Ethier vs Pierre
When the Dodgers acquired Manny Ramirez last week, many assumed it was to replace the pair of busted free agents signed the last couple of winters, Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones. They were only half right – while Jones takes his rightful seat on the bench, Joe Torre remains enamored with Juan Pierre, who has been anointed as the team’s center fielder for the remainder of the year. To make room for Ramirez, Andre Ethier heads to the bench.
From an offensive perspective, this is ridiculous. Pierre is hitting .281/.326/.318 compared to Ethier’s .274/.339/.442 mark. Pierre’s abilities on the base paths are canceled out – and then some – by Ethier’s ability to hit the ball out of the infield. In fact, thanks to the Hardball Times newly published rest-of-season Marcel projections and Tom Tango’s Wins Above Replacement calculations, we can quantify the win value differences between the two.
Offensively, Ethier’s expected performance in August and September will be worth about six runs above a replacement level corner outfielder. Not bad for two months. Pierre, on the other hand, pretty much defines replacement level. He’s projected at a whopping half a run over a replacement level center fielder over the next two months. Not impressive, Juan.
So, by giving Pierre a couple hundred at-bats that would have otherwise gone to Ethier, the Dodgers are punting about five runs of offense, which translates to about half a win. Considering how tight most people expect the race to be down the stretch, you don’t just punt several runs for the heck of it.
However, we haven’t taken defense entirely into account yet. Ethier’s five run advantage would only hold if both he and Pierre were average defenders for their respective positions, but the Dodgers clearly believe this isn’t the case, putting Pierre in the line-up for his fly catching ability. John Dewan’s +/- system supports this assertion, having Pierre at +12 plays in CF in 2006 and +9 plays in CF last year. He’s +4 plays in limited time in LF this year. The conclusion for Pierre seems relatively obvious – he’s a better than average defensive CF, probably something like +1.7 runs over the remaining 1/3 of the season.
The picture on Ethier isn’t as clear. Dewan’s +/- loved him in RF last year (+16) but hates him this year (-7), though it has him basically average in each of the last three years in LF. The RF numbers are probably sample size noise, as it’s highly unlikely that Ethier is either good or terrible as a corner OF, given what scouting data and other defensive systems tell us about his abilities. The best assumption is that he’s about average, though we have to make that conclusion with less confidence than with Pierre.
The defensive difference closes the gap, but only partially so. In fact, to balance out the offensive differences over the remaining two months, we’d have to accept that Pierre is both a +10 run defender over a full season in CF and that Ethier is a -13 run defender in RF/LF over a full season. If both of those opinions about their relative defensive abilities were true, they’d be pretty much equal in talent – about 2.5 runs above a replacement level outfielder for the final two months.
The Dodgers obviously believe the defensive difference is large enough to justify giving Pierre at-bats at Ethier’s expense. I doubt they’re right, however. Most likely, they’e punting a couple of runs the rest of the year by choosing the wrong player. But I do think there’s enough vagueness in our ability to evaluate defensive abilities to admit that the Dodgers may not be making the worst decision ever. If they’re right about the defensive difference, it’s not a big deal which one starts.
If they’re not, however, it could cost them the division. Sounds like a high risk, no reward decision to me.
27
Interesting analysis Dave. My one questions is in your comparison of Pierre in center to Ethier in a corner. How does a switch from a Ramirez/Kemp/Ethier to Ramirez/Pierre/Kemp outfield look defensively? Or in other words how does moving Matt Kemp (who I presume would play CF if Ethier played) to the corner help the overall defensive outfield?
You lost me, Dave. You have Ethier 6 runs more valuable over two months, which is about 20 runs over a full season. If Pierre is a center fielder and Ethier is a corner outfielder (why the different position? just for ease of using historical fielding data?) that’s a ten run bonus to Pierre over a full season. That just means he has to be 10 runs better relative to position over a full season, or something like +5 to -5 or +10 to 0. That’s completely reasonable. (No problem docking Pierre for a -5 arm, though, if you like.)
Ali is right, the relevant evaluation is how much better a Manny-Pierre-Kemp defense is better than a Manny-Kemp-Ethier. Plus, and I’m not defending this but it does matter, Pierre is a leadoff guy. Ethier isn’t, and this is a team that lacks a leadoff guy with Furcal hurt, if Pierre doesn’t play.
The real problem here is that no matter what configuration there is of the lineup, talent is being wasted.
Sounds like you were hoping Ethier would bury Pierre when you did this, but as you were writing it, it turned out to be closer than anticipated.
That’s actually the exact opposite of the truth, dan. I thought there’s been a bit too much made over the decision, and was figuring that this analysis would show that the defense makes up almost all of the difference in offensive value. I was a bit surprised it didn’t.
Don’t forget the gap in arms. Pierre has one of the worst, if not the worst, arms in baseball. That itself costs 5 runs a year.
As for Pierre being a “leadoff” guy, he’s actually a #8 hitter cast as a leadoff hitter.
Tango is right about the arms, which have been a major reason Dodger fans don’t like Pierre. I think Dave is also being generous in stating that the Dodgers think the defensive gap is that big. It is exceedingly obvious to anyone following the team that they either do not know how to quantify offensive contribution or completely ignore any such quantification for players they feel they Know something about. The Dodgers have been acting as if the offensive difference is marginal (or, arguably, that Pierre is better), and that is reflected through countless statements from both Torre and Colletti.
Pierre is definitely NOT a lead off hitter. He may have received most of his at-bats there, but that does not mean he is good at it. I am not familiar enough with the dodgers line-up, but I think a good analysis would be to use the expected runs created for a given line-up. In other words if the Torre plays Pierre, he bats lead-off and that amplifies his negative offensive value. I don’t know where Either would be put in the line-up so I really can’t comment on him.
Speed does not make a lead-off hitter. The ultimate objective of a baseball player is to get on base, everything else will follow from there. It is imperative that your lead-off hitter have a high OBP so that they create as few outs as possible.
It would be interesting if a manager just used the line-up tool and trotted out the “best” one according to that for each game. The issue is you would wind up with crazy things, like Manny leading off.
I would guess that the best non-Furcal Leadoff hitter that the Dodgers have is actually Russell Martin, but I doubt the Dodgers Brain-trust is creative or daring enough to go with that.
Why don’t you guys discuss Pierre’s hits and steals. These projections are just that–projections, try going with the facts. Extinuating factors, such as, not batting lead-off, not playing, moved from CF to LF, and injury. You guys are too pessimistic when it comes to Pierre!
june chun,
Really, because these numbers say the opposite:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6550/situational;_ylt=AgM6YSNPZongfq_42QdVVkCFCLcF
They say that, this year, Pierre has almost always batted leadoff and, further, he actually hit better when he wasn’t leading off. They also say that he pretty much only played LF. Not that any of this matters much, but you can’t just say things that are false.