Just How Bad Of A Major Leaguer Would I Be?
December 30th, 2009 | by Daniel Moroz |This idea came up when discussing the possibility of the Yankees signing Matt Holliday on Twitter:
Doesn’t make sense for NY to spend that money on him now. The could put me in LF and still maybe make the playoffs.
Which begs the question, just how many wins could I cost a team if I played a full season? Any guesses, before I try to figure it out?
Seems easy enough to figure out. Same procedure would be used as when evaluating any other player. Take a guess, and then let’s work it out.
First off, the stipulation was that I would get 600 plate appearances in left-field, but I think it’s the case that if I had to play in the field all the time I wouldn’t actually make it to 600 PA. So instead, I’ll go easy on myself and just DH for the season.
Beyond a general lack of physical ability*, I also don’t think I have the necessary mental toughness to play the sport – especially at that level. If I had to stand in there against a pitcher throwing 90+ mph projectiles not all that far away from me, my feet would be touching the chalk in the back corner of the batter’s box, I would be leaning back, and my eyes would very possibly be closed.
* My main position on our softball team is manager. I’m the youngest person on the team. At least a couple of people on the team don’t know many of the actual rules. As you could therefore surmise, I’m not a particularly skilled athlete.
Given my many, many shortcomings with the bat, I’d project myself to hit something like .000/.050/.000*. There would likely be a few instances in which pitchers legitimately couldn’t throw strikes and I’d walk, and I imagine on occasional a pitcher would try to plunk me (it would likely succeed a couple times). There was some speculation from my good buddies at CamdenDepot that I might be able to run into one at some point and raise my batting average, but I think even with a full season of practice I wouldn’t be able to (1) bring myself to stand close enough to attempt to swing, (2) swing effectively enough to make contact, (3) make solid enough contact to not get the bat literally knocked out of my hands, and (4) make it to first-base before the throw. Oh, and I guess get lucky enough that the ball falls in. CD actually suggested that I might be able to punch up a .400 OPS, which is better than the average NL pitcher (though I’m certain they didn’t know that at the time). I’m flattered by their high opinion of me, and so if you were feeling optimistic you could maybe do .050/.100/.050 or something like that.
* I don’t remember where I read this, but I think I saw some data showing that even in situations where a pitcher absolutely wants to throw a strike (an opposing pitcher batting with the bases empty and a 3-0 count, or something like that), he is only successful about 75% of the time. If that’s the case, then my OBP would actually be even lower, as I’d strike out over 96% of the time** and walk less than 4% of the time***. So even the lower batting line might be a touch on the high side, but I think it’s fair.
** Breaking it down:
0 balls, 3 strikes: 42.2%
1 ball, 3 strikes: 31.6%
2 balls, 3 strikes: 15.8%
3 balls, 3 strikes: 6.6%
strike-out: 96.2%
4 balls, 0 strikes: 0.4%
4 balls, 1 strike: 1.2%
4 balls, 2 strikes: 2.2%
walk: 3.8%
*** A 3.8% walk rate would have still been higher than Bengie Molina’s, Miguel Tejada’s, Christian Guzman’s, and Jeff Francoeur’s from 2009. Yuniesky Betancourt has a career 3.4% walk rate. A rock, or a stick, or anything really, would be able to walk more than Yuni. That is an amazing level of hilarious.
The actual optimal strategy might be to bunt every time up if there’s someone on base – I’m a surprisingly good bunter – but I’m not sure the trade-off of advancing the runners versus all the double plays I’d hit into are worth it. We’ll stick with a batting line between the .050 OPS and the .150 OPS.
At the lower projection, I would be worth around -155 runs offensively (relative to the average batter). At the higher projection it would be closer to -135 runs. That is amazingly atrocious. It’s hard to really wrap your head around. You add on the DH penalty*, and I’d be between 13 and 15 Wins Below Replacement. That doesn’t take into account my baserunnning when I get on, but no sense in really piling on. As is, I could single-handily cancel out Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Joe Nathan combined. Or the White Sox entire collection of position players from last season. Also maybe the 2009 Astros, Mets, Giants, Cubs, Pirates, or Reds.
* It just struck me how amusing** it would be to have a Designated Hitter who almost literally couldn’t hit. Maybe the Royals or someone would do it as like, art, or something. Call me Dayton; I’d sign cheaply. And I might actually add some plate discipline to the team.
** Also amusingly, I’d be such a bad hitter that it would make sense to bat me 8th instead of 9th to make sure there were more runners on the bases for the top of the line-up.
So even the Yankees, who are probably about a 100 win team right now, couldn’t add me as a full-time player and still be expected to make the playoffs. If I wanted to pay for the privilege of playing on a major league team, it would cost me something on the order of $45-65 M so that the team could replace the lost production (depending on where I’d fall in the range and the $/WAR – from $3.5 M to $4.5 M). That’s assuming the loss of roster flexibility is offset by the great promotional possibilities. So I guess I probably shouldn’t quit my day job.















By Michael Jong on Dec 30, 2009
Here’s the funny part. Based on the league average R/PA of .12, an average player at 600 PA gets 72 runs baselined at 0 runs. For you to be 155 runs worse than average means you’re producing less than if they sent no one up there! Clearly, this is the extreme where a linear weights design for run estimation fails.
Yeah, you would be worth zero runs. Furthermore, it would always be worth it to intentionally walk the person in front of you, a cool feat for them until you get up there.
I guarantee you that I’d be worse, even given my stellar walk rate in Little League (went 0-for-3 with 3 K’s and 25 BB my rookie year).
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 30, 2009
Excellent point Michael. I guess I’d only be like 7-8 Wins Below Replacement then. Huzzah!
By Crawdaddy on Dec 30, 2009
Yep, that is what I thought.
By Pat Owens on Dec 30, 2009
Put all the stats and reasoning to rest… because you don’t even need them. That’s simply a hilarious concept and a great article.
What IF people could pay the team to play? Who would? Billy Crystal maybe? Garth Brooks?
By Stacey on Dec 30, 2009
ha ha this is a hoot, Daniel. I wonder how many wins it would cost the team if I were a player and dropped the bat and covered my head in fear every time a pitch was thrown?
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 30, 2009
Indeed you did, Crawdaddy. You called it at -7 right away. Was it just a lucky guess?
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 30, 2009
On second look Michael, would you mind expounding a little on why it can’t be worse than 72 runs? If the average PA is 0.12 runs, why couldn’t I be worth -0.12 runs/PA? Negative runs created exist, no?
If you take an average AL team from 2009 – hit .267/.336/.428 and scored 781 runs with 6252 PA – and replace 600 of those PA with a .000/.050/.000 line, they’d hit .241/.309/.387. That’s a little worse than the actual worst team (SEA), who hit .258/.314/.402 and scored 640 runs with 6113 PA. Scale that up to 6252 PA, and it’s 655 runs; 126 fewer than the average team. Since the new theoretical team is worse than the Mariners were, I’d say a 155 run drop is possible.
I also took a look at the line-up analysis tool at Baseball Musings. If I make each batter league average (.336 OBP and .428 SLG) then I come out with 4.847 runs per game, or 785 runs over 162 games (very close to the 781 from 2009). If I then replace one of the batters with me (.050 OBP and .000 SLG), then I get 3.887 runs per game, or 630 for the season. A drop of 155 runs.
By Ian Oland on Dec 30, 2009
Wow this is fantastic.
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 30, 2009
Some clarification from the super awesome Colin Wyers – now at Baseball Prospectus:
“When using a linear run estimator, you’re not creating negative runs so much as you are reducing everyone else’s run value.”
(me) “Yeah, in the comments I was referring to my effect on the team’s runs. That is basically correct though, right?”
(Colin) “Sort of.There are no actual negative runs. But you’re decreasing your teammates run production more than what you contribute.”
So while I was certainly technically wrong, the original estimate seems like it might be close to accurate (unless I’m still being wrong, which is entirely possible). Sounds like if I played in LF it might come out as anywhere from 3 to 9 wins worse on top of it.
By Darryl on Dec 30, 2009
This is awesome.