Washington Nationals' Danny Espinosa, Wilson Ramos Recognized In Voting For 2011 NL Rookie Of The Year.
by Patrick Reddington on Nov 14, 2011 4:37 PM EST
Email
PrintDanny Espinoza [sic] finished sixth overall in the BBWAA voting for 2011's NL Rookie of the Year. They misspelled the Nats' 24-year-old second baseman's name in the official BBWAA press release accompanying today's announcement unfortunately. Espinosa finished his rookie campaign with a .236/.323/.414 slash line, 29 doubles (3rd among rookies in the NL), 21 HR's (tied for 1st in NL among rookies w/ ATL 1B Freddie Freeman), 17 steals (3rd among NL rookies) and the second-most RBI's with 66 to Freddie Freeman's 76 among rookies in the National League. In the field, the rookie shortstop-turned-second baseman had the second-highest error total in the Nationals League, with a .982 fld%, (the 6th best fld% overall among NL second baseman) and the 6th best UZR/150 +0.9.
24-year-old Nats' backstop Wilson Ramos finished fourth overall in the BBWAA voting, with the Phillies' pitcher Vance Worley third, the Braves' first baseman Freddie Freeman second and Atlanta closer Craig Kimbrel the unanimous choice as the 2011 National League Rookie of the Year. The voting members of the SB Nation gave Kimbrel the nod as well as we reported last week with Danny Espinosa finishing second overall ahead of Freeman and Worley. In my own ballot it was Kimbrel, Freeman and Wilson Ramos 1-3.
Kimbrel, the Braves' 23-year-old '08 3rd Round pick, (who was taken 19th overall out of Wallace State Community College in Alabama nine picks after the Nationals' selected Espinosa out of Long Beach State in California), had 46 saves, a 2.10 ERA, 1.52 FIP, 32 BB (3.74 BB/9) and 127 K's (14.84 K/9) in 79 games and 77.0 IP in 2011. As we noted in last week's post, Kimbrel's +3.2 WAR was tops amongst rookie NL pitchers ahead of Braves teammate Brandon Beachy's +2.8 and Worley's +2.5. Espinosa's +3.5 WAR was the best among NL rookies overall, with Wilson Ramos' +3.1 second among position players and third overall.
In an appearance on 106.7 the FAN in D.C. this afternoon, Nats' GM Mike Rizzo talked to hosts Chad Dukes and Danny Rouhier about the young core of the Nationals including Espinosa, Ramos, Ian Desmond and Ryan Zimmerman. "When people ask me, 'What did you take from last year was the most positive thing?'" Rizzo said, "'I always say, that the development of our core young players that really had a chance to play a full season in the major leagues. To see how they matured physically, mentally and emotionally at the big league level was very refreshing."
"When you talk about a core group of guys," Rizzo continued, "Wilson Ramos as a catcher, Ryan Zimmerman, third, Desmond, short, Espinosa at second. You've got a [Stephen] Strasburg, a Jordan Zimmermann, a Drew Storen, a Tyler Clippard. These are all young controllable players that can really grow with an organization. And when you look at the emergence of Michael Morse and the acquisition of Jayson Werth, you see that going into the winter, this season, you really have a group of players that you can count on for the next year. There's very, very few questions that we have as far as our core group and our everyday position players that you have to tackle this offseason."
Ryan Zimmerman cited the same certainty about the roster as a reason for optimism last month in an interview with CSNWashington.com's Ivan Carter, telling the host, "'It's the first offseason, where I think going into Spring Training next year we might have one or two positions up for grabs. Usually it's nine or ten.'" Davey Johnson too spoke about the stability of knowing what you have going into next season in a conversation with the press late this past September.
"'I think in everybody's eyes, a lot of guys have laid claim to starting positions in the regular nine," the Nats' Skipper said, "[but] we still have some spots that are open. The bullpen has really done a great job and has kind of taken a really definite shape, and there's some spots up for grabs in the starting rotation that some guys are pitching very well for, and so, I think there's going to be very few question marks going into next Spring which is a great thing." Who will play center? Who'll be at first? Can the Nats land a starter? Very few questions, but important ones.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's Espino-sa, not Espino-za!
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
by RobBobS on Nov 14, 2011 5:13 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
The Rodney Dangerfield of ROY candidates...
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
Why is all the furniture in the Federal Baseball bunker floating in mid-air?
#HERMIONE!!!!
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Nov 14, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
We knew who they were talking about
"Things are going great, and they're only gettin' better..." Timbuk3
Shorstop-turned-second baseman?
Was that some subtle dig at the BBWAA?
Be funnier if it was and not just some typing issue I have where I can't get ever the first "t" in shortstop the first time I type it...
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Nov 14, 2011 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
And it looks like the BBWAA has Jr. Asst. Editors on their site too, they've co-rrected the spelling on Espinosa...
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Nov 14, 2011 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
This isn't your MLB / Bowden-led Nationals anymore.
With two rookies getting votes this year, the team has set a clearer tone for the future. Milone, Lombardozzi, and Peacock should already be on the watchlists for next season, with others to follow. “Things are alright, and they’re only getting better”… I think I just found my sig!
And thank goodness for that!
Rizzo doesn’t go for the dumpster dives that Bowden [SPIT!] loved…with the predictably BAD results. What a snake oil salesman. No wonder Boras wouldn’t talk to him!
Rizzo and crew have turned things around in a relatively short time so the future’s looking bright. Kudos to him and mad love for
Spinner and WILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL-SON!
"player development" should not be gladiator games. by cat daddy3000 on Aug 6, 2011
Rizzo doesn’t go for the dumpster dives that Bowden [SPIT!] loved…
Chad Gaudin, Matt Stairs, Alex Cora, Willy Taveras, Kevin Mench, Brian Bruney, Adam LaRoche excepted.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
There's a difference between dumpster diving for roster fodder
And dumpster diving for a player you are building your team around. Even LaRoche (don’t think we didn’t notice you sliding him in there!) was signed as a two year stopgap guy. Milledge and Elijah Dukes were supposed to be cornerstone players.
Every team dumpster dives on occasion to fill out the last couple of spots on the roster. It’s when you have to fill out the last eight spots on the roster that you know you are in serious trouble.
Who is LaRoche supposed to be stopping the gap for?
Marrero? I hope not.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
last year was not a good year to find a good 1st baseman on the market
stop gap for whoever showed up
Well this year *is* a good year to find a top-quality first baseman
So why are they claiming to be ignoring the good choices that will not be available perhaps ever again?
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
No offense, but haven’t we already gone over this a million times? And it’s only Nov. 15th.
BTW – remember the old days when skipping records were a common thing?
I understand that Rizzo plays his cards close to the vest,
and I like that. He could shock the world by signing a big slugger like Fielder or Pujols, despite him stating he’s not interested in that sort of thing. (This could, of course, be like the typical “I’m an athletic director who’s about to fire his coach but nonetheless am claiming said coach has my ‘full support’” gambit).
As a matter of fact, if I really thought there was no chance that he would do such a thing I would have dropped it by now. So, in the end, I don’t expect Rizzo will do something amazing like this, but I remain hopeful.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
I think the Nationals are actively considering Morse at 1b long term
Signing Fielder or Pujols means that you re committing to either trade Morse (which diminishes the value of the uber-expensive offensive upgrade) or you are prepared (when Harper is called up) to go with an OF of Morse, Werth and Harper. That might well be the worst defensive OF in MLB. Add Fiedler at 1b and the team had better hit a ton, because even if Desmond and EspinoSA improve their defense the team will regress defensively.
Shrug.
I don’t think there’s a substantial difference in defense between Morse and Fielder at first base.
And I ask yet once again where you get the crazy notion that Morse/Werth/Harper will be a bad outfield…?
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
It may not be a bad outfield, but I don't think it will be a good one.
At least defensively. Morse is well below-average in the OF (yes, SSS, but -20 UZR/150? C’mon!) Werth will probably has a ceiling of “league average” in CF, while Harper is an unknown quantity who just wrapped up his first season in the OF. Even if Bryce is a bit above average, we’re looking at overall below average or average (at best) defense. Granted, Werth playing to his career numbers is a heck of a bat for a CF, and Harper and Morse are, well, Harper and Morse. This is an outfield that will have to hit its way into being good. There’s a good chance it can, of course, but it’s probably not going to be good on the strength of its glovework.
"If you ain't got the pants, you ain't got a chance." --PerryMason (on the sartorial component of being a Real Ballplayer)
Harper and Morse will be Harper and Morse,
until the time comes when the league has Morse figured out, which, from what I hear, won’t be long.
Why the dislike of LaRoche?
If LaRoche plays to his career norms he is not the problem in the line up. Pujols would be an upgrade sure but at what price? From this point on in his career he is not going to average 40 hrs a year. So what does an extra maybe 7 hr and 6 rbi bring you. His defensive skills have tanked dramtically so he’ll give half those runs back in errors or lack of mobility around the bag. Better to use the same dollars to obtain darvish, put harper in right (he’ll hit better than anyone out there now other than Morse), put Werth in center and let the young guns mow down the opposition. Plus, no one yet can say how Marrero will pan out…all I know is that he puts the bat on the ball (a good thing in this line up) he doesn’t look overmatched and he’s young enough that the power may show up as he matures.
LaRoche has consistently produced at a level Baseball-Reference refers to as
“Bench player”. Only once (five years ago) did he produce enough to make himself a reasonable Major League starting first baseman. Adding Pujols or Fielder instead of LaRoche will mean an additional 3.5-4 wins, which makes them much closer to competitive. Replacing the fifth starter with Darvish almost certainly would not boost the team that much.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
You seem very confident that Darvish wouldn't earn the team 3.5-4 more wins
I’d be interested to know what your thinking is.
From my perspective, I have some vague recollection of a discussion somewhere suggesting a team could expect the number 5 starting slot to get maybe 6-7 wins a season. I can easily see Darvish getting in the teens, especially since I think he’s going to rack up some victories the first time he goes through the league when nobody has faced him before (he seems to have quite nasty stuff – guys are going to need time to adjust).
Now, maybe this is too simplistic an approach, looking at an SP’s wins. I’m not a stat head – I’m sure there’s likely something you’re looking at that gives a fuller picture (?).
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
In order to best the Nats' fifth starter by 3.5-4in BBRs WAR,
I’m thinking a starter would have to put up a WAR of 5+. Only five NLers did that last year (Halliday, Kershaw, Lee, Kennedy, and Hamels.) If Darvish was going to be as good as these guys, then I’m all for signing him up, but I don’t think even the most wildly optimistic projections have him performing to these levels. For obvious reasons, an everyday player has a better chance of contributing more wins (14 NL hitters contributed that 5+ wins).
Here I’m assuming the fifth starter replaced is someone like Detwiler or Lannan, and the first baseman replaced is ALR.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
Thanks for expounding, RobBobS
Personally, I’ve got Detwiler pencilled in as the number 5, not Lannan. Which might mean a WAR of closer to 4+, not 5+. Which adds names to your list above those like Bumgarner, Cain, Garza, Carpenter, D. Hudson, Lincecum, Greinke, and Sanchez.
Not clear-cut to take Darvish by any means, but perhaps a little bit murkier to NOT take him.
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
Minor point
Det put up a 1.1 WAR in 66 IP; Lannan put up a .9 WAR in 180 IP. In my mind, Lannan is fifth — but I understand that this is not the Nats’ opinion.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
I consider Lannan to be ahead of Detwiler, and I'm not really a Lannan fan
Detwiler’s stats (& his 1.1 WAR) may well be somewhat illusory (leaving aside that Fangraphs has Detwiler at 0.4 WAR and Lannan at 1.3 in 2011). Detwiler’s record as a starting pitcher is not very good even counting the last three starts last season. And even in those three starts (on long rest against a terrible Mets team, a resting-for-the-playoffs Phillies team and a Braves team in full collapse) there were moments when Detwiler was hanging on the ropes. And Detwiler’s 2011 0.4 fWAR also is based on a BaBIP of .272. I’d be very cautious about assuming a Detwiler breakthrough in 2012.
But wait, there’s more! As a starter in his career Detwiler has given up a .286/.352./.424 slash; compare that with his numbers as a reliever: .182/.229/.227 (in a much smaller sample size). Even counting those final three September starts Detwiler’s starter numbers were not as good as his numbers out of the bullpen, although the splits were closer (.261/.313/.396 as a starter, .243/.349/.324 as a reliever).
Lannan has been effective (if aggravating) pitching 30+ starts and 185+ innings per year. Detwiler hasn’t proven he’s capable of going out every fifth day and producing anywhere near that level. Barring a trade, Lannan likely will be in the Nationals rotation next spring. If the Nationals pick up another starter Detwiler will likely be in the bullpen, and that may well be where he ultimately is most effective at the major league level.
Mind you, I'm open to Detwiler beating Lannan out for a spot
But if they’re even, it’s not Lannan who is leaving. Preliminary Nats rotation, current roster:
Strasburg, Zimmermann, Lannan, Wang, Detwiler (splits the LHP, allows Detwiler to ease into the every fifth day rhythm).
A FA would alot into the #3 spot; whether Lannan or Wang was the #4 would depend on whether the FA is LH or RH.
And of course all preliminary rankings may be overtaken by events; injuries and ineffectiveness may move someone off the list, or one of the kids (Peacock, Milone, Stammen, heck even Balester) could crash the party.
Am I right in guessing that apparently, WAR is calculated
somewhat differently from source to source? The one I was looking at had Detwiler at 0.4. Also, several of the 5+ types on your list didn’t top that on the list I was looking at (sorry, can’t recall right now the site I used to check).
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
should have read dcguy's comment first
obviously I was using fangraphs, as dcguy mentions above.
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
Major league 162 game average for LaRoche 26hr, 92 rbi, .337 oba – name me a "bench player " with that production. And he’ll save you runs on defense. Fielder won’t and his body type screams massive coronary rounding third. I only mention Darvish because if you are going to spend money buy upside. You don’t think Darvish would win double digits? If you believe the hype he’s a co no 1. Personally I like the pitching we have now, I think Milone is underrated, Peacock looks like a stud and Detwiler may actually have figured it out. Save the money, buy a centerfielder and call it a day.
Interestingly enough, the league-average NL 1B in 2011 had a .337 wOBA.
Of course, that’s down about 10-15 points in 2010 over the several years prior when LaRoche had most of his playing time, meaning that ALR has been well below average for a 1B over his career (in terms of offense, at least). Note that when RobBob cites BB-ref’s evaluation of ALR as a “bench player,” that means in comparison to other 1Bs (ie, Fielder, Pujols, Votto…), not in comparison to random utility IF/OF guys that we usually think of as “bench players” (Jerry Hairston, Willie Harris, etc).
I would argue that ALR’s plus defense probably brings him up to nearly league-average overall as a 1B, but RobBob and I prefer different measures of defensive value (although even the measure I like has ALR as a fringe starter at best in terms of value).
"If you ain't got the pants, you ain't got a chance." --PerryMason (on the sartorial component of being a Real Ballplayer)
In terms of fWAR (my 'non-preferred measure')
Adam LaRoche contributed 8.7 wins during the period 2005-2010. This ranks as 18th of 19 first basemen that had at least 3000 PAs (roughly, who qualified for the “6-year batting title”). 15th in wOBA. 15th in wRC+. Really, by no measure was he a solid contributor.
Hence, the dislike.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
I was looking at 2006-2010 (which conveniently drops his sub-replacement 2005).
He had 2+ fWAR in 3 of 5 seasons, and 9.9 fWAR over the 5 years (just under 2 fWAR/season). That’s right on the edge of being starter-quality. But, yeah, certainly a candidate for an upgrade and dubious value for the contract.
"If you ain't got the pants, you ain't got a chance." --PerryMason (on the sartorial component of being a Real Ballplayer)
I included 2005 because I wanted to get the largest sample possible
and 2005 was the first year he was a full-timer. Anyway, enough about him. How have you been?
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
Morse is under team control until 2013
In two years tops the Nats will have to make a call whether they want to make him part of the core for years to come, either at 1st or in the outfield.
Surely he'll be exposed by then...I mean...
Surely he'll be exposed by then
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Nov 15, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Federal Baseball
Related FanShots on Federal Baseball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
