Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 101: Learning to Like Youkilis/What the Diamondbacks Got Back for Bauer/Why Do Teams Love Lefty Starters?

Episode Date: December 13, 2012

Ben and Sam answer listener emails about whether a Yankees fan can learn to like Kevin Youkilis, whether the Diamondbacks got enough back for Trevor Bauer, why teams love left-handed starters, and more.

Stop! Who would cross the bridge of death must answer me. These questions thee, ere the other side he see. Ask me the questions, bridge-keeper. I am not afraid. Good morning and welcome to episode 101 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectus. Tonight we have a special guest. It is Ben Lindberg in New York, New York. Thanks for having me. It's great to talk to you, Ben. We probably should have just

dropped the mic after yesterday, although my mic is on a desk, so I could not do that. But a lot of people listened to our episode with Kevin yesterday, and maybe some of you, that was your first time hearing us and maybe you're back listening to us again. Or maybe you're not. And hoping that Kevin would be back and he is not. It's just us.

But we will carry on. Yeah, we will carry on with emails. In fact, today is email Wednesday. On Thursday. Celebrating on Thursday. And we've got some emails. We've got lots of emails. We're grateful for the emails and we're going to answer roughly three of them. So do you want to read

the emails, or should I read the emails? I have them lined up here, so I guess I'll read them. Read an email. Okay. So we will start with one from Matt, Matt Trueblood, who is at Matt Trueblood on Twitter. Hey, guys. First of all, love the show. Brief though it is, the lack of distraction through which to wade is terrific. Easy baseball listening.

What is the virtue of a left-handed starting pitcher? Invariably, when discussing options a given team might have, reporters bring up their desire to add a lefty to their rotation. When discussing a specific starter, handedness always comes up, and being a lefty is treated as a virtue. Ben did it in passing with Brett Anderson during Tuesday's episode. I don't get it. Southpaw starters usually have the platoon advantage in 18 to 23 percent of all plate appearances. Righty starters enjoy the advantage twice as often, even a bit more. Maybe more importantly, starters are usually selected in part for small platoon splits because any starter is naturally vulnerable to the opposing manager's lineup manipulation. I know no one is saying that

handedness is a primary concern in evaluating a starter, but why is this mentioned so often? Is there some intangible but real advantage to mixing lefties into the rotation so opponents have to carry more right-handed guys and can't line up average lefty swingers to kill your righties, or so as to be ready for lefty heavy lineups like the recent Braves and Phillies it seems backward is all that left-handedness is seen as an asset for a starting pitcher Matt is so I mean I am so grateful for Matt saying all that because I've long thought this it's baffled me I assume that there's got to be some baseball wisdom to it, and I can't figure it out. If you had a choice between a right-handed pitcher and a left-handed pitcher, every six-year-old would choose the right-handed pitcher because of the platoon

advantage. And yet, there does, I mean, this comes up all the time, there seems to be some value to it. I have an acquaintance who is an agent, and he was one day trying to convince me that a player he represented was really valuable on the market, and I was arguing that that player was a non-tender candidate. And the gist of his argument was that he was a left-handed starter, and teams always want left-handed starters, and I could not figure out why. He couldn't explain why. He just said, it's true, teams want left-handed starters.

I think that if there's one thing that you might be able to hang your hat on, well, there's probably two things, I guess, maybe. One is that, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that lefties are more vulnerable to the platoon disadvantage as hitters than righties are. There are more lefties who can't hit lefties than there are righties who can't hit righties. So you might get some benefit if you're facing a lefty-heavy lineup. You might get more benefit from throwing a lefty out than a righty. I haven't checked this, but I think this is true. The other is that a lot of times this comes up not when you're signing a free agent necessarily, but when you're talking about

a prospect or when you're talking about a draft pick and a lefty starter has a little bit more of a fallback in that as a lefty reliever, he is certain to have at least a worst case value, whereas the bar might be higher for a righty reliever. Do either of those seem to be justification to you? I don't know. I mean, I guess the thing is that it's not just left-handed starters, but it's like the mix of lefties and righties. It's like you don't want to go back-to-back with righties, or you don't want to load your whole rotation with righties. The idea, it always seems, is that a team would benefit from being able to give the opponent different looks over the course of a series.

And I've never really seen any evidence for that or any study that shows that. I guess it would be a difficult thing to prove. It would probably be an extremely difficult thing to prove. Because there's probably nothing to prove. Right. Possibly. There's probably nothing to prove. Right. Possibly. So we're saying that everyone's doing it wrong. I don't know.

I mean, I don't know why they, I don't know why this has persisted so long. I mean, I think that there is, I mean, certainly in all sports, people prefer lefties. People just like them, you know, like lefty golfers look better and lefty quarterbacks seem intriguing. There's just something that people like about lefties in sports. I don't know, maybe it's just a media thing. Maybe the fact that every lefty comes pre-programmed with a nickname has just sort of given them a little bit more allure over the case of a century, over the span of a century of baseball. Yeah, I mean, it makes more sense for lefty relievers who can go matchups than starters. I once wrote an article about how lefties don't throw as hard as righties, which is

true. Which makes, by the way, which makes perfect sense. They are totally overrepresented compared to their place in the general population. So of course there's going to be fewer. You know, if 10% of the world is lefty and 30% of the league is lefty, then you're going to get a lower quality of pitcher. And there's also, I think think an advantage to the lack of familiarity that, uh, batters have with lefties relative to righties. And that kind of can get a

lefty by with lesser stuff, I think, then, uh, then a right-hander, which at least was my thesis during that or when I was writing that article. It's like a submariner or a knuckleballer. Something that players don't see often is harder for them to combat. Obviously, they see lefties more often than submariners or knuckleballers. But I think there is some sort of compensation to that yeah yeah yep uh okay well maybe someone will will write in and and tell us what we're missing here um because it is sort of strange sort of strange. And another thing that no one has really ever been able to explain to my satisfaction is why things look better when lefties do it. I know. That's weird, too.

I've asked many people about this, and they always start off with a lot of certainty in their voice as they answer, and then it gradually dawns on them that they don't know um it's the weird it's the weirdest thing in the world i mean i think it has something to do with the fact that lefty batters get out of the the batter's box easier i guess maybe they're like already running towards first base as they swing sort of right um they right they fall their their swing is part of a uh is part of a fluid motion right success, whereas righties have to stop what they're doing and then start a new thing. But that doesn't explain why everybody thinks that lefty golfers have such sweet swings. No, that I do not know.

All right. So that's Matt's question, and thank you for asking it. Let's see. I guess we will go with this question from Brian, who asked, Hey, guys, this longtime Yankees fan is struggling with the signing of Kevin Euclid. I realize the Yankees have a need at third base, a fact I don't think changes when A-Rod returns, by the way, but I've spent so much time and energy disliking Euclid, I can't imagine rooting for him let alone keeping a meal down while watching his horrific batting stance on top of

that i see a guy who can only put up decent offensive numbers and play a below average third base uh was this a case of slim pickings or am i missing something here thanks for the podcast it's good stuff you don't you probably don't have to read the little compliment at the end of the email. You can just read the question. There's two things here. The second part of his email address is

Euclid's talent and I think that it is a case of slim pickings. In a way, I almost was surprised that Euclid didn't have more suitors because of how horrible the free agent market was for third baseman. But yeah, he's coming off a terrible season. He's old and there's a lot of negative trends. But do what you got to do. But I think that the question

that he asks about whether he'll be able to root for euclid's um this comes up i think uh periodically for fans of every team and i don't think that it ever carries through past the first game or so i think that he'll have absolutely no trouble rooting for euclid's i'm trying to think of an example of any player uh that i could imagine on any team where the fans would not be behind him after about the third day and i could see maybe i i like like i could see maybe aj presinski on the angels because of his uh well even, he, you know, he did that. He had that thing in 2005 where he sort of tricked the umpire into thinking that a strike three had hit the ground and he ran to first and then the Angels lost the playoffs. And the White Sox won the World Series.

And, you know, AJ's already so hateable by most fans. And there's there have been other instances since and so that maybe is like the most i've seen a uh fan base hate a player like maybe all all encompassingly maybe scott cousins on the giants the guy who maybe but i don't know he was i mean you know he seems like a good guy and you know they they uh you know i mean he's he in a way he came out of that sort of as a victim too and i think if you know he's just a he's, in a way, he came out of that sort of as a victim, too. And I think if, you know, he's just a kid, right? So I think if Buster put his arm around him, I think that would go fine.

Probably. Yeah, most guys are good guys. No, they are not. Most guys aren't good guys. We're all terrible. We're a broken species. Okay, we have different outlooks on the human race apparently yeah but i mean once you i mean for the most part when fans develop an aversion to a player it's because that player is

good at baseball and beats their team a lot which is the case with euclid i mean maybe you you get angry seeing his his stance but if you're a red Sox fan and you've seen that stance lead to many game-winning hits, then you grow to like the stance. So, I mean, I guess if he goes to the Yankees and he's terrible, which is conceivable, then I guess that could kind of combine with the pre-existing animosity to make him some sort of pariah. But it's unlikely, I think. I mean, the first time he does a walk-off something, fans will cheer and they will be

conditioned to be happy when they see Kevin Youkilis. And that kind of, that aversion wears off pretty quickly. I mean, a lot of Red Sox have become Yankees and have become popular Yankees and vice versa. Yeah, it's hard to see how Euclid would be at another level than Johnny Damon was. Johnny Damon was just as Red Sox-y and just as annoying. I mean, in a lot of ways, you know, in a lot of ways, Johnny Damon was kind of the Brian Wilson of his day. of the Brian Wilson of his day. And yet, I'm sure that there were these sort of conversations happening about Johnny Damon before he had played his first game as a Yankee,

and it doesn't seem to have lasted. Yes. So don't worry about it. You will grow to like Kevin Uchles, at least as much as you like A-Rod, probably. Yeah. Brian Wilson on the Dodgers, possibly, maybe. Yeah, maybe.

I don't know. I mean, you have to really have a lot of investment in hating a guy. And I don't know. I just don't think that most of the hate that you feel toward another player is very know, it's an easy hate to feel in the moment, but you don't invest much in making it, you know, permanent. So, I mean, didn't Juan Marichal play for the Dodgers? He did. Yeah, okay. So, what else do we have here? In the question mailbag, we have a long one, I guess, but let's do a short one first.

Steve asked, how do contract status and salary impact player performance? Is there research on that? Do you have any hunches? Do higher salaries and longer contracts reduce performance? How about performance over the length of the contract? Controlling for the aging curve, do players play better in their walk year? Do they play better or worse than you would otherwise expect in their first year? Does it depend on whether or not the new contract is with a new team? And basically, I don't know. And I don't think there's much to it. I mean,

there have been some studies on walk year and contract year, and they've been pretty inconclusive, I think. They haven't really shown that players play a whole lot better in their last season before a contract. And in the first season of a deal, I mean, players tend to do well because they were just signed off a good year. I mean, when people sign free agents, it's often you try to get the value early in the deal and get enough that you make up for the lack of value late in the deal. But I don't think there's any bonus that I'm aware of to switching teams or signing a new contract. I'm sure it could possibly vary by player. If there is a certain player who has the personality to be complacent once he has a long-term deal, then possibly that could happen. But I don't know if that type of person ever makes it to the major leagues. I don't have any knowledge about this subject. Okay. Then let's move on to Brittany's question. She asks, Hi, Ben and Sam. I find it quite interesting that the trade value for one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball, third overall pick in 2011, is a defense-only shortstop. This seems quite bizarre. What is the overall game plan here for Arizona? Why give up so soon on Bauer? What is the overall game plan here for Arizona?

Why give up so soon on Bauer? So I wrote about this today, and I guess I could just repeat what I wrote. Do you want to say things about this? Well, I'll say one thing before you say whatever. I'll say one thing, and then I'll take your answer off the air. I think that a defense-only short stop isn't a very bad thing i mean a defense only short stop can actually be worth a pretty steady two to four wins i would say with um some possibility of getting a uh you know a babbitt assisted five win season maybe once in there i mean you know escobar is in a lot of ways a defense

only short stop if you actually believe uh the metrics about his defense and he produces a lot of wins. And when you talk about pitching prospects being the least, you know, the least reliable prospect, I would guess that defense only shortstops might be the most reliable prospect. And so I could certainly see some justification for that. I mean, if you're going to kind of accept the idea of wins above replacement, you have to take them even in the kind of non-fantasy category ways that they happen as well. So I don't know that I hate it. It didn't seem like a lot to me. And maybe that's because Bauer was overrated in the past. I don't know. He was rated by us or by Kevin Goldstein as the Diamondbacks top prospect entering the year and the 11th best prospect overall. And that kind of player, you would think,

would bring back something better than Gregorius, the guy that the Diamondbacks got. Because, I mean, if you don't hit, you have a ceiling of maybe a couple wins probably, right? I mean, in the article I said he could be, if everything works out, he could be a Brendan Ryan type or someone like that who offers a lot of value with his glove. But that player is not a star.

He's just a solid guy. It's good to have. They needed a shortstop. But I don't know. My only hunch, I mean, the kind of concerns with Bauer were well known. He has problems with pitching efficiently and command and control. And he has unorthodox approaches to pitching and training regimens that rub some people the wrong way. Other people think it can be a good thing.

a good thing. But there was a sense that there was some frustration on the part of the Diamondbacks with Bauer and his sort of lack of flexibility or amenability to their instruction. And it's possible, I think, that, as I said in the article, that familiarity can kind of breed contempt with a prospect that you can become so engrossed in what a guy doesn't do that you might underrate him relative to someone who's kind of looking from a perspective that's pulled farther back. I think that can certainly work in the opposite direction too. And you can become too attached to someone that you see all the time. direction too and you can become too attached to someone that you see all the time uh so brendan ryan in the last four years has produced 13.1 wins above replacement by baseball references model which is as many wins above replacement as david price and more than adam wayne wright and more than dan heron Heron. And Brendan Ryan is like just about the worst hitter in baseball.

Yes. And has been for those four years. Brendan Ryan hit 194 this year. So, I mean, I'm not saying that anybody, I mean, Brendan Ryan's defensive metrics are insane and they're almost suspicious and not only is any prospect that you name unlikely to rate as highly as Brendan Ryan has, Brendan Ryan is probably unlikely to actually be as good as those metrics rate him. But I'm just saying.

All right. Well, I guess I have nothing else to add to the Bauer stuff. You can read all the words that I wrote if you're interested. There is one more very quick question that I think we can get out of the way. It's from Tom who asks, I have a question that while you guys probably cannot answer, may know people that can. I saw that the Granke deal had a $12 million signing bonus. This made me curious. Are teams this year using signing bonuses as incentives for players to sign quickly in the 2012 year as a way of giving players a large portion of their salary before the tax

rates go up in 2013? So the part about not really knowing, but knowing some people who might know was pretty accurate. I just sent this question to Maury Brown, who is BP's business writer. sent this question to Maury Brown, who is BP's business writer. And Maury said, for purposes of the luxury tax, bonus money is spread out over the contract life, so it doesn't impact signing in 2012. Besides, the contracts reached now technically don't hit until 2013 anyway when service days hit. I think that he was not talking about the luxury tax. I think he was actually talking about the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the fiscal cliff and all that.

So I don't know if that's, I don't know what Maury said about the contract not kicking in until 2013 is relevant. It sounds like it is, but I don't know. Neither of us know how signing bonuses work. And maybe we can find out before, I don't know, episode 200. Yes. Okay. We'll do that. We'll be back tomorrow with episode 102.

And you can start sending in emails now if you would like for next week's Email Wednesday at podcasts at – wait, is that right? Podcasts. Unpodcast. Singular podcast. Podcast at baseballperspectives.com.