Untouchable Ellsbury?

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Confirming the Catch, originally uploaded by Eric Kilby.

Obviously, we are sensing the proverbial next shoe is about to drop. If it is Adrian Gonzalez (with an outside shot at Miguel Cabrera), which would be a ginormous move by the Red Sox to cap what would be an eye-popping offseason, then what is there not to like? Well, one thing: if one of the players going to San Diego is Jacoby Ellsbury.

If Ellsbury is the hot name from the San Diego side, then Theo Epstein should just say no.

Give up Ryan Westmoreland, and include a better prospect or two at the end of the deal. Ellsbury is a special player who hit .301, stole 70 bases, and scored 94 runs last season, and one who plays a very good center field and is just 26 years old.” – Nick Cafardo

Chad Finn and I might not agree on much with respect to a potential trade for Adrian Gonzalez, but we at least see eye to eye on this much: “If you think Jacoby Ellsbury is untouchable in a deal for Adrian Gonzalez, we’re gonna have to fight.”

Which is not to say that I want to trade Ells. Lord knows I love watching the kid play as much as the next guy, because when was the last time the Sox had a guy who was literally fast enough to run down a deer? But he is what he is, as the cliche says, and what he is is a player who’s good, but unlikely to develop into a star.

You might assume a deconstruction of the Jacoby-is-untouchable argument would begin with his defense, which recently become the subject of much discussion after he won an award as the best defensive player in the majors after posting the single worst UZR/150 at his position. But I won’t. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that his terrible -18.3 UZR/150 in ’09 was statistical noise; he put up a 6.9 at the position in ’08, albeit in less than half as many innings, and the good folks from SoSH at least raise some reasonable questions about the statistical assessments of his play in the field.

But what about his offense? Here’s what Aaron Gleeman, who is very good, said about Ells when the Twinkies were contemplating trading for him as part of a Santana package:

Ellsbury essentially does everything well except hit for power and looks likely to be a very valuable player for a long time, but the question is whether the Twins should build a trade package for the best pitcher in baseball around someone who may never reach double-digit homers in a season. Ellsbury batted .365 with a .157 Isolated Power during his metal bat-wielding college career at Oregon State and has hit .318 with a .116 Isolated Power in 1,282 plate appearances a pro.

At 24 years old Ellsbury will probably develop some additional pop as he matures, but with 29 homers in 1,300 plate appearances dating back to college it’s unlikely that his Isolated Power will rise much beyond .125 or so. For comparison, Luis Castillo’s career Isolated Power is .064, so Ellsbury is far from powerless. On the other hand, major-league hitters as a whole posted a .155 Isolated Power in 2007, which would make it tough for him to possess even average power.

Of course, plenty of hitters with below-average power are still able to be very good players by providing some combination of outstanding defense, speed, and on-base skills. Those are all areas where Ellsbury figures to thrive given that he’s an excellent defensive center fielder who’s hit .300 everywhere he’s gone and has stolen 114 bases at an 81-percent clip in 283 pro games. However, there’s some question about exactly how good his on-base skills can be.

Ellsbury has drawn a non-intentional walk in 8.8 percent of his pro plate appearances, which puts him solidly above the major-league average of 7.8 percent and works out to around 50-55 walks per 600 plate appearances. If he maintains that walk rate along with a batting average at .300 or so, Ellsbury’s on-base percentage would be around .360-.370. That’s well above the MLB average of .335, but is it enough to make him a star when it comes along with a .125 Isolated Power?

If things go well for Ellsbury, he looks capable of hitting around .300/.370/.425 on a regular basis. Toss in good defense with 50-steal speed and that’s an extremely good player. In fact, it’s essentially Kenny Lofton. Like Ellsbury, Lofton is a slight, incredibly fast, lefty-hitting center fielder who was drafted out of a Pac-10 college and made his big-league debut as a 24-year-old. Despite showing even less power than Ellsbury in the minors, Lofton has hit .299/.372/.423 with 622 steals during his 17-year career.

However, while Lofton certainly seems like a good comp for Ellsbury on any number of levels, in reality he’s probably more like a good best-case scenario comp. There’s no guarantee that Ellsbury can maintain his .300-hitting ways in the majors long term, even his modest minor-league power may not fully translate to the big leagues, and walking in nine percent of his trips to the plate could prove difficult if pitchers aren’t afraid to throw him strikes.

At this point Ellsbury looks capable of putting together a Lofton-like career, but with sub par power and non-great plate discipline most of his offensive value is tied to hitting .300. If he instead bats .275 while seeing his Isolated Power drop into the .100 range and walking just seven percent of the time, then Ellsbury goes from Lofton-like to hitting .275/.330/.375. Strong defense and great speed would still make him a solid player, but that’s not someone to build a package for Santana around.

None of us wanted to hear that, at the time, coming off the the kid’s spectacular 2007 late season run, during which he put up a .353/.394/.509 line with his eye popping speed.
But what’s he done since? .291/.346/.405 and an isolated power of .114. Pretty much exactly what Gleeman predicted, in other words. He’s a good player, but he’s not a great player. Even with the steals, which it will be interesting to see if he can sustain.

Some will claim he improved down the stretch, and that’s true: he did. But by how much? He numbers from September on have him at .305/.388/.415 for an .803 OPS. That’s better than his cumulative .301/.355/.415/.770 line, for sure: it would tie for the 5th best CF OPS in the majors, if he could hold that up. But arguments that that represents “improvement” seem to be largely the product of aspirational projections. The simpler explanation, easily, is that it’s a small sample size statistical variation explainable by, say, an influx of September pitching callups.

Nor is Ells a spring chicken at 26. He’s not done improving as a player, but he’s not 24 anymore either. Which the major projections recognize: Bill James has him at .302/.360/.420 (.780 OPS), CHONE .300/.358/.410 (.768 OPS) and ZIPS .290/.344/.398 (.742 OPS). Unless they’re all wrong – and their collective average OPS margin for error last year was .034 (Bill James was the farthest off, optimistically projecting a .843 for Ells) – he’s no star. No matter what Cafardo and his “veteran National League executive” think about Ells being “special” and a “rare talent.”

And for the Ellsbury defenders that want to point to his admittedly impressive 41.4 VORP score, good for second among centerfielders and 38th in the league, we need to acknowledge that the man he could be traded for – Gonzalez – is the owner of a 57.6 VORP, which would be easily the best on our team and good for 13th in the league.

But if he’s not a star player, Ells is cheap and team controlled, at least. Isn’t he? Well, not really. Here’s Olney:

I would respectfully disagree with Nick [Cafardo] about whether Ellsbury would be a great catch for the Padres. In a vacuum, sure, you’d love to have him. But Ellsbury is going to be eligible for arbitration for the first time after the 2010 season, and in 2011-12, he could make as much or more than Gonzalez will make over the next two seasons. In other words: His salary would become almost an immediate problem for the Padres, and given that he is represented by Scott Boras, the Padres would have to assume there would be no hometown discounts. Ellsbury would be a nice player for San Diego, but he would be a money pit.

So while I certainly wouldn’t trade an asset like Ells for just any player, the notion that he should be untouchable in a transaction for a talent like Gonzalez is absurd. If Hoyer would take him as the centerpiece for a deal, that’s an easy decision to make. Both purely on the players’ merits as well as in the context of our ability to replace Ellsbury on the major league roster.

Unfortunately, however, the Padre’s new GM is much better at player value assessment than Cafardo – who once recommended playing Shelley Duncan over Jason Giambi because of his “energy”, remember – so the chances of us getting Gonzalez for a package headlined by a good but not great player that’s about to get expensive are minimal. Cafardo’s got that going for him, at least.


10 thoughts on “Untouchable Ellsbury?

  1. @Aaron Pressman: VORP does value SB's, as far as i know, which likely accounts for Ellsbury's value in that system.

    the question then becomes a) is the ability really that valuable, and b) can that ability be sustained over time.

    the answer to the second, of course, is that we don't know. he stole 20 less in eight fewer games the year before, and it's obviously dependent on health.

    the answer to the former is that it's an open question. Fangraphs' WAR (Wins Above Replacement), for example, which is in turn based in part of WOBA (which does value the stolen base),
    has Mike Cameron as a 4.3 win player last year against Ellsbury's 1.9.

    who's right? tough to say.

    but let's assume that VORP is valuing the steals perfectly: it's still a deal you make because of Gonzalez' value.

  2. You guys, are all crazy! If you don't think Ells is going to get better you are out of your mind. Don't be surprised if he turns into a regular all-star. Personally I would rather see the Sox spend some cash and get Matt Holiday and keep Ells. I would have liked to see Roy Halladay and Matt Holiday, over John Lackey and AGON any day! It's funny they didn't want to push for Doc because the Blue Jays wanted too many prospects, but we will give away one of our best young players for AGON, and Doc would have done more than AGON will do for us.

  3. @Real Sox Fan: where to start…

    1. It is likely, at the age of 26, that Ells is going to get better. That's not the question. The question is by how much, and will he be a star. Based on all of the available evidence, the answer is: no, he will not be a star. Therefore he should not be untouchable.

    2. Holliday apparently wants Teixeira money, and he's not worth anything near that. At which point the Sox should – and reportedly did – walk away.

    3. Holliday's an excellent pitcher. He is, however, 36 and has thrown an exceptionally high number of innings the past few years. Ergo he's a signing risk. Further, the Jays would have required us to pay a premium to trade him within the division, making it an even riskier deal. Lackey can approximate if not duplicate his numbers at a far more reasonable acquisition cost.

  4. Sog,

    If you look at Ells first two complete years his OBP and Avg. have both gone up 30 points. With a little more work his OBP will be right where you would want a star lead-off hitter. Next the guy who wrote this article is talking about power. Ells hit 8 HRs this past season which is not great by any means but for a lead-off hitter, is just fine. My question is does anyone actually know how many more runs his speed has made the Sox last season? A guy that can turn a single into a double is priceless. No one seemed to complain about Damon when we first got him and he didn't hit a ton of Homeruns.

    And as for AGON, sure he is a great hitter, but if you don't have anyone on base in front of him those 40 HRs he hit last year only earned him 40 RBIs. Take last season for instance, With those 40 HRs he only hit in 99 RBIs. That is not many RBIs per Homerun. The reason being is no one was getting on base before him and when they were on base they were not fast enough to get in scoring position so that he could drive them in.

    If we get rid of Ells, who is going to lead-off?? Mike Cameron?? That would be nice with 250 batting average and bad wheels. How about JD Drew? With a hefty 275 batting average and great wheels with 2 stolen bases this past season.

    Now you talk about Holliday being old, he is only 4 years older than Lackey, and has been very durable and reliable during his career. I do understand that all we had to do was give up money for Lackey and not Prospects, but now we are turning around and thinking about throwing prospects at AGON. Not only that but, why is everyone ignoring the 5.75 era that Lackey has in Fenway??? Did everyone forget byung hyun kim? Everyone was all excited when we picked him up knowing that he couldn't pitch against the Yankees. But everyone just said "oh he will be fine." How did that turn out? Now we are giving a crap load of money to Lackey and we don't even know how he is going to pitch in a park that he is notorious for struggling in.

    I just think we would have received more from a Doc and Matt Halladay deal then a Lackey and AGON deal.

  5. @Real Sox Fan: i wish i could be as optimistic, i really do. but the fact is that his OBP improved from .336 in 08 to .355 in 09, and the most optimistic projection for him next year is .360. which just isn't that great.

    as for who leads off, Scutaro's a decent option after putting up a .379 OBP last year.

    on the subject of holliday. 4 years is a lot. for Holliday, in fact, that's 930 IP. lot of mileage.

    Lackey is not as good as Holliday, clearly, but neither did we have to pay him like he is.

    Holliday, conversely, is not nearly the offensive threat that Gonzalez is, but wants dollars comparable to Teixeira. he's not worth that, meaning that paying him as if he is is poor business, nothing more.

Leave a Reply to Aaron Pressman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s