Post by Rog on Dec 19, 2016 23:38:58 GMT -5
Boly and I were recently discussing whether Denard Span should be a platoon player. That got me to thinking: When SHOULD a player be only a platoon player?
A couple of things that would obviously apply in addition to how well a player hits pitchers of the same hand would be how well he fields, and the obvious one -- who would platoon with him.
But in general terms, let's assume a player of similar defense and league-average hitting against pitchers of that hand is the possible replacement. Given that, how much below the major league average for the position should a player be allowed to hit before he would generally be considered a candidate for platooning?
I came up with an arbitrary 50 points below league average for the position. Using that figure, Denard is right on the cusp. His career average against lefties is .695, which by coincidence, is 50 points below the league average center fielder last season with .745.
But is Denard truly likely to reach his career average? Usually a player is more likely to approach his recent seasons than his older one. So I took the arbitrary formula of 20% of his career average plus 10% of four years ago plus 15% of three years ago plus 20% of two years ago plus 35% of last season. Using that formula, Denard would project to a .603 OPS against lefties next season.
To me, that's clearly grounds for platooning -- if a proper platoon partner is available. I don't know if that's the case or not, but that's the type of player I think the Giants should target. If a guy could hit for somewhere around a .700 OPS while giving the Giants similar defense to that of Denard (which I think is about league average), he would make a fine platoon partner. If a guy is a decent center fielder who bats right-handed, he should fill the bill.
So I'd be looking for a halfway decent right-handed batter who like most righties hits left-handed hitters better. I haven't looked to see who might fit the bill, but we're not talking about an expensive player here, in terms of either salary or players. If the Giants could improve the OPS of one player by 100 points in say a quarter of the games, that would be worth something like two or three OPS points for the team over the course of the season. That doesn't sound like much, but it would likely result in an addition five runs or so. And that's half a win.
So it isn't critical that the Giants find a platoon partner for Denard, but it could mean an extra win in the 2017 season. And that one win -- especially if it came over the Dodgers -- could be the difference in winning the NL West or not.
I haven't really seen any types of analyses such as this, so I'm interested in what others here think. Randy obviously doesn't think it's worth a hoot, but this is the type of analysis major league teams themselves do. So I'm curious as to the thinking of the rest of you. I think I'm on track here, but I'm certainly open to your thoughts.
A couple of things that would obviously apply in addition to how well a player hits pitchers of the same hand would be how well he fields, and the obvious one -- who would platoon with him.
But in general terms, let's assume a player of similar defense and league-average hitting against pitchers of that hand is the possible replacement. Given that, how much below the major league average for the position should a player be allowed to hit before he would generally be considered a candidate for platooning?
I came up with an arbitrary 50 points below league average for the position. Using that figure, Denard is right on the cusp. His career average against lefties is .695, which by coincidence, is 50 points below the league average center fielder last season with .745.
But is Denard truly likely to reach his career average? Usually a player is more likely to approach his recent seasons than his older one. So I took the arbitrary formula of 20% of his career average plus 10% of four years ago plus 15% of three years ago plus 20% of two years ago plus 35% of last season. Using that formula, Denard would project to a .603 OPS against lefties next season.
To me, that's clearly grounds for platooning -- if a proper platoon partner is available. I don't know if that's the case or not, but that's the type of player I think the Giants should target. If a guy could hit for somewhere around a .700 OPS while giving the Giants similar defense to that of Denard (which I think is about league average), he would make a fine platoon partner. If a guy is a decent center fielder who bats right-handed, he should fill the bill.
So I'd be looking for a halfway decent right-handed batter who like most righties hits left-handed hitters better. I haven't looked to see who might fit the bill, but we're not talking about an expensive player here, in terms of either salary or players. If the Giants could improve the OPS of one player by 100 points in say a quarter of the games, that would be worth something like two or three OPS points for the team over the course of the season. That doesn't sound like much, but it would likely result in an addition five runs or so. And that's half a win.
So it isn't critical that the Giants find a platoon partner for Denard, but it could mean an extra win in the 2017 season. And that one win -- especially if it came over the Dodgers -- could be the difference in winning the NL West or not.
I haven't really seen any types of analyses such as this, so I'm interested in what others here think. Randy obviously doesn't think it's worth a hoot, but this is the type of analysis major league teams themselves do. So I'm curious as to the thinking of the rest of you. I think I'm on track here, but I'm certainly open to your thoughts.