Valuing Pat Burrell
Pat Burrell is playing the role of “The Forgotten” thus far this off-season. The Phillies have all ready replaced Burell, an awful defender, with another awful fielder in Raul Ibanez. That would seem to indicate Burrell is almost certainly destined for a designated hitter role, leaving him with only a few options beyond Cincinnati and other defensively unaware National League teams. How much should teams be willing to pony up for the slugger, and what is his outlook?
We know that Burrell is 32 years old and hit for his lowest wOBA since 2004. Part of that should be credited to an unlucky BABIP, and perhaps a slightly down walk rate. Burrell did increase his ISO and even if you park adjust his numbers, he was still above average. Perhaps not surprisingly, Burrell is a player who actually gains value by moving to hitting full time. The major defensive metrics all reach the same conlusion: Burrell in left field is a really bad experience. The most generous, Chone, had Burrell at -14 runs, meanwhile UZR at -14.7 runs, PMR at -19.89 runs, and Dewan’s +/- at -20 plays, or -16 runs.
That’s an average of -16.15 runs, combine that with the positional adjustment of -7.5 and you’re looking at his offensive value being zapped. As DH Burrell gets penalized -17.5 runs. 23.65-17.5 is a 6.15 run swing, in other words, Burrell gains a half of a win by simply tucking his glove in a dark corner. That’s a substantial amount when you consider the DH positional penalty is trying to punish, not improve player value.
Marcels has Burrell continuing his slide (mostly age related) and slipping to .369 wOBA, or 18.7 offensive runs above average in 582 plate appearances. That makes him worth between 1.8 and 2 WAR. If Burrell can find a way into 645 plate appearances like 2008, raise those expectations to 2-2.2. That suggests Burrell should be worth between 9 to 11 million.
The Phillies chose against offering Burrell arbitration, meaning no draft picks will exchange hands. Certainly a pro, but there are some cons to signing Burrell as well. Most of those are associated with his age and potential for a quick collapse in skills. Any team desiring to add Burrell should attempt a contract covering one or two seasons. This would allow Burrell to test the market again before his mid-30’s, and gives the team a chance to avoid Burrell’s eventually collapse.
Print This Post
DH gets a -22.5 penalty.
Then, you add +5 to that because it’s harder to DH. However, Burrell has never been a DH, so he wouldn’t get that boost.
That makes the move almost break even. Can he play first?
Nick, he would get the +5 runs even without DHing, since there is no rule stating we cannot estimate his value at a certain position. The DH is actually -17.5, but Tango likes to show it in two steps, the -22.5 and then the +5 for difficulty. The only reason he does that is to show the separate steps. Otherwise, DH would literally just show up as -17.5.
As I understand it, DHs get a +5 run bonus because it’s harder to hit as a DH.
Pat has never hit as a DH, so he shouldn’t get that bonus.
Obviously you can do it however you want. But using Tango’s postional adjustments (as you have in the past), I’d give back the 5.
Nick, the point isn’t whether or not he has, as the positional adjustments are not concrete or 100% accurate. If Grady Sizemore suddenly went to LF, and we were doing his projection, we would dock him -7.5 runs per 162 games, or prorate it to his playing time. We wouldn’t keep the +2.5 from CF even though he technically never played LF before. The same applies to Burrell. He may not have played DH before, but the adjustment is only used to judge value. Burrell as a DH with the -22.5 + 5.0 is better than Burrell the LF. The +5 added back is to deal with the hypothetical of it being harder to hit off the bench, and it isn’t reserved strictly for those who have played the position in the past.
However, for the purpose of future projection, should we assume that Pat’s hitting will decline somewhat if he’s hitting off the bench, since he will be adjusting to a position from which it’s harder to hit? That may be what NickP is asking.
Hey can Eric or Dave or anyone on the fangraphs staff explain the difference between Chone, UZR, PMR, and Dewan’s. Also why does fangraphs use UZR rather than any of the other three? If this already been explained than i am sorry but I would like to know something about the differences in methodology (if there is any) between the 4 systems.
Here are the basics behind UZR:
UZR Primer Part 1
UZR Primer Part 2
I don’t think mgl is using exactly the same methodology and has since made improvements but this is the basic idea.
Sean Smith’s (Chone) Total Zone is based off batted ball data, so fly balls, groundball, line drives You can find more information here:
http://lanaheimangelfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/totalzone-2008-shortstops.html#links
David Pinto’s PMR you can read more about here:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008270.php
Dewan’s +/- can be read about in the Fielding Bible. I don’t have a link for this.
The reason we use UZR is because mgl agreed to help and I believe that UZR is at least on par with PMR and the +/- system, if not better. Total Zone is very good at what it does, but it just doesn’t have the same level of detail as the others.
Thank you David, for the awesome info. Much appreciated.
Don, could be, but who knows? David, UZR was, until now, not available for any website. MGL has a licensing agreement with the St. Louis Cardinals and couldn’t reproduce it. I cannot speak for Chone or PMR, but both UZR and Dewan compare players to others at their position. So, if Burrell is -14 runs via UZR, it is compared to other left-fielders, thus why positional adjustments are important. Dewan’s system counts the number of plays made above an average fielder at the same position.