Comments on: Wilson On the Move?

By: Batman Online

Batman Online — Mon, 04 May 2009 06:04:37 +0000

Great blog, lots of interesting posts like this one!

By: Greg Foley

Greg Foley — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:42:54 +0000

To me, it looks like he’s been lousy except for his age 26 season in which his BABIP rose by 30 or 40 points higher than all other years. He quickly reverted to -20 and -15 in his age 27 and 28 seasons. Maybe he got over his inexperience in his age 29 season just in time to start his decline.

By: Eric Seidman

Eric Seidman — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:45:40 +0000

Greg, I would tend to agree more with mymrbig, in that the most accurate representation is 2004-2007, as Wilson’s previous offense likely had more to do with inexperience than a true talent level. I think -7.5 runs is a solid projection for next season, that could go up or down by 3 runs depending on playing time.

By: mymrbig

mymrbig — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:32:38 +0000

Holy run-on sentence in the last paragraph batman!!!

By: mymrbig

mymrbig — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:30:50 +0000

Excellent article, many thanks. I repeatedly tried to make this exact same point over at MLBTR during all the Wilson threads, but my arguments generally fell on deaf (or dumb?) ears. I came to the same conclusion – that Wilson was worth his 2008 salary (or a little more, depending on health), and that the 2010 option was perfect for the team who didn’t have an immediate replacement, but could dump him without too much cost.

I think any analysis of Wilson probably needs to throw out his 2001-2003 offensive numbers. He was rushed to the majors and his bat clearly wasn’t ready. To me, it is impressive that he was able to overcome this and showed some decent improvement over his first few seasons, as his K% and ISO both increased:
2001: 17.9%; .072
2002: 14.0%; .080
2003: 13.3%, .097
2004: 10.9%; .150
2005: 9.9%; .106
2006: 12.0%; .098
2007: 9.6%; .145
2008: 8.9%; .076

So his contact rate vastly improved over his first few seasons and now has about 10% K-rate. His power also “improved” and now sits at around .100 with big spikes in 2004 and 2007.

Also, I think 2008 needs to be tossed out to some extent. His ISO was way down and his 1.0 HR/FB% is just crazy low (he’s usually just over 5.0%). Maybe his injuries sapped his power, but even Jack Wilson has more power than he exhibited last year.

I like the analysis, but I think Wilson’s 2004-2007 numbers are probably the best estimate of what to expect in 2009, rather than 2001-2003 or 2008. More injuries could always change that, but I think both Bill James and Marcel give pretty good estimates for his 2009 offense, though I think he still has the “upside” of putting up another 2004 or 2007, with the only real downside being his injury risk.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:05:02 +0000

Unfortunately for the team acquiring him, they’ll be paying his fair market value plus prospects for Wilson. That makes him seem less reasonably priced.

By: Greg Foley

Greg Foley — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:04:45 +0000

This article sums up Wilson’s offense in one phrase, “Wilson is -7.5 runs offensively”, however this does not tell the whole story. Wilson has been up and down offensively ranging from -32 to +6.

Year wRAA
2001: -32.2
2002: -19.7
2003: -21.7
2004: +6.2
2005: -20.4
2006: -15.6
2007: +1.7
2008: -9.7

Even the 2009 predictions are split with Bill James coming in at -16.5 and Marcel coming in at -7.6. It seems like Wilson could hit anywhere from -20 to +6 in 2009, but a -20 season would knock him all the way down to replacement level and erase all of his value. He might not be worth 7.25 million after all.