Three Other Things About Pat Burrell Versus Johnny Damon

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 28, 2010 12:16 PM EST Comment 8 comments

Let's go ahead and get these out of the way.

Burrell versus Damon Act I

Whether you want Johnny Damon (or Milton Bradley or Jim Thome) or not, just because someone does want one of those players does not mean they have zero confidence in a Pat Burrell bounce back. There is reason to believe Burrell will play more like his old self than the old-looking self of last year. There is also reason to believe that Damon will outperform Burrell as a full-time DH. It's completely possible to think Burrell is capable of being an above average hitter again while also wanting Damon to replace him.

Burrell versus Damon Act II

CHONE projects Burrell at a .329 wOBA while Marcel says .346. Damon at .352 and .353. The difference between a .352 wOBA and a .346 wOBA is marginal and indifferent. The difference between a .330 wOBA and a .352 wOBA over 600 plate appearances is more than a win. Important for a team that needs every win it can get. The difference could be as little as a run or as wide as a win. The Rays have access to information that we'll never see, and if they're barking up the best free agent DH trees, then maybe they just think Damon is a safer bet.

Burrell versus Damon Act III

Burrell is getting $9M next season whether he plays for the Rays, Jays, or sits on the bench munching on ham with honey glaze. If his salary could've been moved without the Rays eating some, then it probably would have happened. The best scenario here is something like eating 75% of Burrell's deal while getting a random pen arm and then signing Damon with enough deferred money that his deal really isn't worth $6M or whatever. Yeah, that's a lot of money to invest the DH spot, more than we should ever hope for, but the Rays understand the concept of sunk costs and just because they have Burrell doesn't mean they won't spend the money to upgrade if they feel it's the right move.

It's really not clear cut. Keep that in mind.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The best analogy for this.....

RJ, your car is worth $9000 but it needs about 3-4000 worth of work to get into its best possible running condition. Do you want to me to go ahead and do that that work or do you want to continue driving it as is and see what happens?

Dockoftherays.com

by Jason Collette on Jan 28, 2010 1:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I struggle with the car analogies

RJ is right on when he says if you think Damon is the better player then its wise However, one should assume some sort of bounceback as the projections mentioned do. Car performance does not bounce back unassisted.

For months most readers and other sites have been discussing the probability of Burrell’s bounceback sans additional investment or the car “fixing itself.” History tells us that the bounceback is the most likely scenario by a good bit. A bad season in itself is not indicative of being broken. I’m curious how much of PTB’s contract the Rays would eat combined with the added cost of Damon.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jan 28, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lust.

by R.J. Anderson on Jan 28, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But is is a 2 year slide

Tartabull had that late spike in 96 when he moved to Chicago and was out of baseball a year later. Even if Burrell regresses, the spike isn’t going to be that large. To extend the analogy, do you want to replace the engine or just dump some fuel cleaner in it and hope the horsepower returns?

Dockoftherays.com

by Jason Collette on Jan 28, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You aren't exactly replacing it with a shiny new engine

While his peak season was at 30, 31 is not much a slide so much as variance. The 4 years prior to last were pretty consistent.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jan 28, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If by fuel cleaner, you mean, HGH, then yes, that is the option I choose.

I'm a writer.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Jan 28, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

What interests me here

isn’t PtB’s curves or anyone else.

Assuming that the blue line is average for each group, where is this decline I hear of incessantly for players past their prime of 27-29. 34 YO’s seem just as good on average. Anyone want to take a shot at that.

Intuitively only players that age well continue to play at 34 and up. I’m sure some decline is noticeable if the line was continued into the upper 30’s. But it seems there is a selection process related to FA costs, etc that only higher performing older players are getting significant at bats at this career stage, and that maybe evaluating age performance curves isn’t quite as amenable to statistical analysis across all aging players. In other words, only the best get to keep playing with any regularity, and only the very best outperform the curve. So perhaps there should be curves for outstanding players, and then the rest of the talent pool.

by nyyfaninlaaland on Jan 28, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He could also pull a Swisher

Who had a big year in Oakland, then a solid year in Oakland, then terrible year in Chicago (trending down!), but then had a good season with the Yankees…

Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all

McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.

GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!

Whomever Sabean signs this off-season will make a good platoon partner with Ryan Gark-ohh... nevermind...

by baetown415 on Jan 28, 2010 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs