Monday, July 13, 2009

(7) Comments

Church for Francouer: A Few Words On The Trade

SS

A guest column from Sparks:

Originally, my thoughts on Church-for-Francoeur were, in order:

1) This is a even swap, change-of-scenery deal for both players that probably won't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

2) The Mets get a younger body and somewhat better defense, so that's a good thing.

3) Oh, crap.  What's it say about a player when a team a couple of games ahead of you in your own division goes, "Yeah, we'd feel better about things if he were on your side?"

Given the historical competence of both the Braves and Mets on matters of personnel, this trade scares me.  As a former Atlanta-suburbanite friend mentioned to me just this morning, the Braves have a history of unloading players just before their careers tank.  The Mets, as we alll know on the other hand, have a rather solid history of picking up such players.

However, after mulling over the online Saturday morning papers, I'm warming up to this trade.  The statheads seem to think this is an awful deal, and that's always a good sign.  Honestly, I just can't take seriously someone who will say "his numbers were never really good to begin with, if you took the time to look past HR and RBI" as if 100 actual runs on the board are somehow negated by a poor OPS or UZR (whatever in the crap that even is).  I'm sure those are the same people clamoring for Bobby Valentine to come back, too.

The larger issue, though, is once one peels back the immediate numbers and all the silly "Oh, poor Ryan Church.  Jerry just never liked him" stuff, while certainly a solid player, what we saw out of Church in the first half of last season was probably as good as he's ever going to be.  In his fourth year in the bigs, he had a great 2007 and followed it with that stellar early 2008, but he's yet to regain that form, and concussion or not, at age 30, the time for any big improvement down the road is running out.  While Francoeur still hasn't regained his early form, either, he's only 25.  Francoeur won't be the same age Church was when he had his best season for another 4 years.  Even though the Braves' have apparently given up, there is still plenty of time for Francoeur.

The Braves throwing in the towel on Francoeur just might give him some added motivation, too.  It's got to sting a bit to have the team you grew up watching and seemed destined to play for unload you in a trade, especially to the direct competition.

Above all, though, beyond all the numbers, rumors, and opinions, I keep coming back to one question:

Did Jeff Francoeur ever miss 3rd base on his way to a game-winning run?

www.metspolice.com
on twitter @metspolice
send ideas/guest columns to shannon at metspolice.com

Bookmark and Share
7 Responses to "Church for Francouer: A Few Words On The Trade"
Sux2Lose said :
July 13, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Who is this caveman you let post on your website Shannon? Perhaps he should take a minute to learn about the things he dismisses, before dismissing them.
Shawn said :
July 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM
What, in particular, are you taking issue with Sux?
Sux2Lose said :
July 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM
"Honestly, I just can't take seriously someone who will say "his numbers were never really good to begin with, if you took the time to look past HR and RBI" as if 100 actual runs on the board are somehow negated by a poor OPS or UZR (whatever in the crap that even is)."

How can you expect us to take YOU seriously when someone presents evidence of an assertion and you dismiss it b/c you don't understand it or, worse, CHOOSE not to gain understanding.
James K. said :
July 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Yikes - maybe Sparks should take a permanent vacation from posting on MP. 100% in agreement with Sux2Lose.
Sparks said :
July 14, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Here's what I do understand, Sux: it is inherently impossible to develop a better measure of a player's run production than actually COUNTING the number of runs HE HAS PRODUCED. If you're into the inventive stats, more power to you, but in the context of the particular quote, they are unnecessary and being misused in order to make an argument that flies in the face of common sense. I don't care if a hitter did it all with squeeze bunts, a 100+ RBI season needs no qualification.

Francoeur is a middle-of-the-order outfielder. Saying, "his numbers weren't good beyond all the HRs and RBIs," is like asking Mary Todd Lincoln how she enjoyed the play otherwise.
Sux2Lose said :
July 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Wow-you and I can not disagree more. For the sake of clarity let me respond to your comment in sections:

"Here's what I do understand, Sux: it is inherently impossible to develop a better measure of a player's run production than actually COUNTING the number of runs HE HAS PRODUCED. "

This may be our largest point of contention. The only runs that a batter produces on his own are homeruns. (Francoeur hasn’t hit more than 20 since 2006.) RBIs depend on other teammates being on base and runs depend on other teammates driving you in. So although you can count these statistics easily and they are easy to understand (b/c you grew up w/ them) they are not a good measure of the quality of the ballplayer.

"If you're into the inventive stats, more power to you, but in the context of the particular quote, they are unnecessary and being misused in order to make an argument that flies in the face of common sense. I don't care if a hitter did it all with squeeze bunts, a 100+ RBI season needs no qualification."

I'm not sure what common sense you are talking about here? That because he drove in 100 runs a couple times he is a good ballplayer? I think you are missing a big point here: The object of baseball is not simply to score runs. The object of the game is to score MORE runs than your opponent. These other statistics measure a players value in different ways. I DO care HOW he got his 100 RBIs and I care how he performed during the other plate appearances where he didn’t get an RBI. All of these things matter in achieving the object of the game.

Let me try to express this in metaphor: If you were evaluating a driver's skills, one measure would be 'did he keep his car on the street?' Another could be 'did he avoid obstacles?' You might look at success in these measures and decide that the driver is, in fact, good. I would ask a different question though. Did the driver do those things and manage to follow the signs to his destination? Because if he did all those things and ended up 15 miles away from where he wanted to be then that’s not a good driver to me.

You choose to use RBIs and HRs as your measure of success, which is great if you wanna simply stay on the road. But by dismissing all these 'inventive stats' you are missing the signs pointing you to where you want to go.

I don’t expect to change your mind on this-it sounds like you have your heels pretty well dug in. But I think Omar did the best job yet of evaluating this trade when he said: "One thing we like about Francoeur is the amount of games that he plays." That was basically the best he could come up with for this guy: he plays a lot of games.
Sparks said :
July 15, 2009 at 8:57 PM
"I'm not sure what common sense you are talking about here? That because he drove in 100 runs a couple times he is a good ballplayer?"

Pretty much.

"I think you are missing a big point here: The object of baseball is not simply to score runs. The object of the game is to score MORE runs than your opponent."

I understand what you're saying, but the only other thing he can contribute besides RBI to maximizing his teams runs a) hitting a HR and scoring himself, which was one of the stats the poster wanted to overlook, and b) getting on base in the hopes that the bottom of the order can drive him in. If he doesn't do that, sure, it costs his team an opportunity. But _he's_ the one relied on to produce RBIs, not the bottom of the order. If the #8 hitter drives in Francoeur, great, but it's a bonus not an expectation.

The premise here is basically, "Sure, he did his job, but he wasn't good enough at the other things." Well, welcome to real life. Nobody excels at everything, especially in baseball.

Post a Comment