More on the Gabe Kapler Re-Signing
In the last thread, GomesSweetGomes raised a good point about Gabe Kapler's plate appearances versus right-handed pitchers. How many of those 64 plate appearances came in garbage time and how many cost the Rays during a close game? Using Baseball-Reference's Play Index tool, I found each of the right-handed pitchers Kapler batted against in 2009 and decided to look only at relievers. There are only three possible explanations for Kapler starting against a righty:
1. Scheduled off day for one of the outfielders with Gabe Gross and Ben Zobrist already in the lineup.
2. Information to suggest he can succeed against said pitcher.
3. Maddon losing his mind.
Appearances against a reliever are more random. It could be a blowout or the opposing team could have a lefty up in the pen, Gross could have been removed from the game earlier, or it could be too early to risk running into a Gross/lefty match-up later on. First order of business was checking to see whether the Rays were ahead or behind when most of the 46 plate appearances occurred.
By lead state
Tied: 3
Ahead: 25
Behind: 18
Of course the next question is: well how far ahead or behind were the Rays? If Kapler is facing a righty in the top of the ninth up or down by 10 then who cares, but if he's facing a righty with two on and down two runs the level of understanding changes completely.
By deficit
Within one run: 8
Within two runs: 18
Within three runs: 24
Within four runs: 27
Five runs or greater: 19
I think we can all agree that Kapler's plate appearances in games with a five run margin of lead should be excused. That takes 19 of the 46 away, giving Gross 27 plate appearances against relievers and 45 total. Next up is the inning.
By inning
Fourth: 4
Fifth: 5
Sixth: 11
Seventh: 13
Eighth: 7
Ninth: 6
The seventh through ninth is inexcusable unless Maddon feels Kapler versus that righty is a better match-up than Gross against a warming lefty. Unfortunately there's no way of knowing how many of those latter frame plate appearances came with a lefty warming, so for now we have to assume none of them did. Ah, but wait, the margin of lead must also be taken into account. Of those 26 plate appearances 15 came with a lead or deficit of 5 or more runs.
That leaves 11 plate appearances where you have to notch it up to poor management or being outmaneuvered by the opponent. Now I know some will question why I'm seemingly excusing the fourth-through-sixth inning plate appearances and well, I'm not, but I can live with those because it comes down to game theory and a payoff matrix that looks something like this:

Let me explain if that isn't wholly intuitive. If the opposition has a lefty on the mound, the Rays would ideally have Gross bat. However, if the opposition has a lefty on the mound then the Rays would want Kapler to bat. Obvious, right? Okay, now imagine you're in the fifth inning in a tied game. You can bring in Gross to face the righty, but that leaves you open for a lefty assault later on, or you could sit tight with Kapler and maintain the flexibility in a later state. With a lefty (or righty) warming, the Rays are essentially sticking their foot in the bear trap either way. No matter which Gabe goes to bat, the opponent will have the final say. That's only with a pitcher warming with the opposite hand of the current pitcher.
Without digressing further, it seems the number of consequential plate appearances Kapler received against righties is about half the total number. A bit more if you aren't forgiving of the pre-seventh inning at-bats. If Kapler maintains a .900 OPS against lefties (and that's extremely conservative) in 150 plate appearances next year, he'd need less than a .400 OPS through 65 plate appearances to wipe that offensive effort out. With the exception of this year (aided by a .205 BABIP) he hasn't been that poor dating back through 2004. That' without considering defensive contributions either.
It's a good deal.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Comments
Before someone takes those numbers as gospel
Yes, the plate appearances could change. It’s impossible to predict though, so I just used last year’s numbers and pushed the PA vs. LHP down some so as to show the worst case scenario in terms of playing split.
by R.J. Anderson on Oct 27, 2009 6:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No doubt that his ABs against rhp should be limited
And with Joyce, Sean John and Benzo he really won’t see many barring injury, but some regression is in order for his terrible 09 numbers against rhp. He mashes lefties, plays good defense and is a fantastic character. He’ll easily clear the $1 million is production. I was 50/50 before the signing only because I would’ve like to see Joyce play everyday, but if they feel a platoon is the better option that’s fine.
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on Oct 27, 2009 7:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
So this means that probably S-Rod will be the guy that doesn't get the extra playing time then
And Zobrist will take over 2B full-time for now at least I’m guessing
by Transplanted on Oct 27, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im guessing Sean John loses the most here, but he can still start the season in Triple-A.
The depth we have is pretty amazing. There’s a chance Nando, Rodriguez and or Brignac could be in AAA to start the season.
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on Oct 27, 2009 9:34 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
We do have silly depth
I mean just alone in 2009, there were enough pitchers to field 2 Rotations, and now we’re running out of roster spots. Too bad we don’t have a few extra dollars, but that’s life.
by Transplanted on Oct 28, 2009 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Second to last paragraph isn't quite intuitive
It would be much more so if you said you want Gross up there when a righty is on the mound.
Interesting stuff, but seems a bit junk stat-y to me. WAR doesn’t account for ‘consequential time’ either. If this was the way we wanted to go, we could just look at his WPA.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
by Brickhaus on Oct 27, 2009 7:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not sure about the idea of discarding starts.
I recall several times when Joe started Kapler against a righty b/c the pitcher had “reverse splits.” I’d call those consequential ABs. Especially since Gabe still hit .150 against RH, those reverse splits be damned.
by nomoredevil on Oct 27, 2009 10:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn't discard starts.
I put them in the consequential bucket immediately. Even with the reverse splits.
by R.J. Anderson on Oct 27, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, I misunderstood that in the opening paragraph
by nomoredevil on Oct 27, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No biggie.
I was considering looking at the reverse split pitchers too, but wanted to get this part up quickly in response.
by R.J. Anderson on Oct 28, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very Thorough Examination of his usage pattern
I agree with your underlying point. He will probably approach an .800 OPS. Also, many of his at-bats were meaningless, and in many instances he was probably the best option at the plate.
It still appears that he gets enough consequential at-bats to significantly effect his overall value to the team (I think that we have to count all of the 4-6 at bats, mostly because anything else would eliminate an apple to apples comparison with his peers…i.e. I wouldn’t be any happier seeing Pat Burrell GIDP if I was told he was the best option the Rays had in that situation, so why should it excuse a platoon player? Also, the fact that game theory even comes into effect is a consequence of a platoon.
On a side note it is interesting how out of line his career OPS vs. righties is with his performance last year. Hopefully it is just due to an incredibly small sample size, and not an indication that his limited opportunities vs. righties are hurting his success against them.
In any event, 80% Ben Zobrist and 20% Dioner Navarro in limited playing time is worth a million or so. Thanks for putting this together, and sorry it took so long to respond.
by GomesSweetGomes on Oct 29, 2009 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















