We'll go with 6'8" 250, close enough. He could be a defensive end, but he's probably not quite bulky enough. He could be a linebacker, but I don't think he's mean enough. I think most people agree that he should be on the offensive side of the ball at a skill position. It basically boils down to RB or WR.

Am I the only person in the world who thinks that LeBron should be a running back?

There is one thing every single person who disagrees with me says: "He's too big". Is he? Being large in and of itself is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. It's the things that come along with being unnaturally massive that those doubters are referring to. Freakishly tall people's bodies break down because our infrastructure just wasn't made to support that much weight, except in very rare cases like LeBron, who I assume was genetically engineered in a laboratory under the NBA headquarters on Madison Avenue. The thing that makes him such a transcendent athlete is that he has the quickness and agility of someone much smaller than him.

The tallest RB in the NFL right now is Brandon Jacobs (6'4" 264), and truth be told, LeBron would be tied for the tallest WR ever in the NFL with Harold Carmichael. Kobe recently claimed he could play wide receiver for the Eagles (via Deadspin). I'm not sure I've ever heard of that franchise, but I agree with that casting. Kobe (6'6" 205, er 220?) [Ed note: Can we get these fuckers on a scale and get this straight?] is built a lot more like Randy Moss (6'4" 210) than LeBron is. He's lean and graceful, and could never take the pounding necessary to carry the ball even 10 or 15 times a game. LeBron is a whole lot sturdier than Kobe.

What it really comes down to is the injury factor. If LeBron could stay healthy as a RB he would be more valuable that he would at WR. It's almost exactly the same conundrum you have with Joba Chamberlain. In both cases, you have a freakishly gifted athlete who could probably play two different roles. The more valuable one seems like it would create a greater potential for injury.

Running backs get hit almost everytime they carry the ball, but at the same time, they have more control over how they get hit. You rarely see a RB take a crushing blow (Willis MaGahee not withstanding). They develop a sense of how to cushion the blows, while a wide receiver can get blindsided going over the middle in a way a running back is rarely going to. LeBron is tremendously shifty for a guy his size and would be extremely hard to tackle. Evidenced by his incredible passing ability on the hardwood, he's the great vision and awareness necessary to find seams in defenses.

Brandon Jacobs runs a 4.56 40 yard dash and on a basketball court, he'd probably lumber down the floor like a C or a PF. LeBron blasts down the floor to the tune of a 4.4 40 and runs the break like a PG. Please direct your attention to the video below and then tell me King James couldn't blow open any counter rush or screen pass and take it to the house.

What If...

Let's just start by saying, this isn't going to happen. I fully realize that. But Plaxico Burress' suspension is up, and he could technically starting working out with the team again. I also believe it is at the Giant's discretion to take him off the Non-Football Injury List and he could play at some point this post season.

The organization would sacrifice a lot of credibility and take major heat for it in the media and Rodger Goodell may even step in with a suspension of his own, which is why it won't happen, but as a fan would you like to see Plax on the field for the playoffs?

I would. The guy made a mistake, a very stupid mistake for which he is going to pay the consequences for at some point. It was a victimless (self-victimizing?) incident, although it certainly could have gone another way. Just this year, other players have taken the field while their legal charges were pending including Matt Jones of the Jaguars (cocaine) and the even the five guys who were involved in the Star-Caps scandal.

Would the enhanced media presence and tough questions swarming around Burress outweigh his ability to stretch the field and take a defender out of the box? If he's even 85 or 90% healthy, I think the on-field advantage wins out.