Curt Schilling knows a thing or two about baseball

It is well documented that I do not particularly like Curt Schilling. However, Schilling had a few insightful words on his blog and on the radio today.

In particular, I have to approve of this comment he made (I've taken the liberty of accentuating the sexually arousing parts):

Did you view other power hitters as a bigger threat than [J.D.] Drew?

[Schilling]: Not at all. Not at all. I’ll tell you why.

His career has been built around getting on base. You make that argument, ‘I don’t want a guy taking a walk with a runner in scoring position.’ On-base percentage is what drives … I never wanted to face the guys who were .370-plus percentage on-base guys. Generally, for the most part, those guys don’t strike out a lot. J.D. strikes out more than most. For the most part, those are the guys who, their value isn’t necessarily just getting on base every time. It’s just as much the fact that in their 0-for-2 night, they’re going to draw two walks and make the opposing pitcher throw 24 pitches, as opposed to Vladimir Guerrero, who’s going to go 0-for-4, draw no walks and make me throw five pitches. There’s a deeper value. I promise you that the depth of the statistical analysis that they do on these players to identify their dollar value is far different and far more unique and probably as off the wall as anything you’ve ever heard.

If you read the article, you nonetheless get the feeling that even when Curt Schilling is right, he's still an asshole. Maybe it's the excessive use of the phrase "I'll tell you why"...maybe it's just the fact that he's Curt Schilling.

Funny enough, Fangraphs put up an article earlier today detailing the value that J.D. Drew has provided in a Red Sox uniform. I wonder if Schilling read the article...

Joe Schad is on my list

It's one thing to have a slip of the tongue, or a freudian slip when you are forced to speak on television, but it is not acceptable to simply say the most obvious thoughtless things. I at least want statistical evidence to back up a completely obvious statement like water is wet and grass is green. Minutes ago on ESPNews, Joe Schad a college football analyst gave the following analysis of Jimmy Clausen

History has shown Jimmy Clausen plays better when healthy as opposed to hurt

Really? As opposed to all those athletes who play better hurt. Who intentionally smash their shins into telephone poles in hopes of being at 60%, which is actually 120% for those select few who thrive under pain. Lets make a list of all the athletes who perform better when injured

1. Curt Schilling
2. End of list
   

The lesser of two evils

Do The Red Sox Need Varitek?

Curt Schilling thinks the Red Sox need Jason Varitek. At a cost of more than $5 million dollars a year, Fangraphs strongly disagrees. Neither Bill James, CHONE or Marcel thinks Varitek is going to bounce back in any way from his 2008 performance. Tek is a player on the decline; at age 36, there is little reason to resign him other than to help "coach" the team's young pitchers (which, by the way, is the job of the pitching coach and/or Kevin Costner).

Fangraphs put Varitek's production value at an astonishingly high $5.6 million (he contributed 1.2 Value Wins to the team, each win being worth [according to calculated league average salary/win contribution] $4.47 million). Baseball Prospectus indicated that the career of a Catcher begins to (sharply) decline somewhere around the age of 32:

"Catchers hold their value pretty well during their late 20s, comparable to other positions. The 30 to 33 range is very volatile... after age 34, things go downhill very quickly for catchers, a trend noticeable even in the very small sample sizes beyond age 35."

Based on empirical evidence, BP suggests that "the physical demands of the position...tend to reduce both the length of their [catchers] peaks and the length of their careers." Knowing this only affirms the conventional wisdom that it would be generally unwise for any team to sign Jason Varitek to an extended contracted.

At this point, however, the Red Sox are in dire need of a capable major league-ready catcher for the 2009 season if they plan on competing. To this point, I assert that the Red Sox sign Varitek to a contract worth no more than $3-4 million a year for no more than two years. Seeing as how Varitek turned down arbitration and would cost any team who signs him a draft pick, Varitek is being flagged. There is little room for him to negotiate a 2009 salary if he plans on playing anywhere other than Boston sometime before June (at which point, he is going to have to take a partial season pay cut anyway). A low value (perhaps incentive laiden) two year contract would be ideal because it would give the Red Sox three viable options for the future at the backstop, in my opinion.

1. Wait two years and sign Joe Mauer, who will be a free agent in 2011 at age 28 (just to clarify, Mauer will turn 28 right before the 2011 season), to an extended contract (4-6 years). Upside: with enough money to spend, the Sox could probably pull this off no problem. Downside: signing Mauer would almost assuredly cost the Sox their first round pick.
   
2. Trade Michael Bowden for Taylor Teagarden. The Red Sox have a very deep farm system when it comes to pitching; the converse is true about their minor league catchers. Obtaining a young player with as much upside as Teagarden could provide much future security for the Red Sox behind the plate.
3. Trade Clay Buchholz for Max Ramirez or Jarrod Saltalamaccia. Same logic as assertion #2, only I've downgraded the pieces of the trade on both sides of the table. It's already publically know that the Rangers covet Bowden and Buchholz and won't trade any of their young catchers for anything less than top talent. Given the Rangers' surplus of talent behind the plate, a swap of player depths between Boston and Texas seems most logical (especially since the Dbacks probably aren't willing to give up Miguel Montero at a reasonable price).

By 2011, any one of these four players should be ready and able to go as the Red Sox future catcher.

Curt Schilling Needs A Life

Curt Schilling is quite possibly the most annoying baseball player in the game. He is a rigid moralist (if I hear him brag about how he didn't take steroids to be the player he is/was one more time, I might have to make another post) with an opinion on everything. I literally mean everything. The presidential election, the Iraq War, his superior grammar skills, etc. He also sometimes just blogs about how many MLB rings he has.

In today's blogpost, Schilling basically says what I said yesterday about the Yankees signing of Mark Teixeira being overrated, only with a "we are just as good as the Yanks without Tex" attitude.

Two words, Schilling: as if.

Let's compare 25 men rosters:
1B: Youkilis vs Teixeira -- The Yankees win this matchup because while both first baseman are patient sluggers with relatively high batting averages (if you are into that sort of statistic), Tex clearly has more power (30+ HRs vs 20+)

2B: Pedroia vs Cano -- The Red Sox win this one if Cano continues his career with his 2008 numbers instead of his 2006/2007 numbers. If Cano were to "bounce back," however, he would be a formidible comparison to Pedroia, given his double digit HR power, more-than-competent ability to make contact and well-above-average defense.

SS: Jeter vs Lugo -- Despite his hugely overrated status and steady decline-in-ability as he is aging, Jeter is clearly better than Lugo in all categories other than defense (sabermetrically speaking, Jeter was rated the worst defensive SS in the game last year). Just look at their offensive numbers.

3B: A-rod vs Mike Lowell -- Yankees win this one with no question. A-Rod is one of the best baseball players of all-time and Mike Lowell is old, oft-injured and inconsistent.

OF1: Jason Bay vs Xavier Nady -- The Red Sox win this one because Bay is a 30 HR power guy with a career OPS that hovers around .900. However, Nady, until recently, was utilized as a utility guy throughout his career (much like Mark DeRosa). It took until last year to show what he's capable of doing (and it's actually pretty damn good).

CF: Ellsbury vs Swisher -- This one is a tie, in my opinion. While Ellsbury is clearly the better defender (if for no reason other than the ability to run at fly balls competently), Swisher is clearly more valuable (where it counts) offensively. Besides, Swisher really isn't an outfielder. He's more of a 1B/DH.

OF2: JD Drew vs Johnny "Ex-Sox" Damon -- This one again goes to the Yankees because Damon still walks, smacks extra-base hits and is, above all, consistent. Drew has some great ability but it often comes and goes in streaks. That's all and good for a 162 game season (sample size), but nothing to brag about come playoff time.

DH: Matsui vs Ortiz -- Both are health risks as of late, but Ortiz is clearly the better player in terms of power (which is what you want in a DH). Match point goes to the Red Sox.

SP1: Beckett vs Sabathia -- In 2009, Sabathia's arm will probably fall off, but Beckett is just as likely to get a sidelining blister on his index finger. Assuming both stay healthy, however, Sabathia's career and potential is clearly more distinguished (more K's, less HRs) and more consistent.

SP2: Dice-K vs AJ Burnett -- The Yankees win here if AJ stays healthy because Dice-K's walk rate is going to eventually bite him in the ass. Both have nasty stuff, however, and you could give a good arguement that this one is a toss up.

SP3: Wang vs Lester -- Yanks sweep this matchup, as Wang pitches like an ace. Want is great at inducing ground balls and not walking people, while Lester is just an above-average middle-of-the-rotation kind of guy.

SP4: Joba vs Tim Wakefield -- Considering how good and young Joba is and how old and not-very-good Wakefield is, I'm giving this matchup to the Yankees.

SP5: Phil Hughes vs Clay Buchholz -- The winner of this matchup is indeterminant because both are young pitchers with much hype, great stuff and tons of potential but very limited proven success in the majors. They can either be the next Roy Oswalt or the next Daniel Cabrera. Only time will tell

Relief Core: The Red Sox have a leg up on the Yankees in this category given their profound pitching depth.

CL: Rivera vs Papelbon -- While Papelbon will probably be great for many years to come and Mo Rivers is on his way out of the game, they both posses equally great talent. I have to give the edge to Mo and the Yankees, however, given Rivera's sheer experience in the majors.

All said and done, it's clear that the Yankees pretty much have better team all around. Outside of the DH position, second base and a corner outfield position, the Yankees have equally good, if not better, players at every turn. Despite his comment that he is "glad Youk is staying at first and Mike is at third," there is no way in hell he could look me in the eye and say Youk wouldn't be a better 3B than Lowell and Tex wouldn't be a better 1B than Youk. Such a claim defies all logic and reason.