There aren't too many ballplayers who generate the emotional reaction produced by the two that the Boston Red Sox mulled over this week: Manny Ramirez and J.D. Drew.
For years, the push and pull of Ramirez's relationship with Boston has had all the magic dysfunction of Ralph and Alice Kramden. Meanwhile, the talented but phlegmatic Drew, whose contract with the Red Sox seemed a fait accompli by the time Thanksgiving weekend ended, confounds a number of baseball fans. Not since Musak's heyday has such blandness caused such aggravation.
More than three years after Michael Lewis' Moneyball became the centerpiece of debate over the values of baseball players, Ramirez and Drew present a fierce conundrum for anyone following the game, old school or new.
Often misunderstood, Moneyball principally suggested that franchises should analyze ballplayers dispassionately to find undervalued talent whose weaknesses were superficial, whose perceived flaws were just a reflection of long-established but irrational biases. But this offseason, the Red Sox are moving to rid themselves of one statistically brilliant, handle-with-care outfielder for a different-but-slightly-less extreme version of the same. What are we to make of this?
It's not definite, but Boston's move toward replacing Ramirez with Drew (although some wonder why the Sox don't just forget about expensive pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka and just go with both outfielders) could represent an ongoing merging of pre- and post-Moneyball thinking, showing that you don't have to be a hardliner in either category.
Though Ramirez is on a path to the Hall of Fame, there are statistical reasons for moving into the future with Drew. Despite his reputation as a player likely to disintegrate at the first strong gust of wind, the 31-year-old Drew racked up 645 plate appearances in 2004 and 594 in 2006; his 2005 season was curtailed with a hit-by-pitch, not a case of the vapors. Using the Wins Above Replacement Player stats (which include defensive contributions) calculated by Baseball Prospectus, in his last two full seasons, Drew was more valuable than Ramirez: 9.8 to 8.2 in '04, 8.6 to 7.7 in '06.
Given that Drew will make millions less than Ramirez, even with the frothy salaries that free agents are commanding, given that Drew is 2 1/2 years younger, given that Ramirez has battled health problems himself that found him playing fewer games than Drew last season, there's a worthy argument to be made that Drew, plus any savings in Ramirez's salary that Boston can invest in other players, plus the loot the Sox can reap in a Ramirez trade, is a sound step forward.
To be sure, there are numbers arguments in Ramirez's favor too: The guy, after all, has a track record like few others in the game today, had 379 total bases (including walks) last season and posted an Equivalent Average, according to Baseball Prospectus, of .352 -- significantly higher than Drew's .306. That statistic leaves defense out of the equation, but nevertheless, there's no guarantee that the loss of Ramirez will be made up on the field by Drew and the Ramirez trade bounty.
So while it would be foolish to ignore the statistics of both players -- and downright moronic to tunnel-vision on misleading traditional stats like RBI when there are more insightful choices to be found -- there is enough doubt about whether Drew or Ramirez has the better statistical future for Boston to glance carefully at the character and personality issues that seem to envelop them.
Ramirez has been a regular on the "he's doggin' it" circuit, while Drew's baggage wouldn't fit in an overhead compartment of a jumbo jet, if you believe the common perception. The rap is that Drew doesn't play through pain or give a full effort. He's joyless in the clubhouse. He's motivated by money rather than winning. And to top it all off, in exercising his option to end his five-year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers after two years, he reportedly betrayed assurances he had made that he would stick around.
There are counter arguments to the above. For example, up until the last minute, Drew retained every right to change his mind about opting out, and the Dodgers were responsible for understanding that. And playing through pain is often overrated. For all the images we have of Kirk Gibson-types gutting it out, you'll find plenty of players who make a nagging injury dimensionally worse, or who set the team back by keeping a spot in the lineup from a reserve who could do better until the starter has recuperated.
In a recent Boston Globe story, Gordon Edes wrote that "according to one major leaguer who has played against Drew for much of his career, one Dodger player greeted the news of Drew's departure by phoning friends in jubilation." Whether this anonymous story is apocryphal or not, it would seem to reflect badly on Drew ... until you question what wisdom and character conclusions we should draw from a Dodger who would be celebrating the departure of a player who was, except for Rafael Furcal, the team's most valuable.
A thoughtful general manager can and should weigh testimony like this without abandoning old-school values or turning tail from new-school ones. There's room to debate how much character and personality matter -- a lot or a little. But for those who give them any weight, there is also a way to take a Moneyball approach to character and personality, to do their best to find which character traits are overvalued and which are undervalued. It's entirely possible that the so-called character deficiencies of Drew -- or Ramirez -- are both relevant and misunderstood.
You'll go crazy with frustration if you can't accept the fact that Drew and Ramirez won't play 162 games like, say, Juan Pierre does. But those who can get past their biases about what every ballplayer should do in a perfect world, who can adjust their expectations and look at the overall pluses and minuses of Drew and Ramirez together, who can avoid letting preconceived notions distort the truth (Drew was notorious in Los Angeles for failing in the clutch despite posting statistics in 2006 showing that he excelled in every clutch situation, including close games in the late innings), will find their ability to make an intelligent assessment skyrocketing.
As for Boston, whose activities this offseason may well be discussed for years to come, it is possible that everything that the Red Sox think they'd be gaining from Manny no longer being Manny could be lost in J.D. being J.D. Or vice versa. If the Sox can't find clarity through statistics, they're stuck trying to decide which competing aphorism to buy into: "The grass is always greener" vs. "better the devil you know."
No comments:
Post a Comment