Kuzul

Even if it’s not as much fun as the actual season, there’s nothing quite like the winter MLB Hot Stove.

Trade rumors, free agent gossip, blockbuster deals—there’s always a major storyline to follow and speculation about the big names will be come Opening Day.

But for every major deal that creates a buzz throughout the game, there’s at least a couple that just make people scratch their heads and arch their brows.

These are the Barry Zitos, the Mike Hamptons, the Alfonso Sorianos—the stupid trades and wasteful free agent signings that make every John Q. Fan think he could run his favorite team better than the GM.

In this slideshow are the 10 most questionable additions MLB teams have made this offseason.

Begin Slideshow

Every year, a handful of MLB players get really, really lucky.

A few extra seeing-eye ground balls get through the infield, and a hitter best suited to benchwarming looks like a legitimate big-league starter. A good-not-great pitcher benefits from an unusually skilled backing defense and suddenly finds his name popping up in the same sentence as “Cy Young.”

One of the greatest innovations of sabermetrics is the ability to measure and isolate the element of luck in players’ performances (at least, to some extent).

As we count down the days until the start of the 2011 MLB season, we can use these new techniques to identify who amongst last season’s stars is unlikely to maintain a high level of performance this year.

So who was the luckiest player in the game last season?

There’s no way to know for sure, but there is no doubt that one of the flukiest hitters in baseball last year was a rookie center fielder named Austin Jackson. 

The Detroit Tigers got a lot of flack when they traded Curtis Granderson last winter, but they seemingly redeemed themselves when Jackson, the prospect they traded for to replace Granderson, finished second in the AL Rookie of the Year voting and made a name for himself as a player to watch for years to come.

In his debut season, Jackson hit .293 with 103 runs, 27 steals, and 3.8 WAR—solid numbers for any player, let alone a 23-year-old with zero previous big-league experience.

The problem is, Jackson doesn’t profile as a strong contact hitter. His 7.0 percent walk rate indicates below-average plate discipline, and his unsightly 27.5 percent strikeout rate puts him at the 10th-percentile for MLB hitters.

How did Jackson pull it off?

His saving grace was his .396 batting average on balls in play, the highest in the game, and 99 points above the league average of .297.

Batters have some control over their hit rates, and Jackson is the kind of player who could sustain a high BABIP. He makes good contact (24.2-percent line-drive rate, tied for the best in the league) and speedy ground-ball hitters collect more hits than their slower-footed peers.

But there’s a difference between a high hit rate and an absurd one. His .355 expected-BABIP reflects his impressive batted-ball profile and wheels, suggesting he will continue to leg out more than his fair share of hits.

But .355 is still a long way from .396. Plug his xBABIP in for his BABIP and, making the simplifying yet generous assumption that every hit he’d lose would be a single, his 2010 slash line falls to .264/.311/.370.

With a below-average OBP, he would have fewer chances to steal bases and score runs, which would drag his value down even further.

Accounting for the extra-base hits he would have lost by looking at the proportions of his hits that went for doubles and triples, his slugging percentage drops to just .337. Yes, that puts his slash line at .264/.311/.337. 

A guy with a .648 OPS isn’t a Rookie of the Year candidate. With that kind of production, he’d have trouble just finding a job.

Moreover, his high xBABIP is based largely on his exceptional line-drive rate. If he can’t keep that up, things could get really ugly.

That’s not to say Jackson is a worthless player. His good defense still gives him value (at least, in the real world—not so much in fantasy). Plus, he’s only 24, and has plenty of time to continue to improve.

Still, even if he takes a step forward as a player in 2011, you should expect a big regression in his back-of-the-baseball card stats.

For more of Lewie’s work, visit WahooBlues.com. Follow him on Twitter  @LewsOnFirst or  @WahooBlues. 

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Mark Buehrle’s name has come up a lot in rumors this offseason.

The Chicago White Sox have a surplus of starting pitching, and there’s been speculation that the team could move Buehrle and his $14 million salary to clear payroll space after giving Adam Dunn and Paul Konerko expensive free agent contracts this winter.

In addition, Buehrle, who turns 32 this month, is considering retiring after the season. This raises a silly sounding, yet important question: is he a Hall of Famer?

The easy answer is no, and it’s hard to argue with that. His 148 wins barely put him in the Top 250 all time, and his 1,287 strikeouts rank 260th.

With the possible exception of 2005, Buehrle’s never been a truly dominant pitcher; he’s never won 20 games in a season or posted a sub-3.00 ERA. Only once has he earned an FIP under 3.90, and that was the only season in which he was worth more than 5.0 WAR. 

Most egregious is his 3.85 career ERA, which ties him for 698th in baseball history, and would be the worst of any Cooperstown pitcher. 

Unless Buehrle pulls a Jaime Moyer and drastically improves in his 30’s or continues to play well into his 40’s, I’d have a hard time checking his name on my hypothetical Hall of Fame ballot.

But if he stays in baseball and ages well, his case for Cooperstown would be better than you’d think.

First, we must consider that Buerhle’s ERA is largely a function of him spending his entire career in a high-offense era and playing half his games in cozy U.S. Cellular Field.

His 120 ERA+, which accounts for yearly league and park factors, isn’t phenomenal, but it paints a nicer picture of his accomplishments.

For some comparison, Buehrle’s ERA+ beats those of legends like Warren Spahn (119), Gaylord Perry (117), Steve Carlton (115) and Nolan Ryan (112).

But how does that translate into on-field value?

Using FanGraphs.com’s model, Buehrle has 42.5 wins above replacement heading into his age 32 season. In general, 60 WAR is seen as the cutoff for serious Cooperstown candidates.

Using his career average of 4.3 WAR/season, he’d hit the magic 60 in April 2015. If you prefer last year’s 3.8 WAR as a benchmark, he’d still get there in under five years. Even if he sinks to 3 WAR a season, he’d still have 60 by the end of 2016.

Unfortunately, FanGraphs’ WAR data goes back only 30 years, so to put his value in a historical context we must use Baseball-Reference.com’s model. B-R gives Buehrle 42.9 WAR of value.

On this scale, one could argue that Buehrle is a Hall of Famer already. He has more WAR than some already-enshrined pitchers, including Bob Lemon (42.4) Dizzy Dean (39.6) and Catfish Hunter (32.5).

At his three-year average rate of 4.3 WAR/season, he’d pass Sandy Koufax (54.5) and Whitey Ford (55.3) in 2013. Five years from now, he’d have usurped Jim Palmer (63.5), John Smoltz (63.9) and Juan Marichal (64.0).

In addition, Buehrle has a perfect game to his name and got both a win and a save when his White Sox won the 2005 World Series. Throw in his terrific defense and voters could be surprised how hard it will be to leave him off their ballots.

Would this be enough for him to deserve a spot in Cooperstown?

It’s hard to say with this vague hypothetical scenario but probably not.

At the risk of sounding like a Bert Blyleven detractor (and by the way, if anyone who didn’t vote for him votes for Buehrle, there is no hope left for humanity), that he was never truly feared as a dominant pitcher would make it hard for me to endorse his candidacy.

But barring an early retirement or a rapid decline, Buehrle deserves to at least get some serious consideration for Cooperstown, even if he’s better suited to the “Hall of Very Good.”

No doubt he’d be a better choice than Jack Morris.

For more of Lewie’s work, visit WahooBlues.com. Follow him on Twitter @LewsOnFirst or @WahooBlues.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

On July 27, 1994, a 22-year-old outfielder named Garret Anderson made his MLB debut with the California Angels. Now, 17 years and 2,228 games later, he is calling it a career.

Angels fans will also remember Anderson as the owner of the franchise record books. In his fifteen years with the Halos, he set club records in almost every major offensive stat, including hits (2,368), RBI (1,292), runs (1,024) and total bases (3,743).

To be fair, though, that’s to be expected from a player who also has the most games played (2013), at-bats (7,989), plate appearances (8,480) and outs made (5,936) in team history.

For those fans who live outside Anaheim, he will be best remembered for the 2002 season, when he helped the Angels to their first-ever World Series championship and finished fourth in the AL MVP voting (albeit undeservedly).

He finished his career with 287 homers, 1,365 RBI (good for 77th on the all-time list), and an average just a hair under .300 (.293). So even if he wasn’t one of the defining offensive machines of his era, he’ll doubtlessly be remembered as a good hitter.

Except he really wasn’t.

Yes, Anderson finished with a solid batting average, and even if his power declined quickly, he still finished with an above-average .168 ISO. And yet, according to his 99 WRC+, he was actually a below-average hitter for his era.

What gives?

The answer is his .324 career OBP. If you’re thinking that a .324 OBP seems a little low for a guy who hit almost .300, you’re right. You don’t need to see the numbers to know that Anderson didn’t walk much.

But in this case, “doesn’t walk much” seems like an understatement. We’re not talking a guy like Ichiro Suzuki who makes contact with everything, or Pablo Sandoval, who swings at everything.

Anderson has never walked more than 31 times in a season. In 2002, when he was an MVP candidate, he walked 30 times in 678 trips to the plate.

Yes, Anderson’s most enduring legacy will be having one of the worst batting eyes of all time. 

Anderson’s career walk rate will stand forever at a putrid 4.7 percent. When you sent him up to the plate, the odds of him letting four bad pitches go by were less than one-in-20.

Want some perspective on that? In the history of Major League Baseball, 256 players have accumulated at least 8,000 plate appearances. Of those men, Anderson finishes 251st in walk rate. More than half (140) have career walk rates of at 9.4 percent or higher, or more than double Anderson’s mark. Twenty-seven players in that group walked thrice as often, and three men—Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds and Ted Williams—worked free passes with over quadruple Anderson’s frequency.

Of course, the game has changed dramatically over the last 100-plus years; the modern game has a new emphasis on plate discipline, so putting Anderson’s walk rate in a historical context isn’t quite fair. What happens if we instead compare him to his contemporaries?

Anderson’s career spanned 17 seasons, from 1994-2010. Over that span, 101 MLB players accumulated at least 6,000 plate appearances. Of those, his plate discipline is dead-last.

Vladimir Guerrero, the master of swinging at everything, has a walk rate of 8.5 percent. Miguel Tejada, who was quoted in Moneyball saying that, if he didn’t take more walks, “Billy Beane send me to Mexico,” has walked 32 percent more often than Anderson.

Things get even worse if one considers that nearly a quarter (24.2 percent) of his free passes have been intentional. Counting only the walks he earned while the pitcher was actually trying, his walk rate drops to just 3.6 percent.

A base on balls every 28 plate appearances? That’s about the rate at which my MVP Baseball 2005 team walked, and I could pretty much hit home runs at will.

Baseball lost a good player today—three All-Star appearances, a pair of Silver Sluggers, and 15 consecutive seasons of at least 108 games played is nothing to shake a stick at. But the only thing about Anderson that should be remembered in the annals of history is his complete inability to take ball four. 

For more of Lewie’s work, visit WahooBlues.com. Follow him on Twitter @LewsOnFirst or  @WahooBlues.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

Serious injuries are never good things for baseball players, but the extent to which health problems affect someone’s career depends a lot on the situation.

For example, a young player who still has time to recover before he enters his prime is likely to bounce back, and a guy in the middle of a long-term contract doesn’t have to worry about finding a new job right away.

But for talented stars entering free agency or to a lesser extent, their arbitration years, getting seriously hurt could end up costing them several million dollars. And for older players whose ability to maintain their current levels of performance, a bad injury could mean a forced retirement.

In this slideshow are the 10 MLB players who would have the most to lose if they were struck by serious injuries.

Begin Slideshow

It’s been a big offseason for starting pitchers on the move.

After months of speculation, Cliff Lee signed a five-year, $120 million deal with the Philadelphia Phillies in the free-agent frenzy of the winter. The Milwaukee Brewers emptied their farm system for trade-market equivalent Zack Greinke and the Chicago Cubs then gave up an arguably better package of prospects for the good-not-great Matt Garza.

Even lesser pitchers Carl Pavano and Jake Westbrook each got $16.5 million as free agents. Fausto Carmona’s name came up in multiple conversations and names like Brandon Webb, Brad Penny and Javier Vazquez were the subjects of persistent rumors as well.

Now, with MLB‘s winter recess over and spring training underway, a new name has ignited flames on the hot stove: Francisco Liriano.

The seed was planted earlier this month when, after talking to Twins team officials, the Minnesota Star-Tribune‘s Joe Christensen wrote that he was “surprised how open they are” to trading Liriano. Since then, USA Today‘s Bob Nightengale has reported that the New York Yankees are “keeping a close eye” on the Twins ace, while Minnesota was “keeping tabs on” Bombers prospects.

I know I’m not the first person to have this reaction, but there’s one little problem with the idea of the Twins unloading Liriano now: It doesn’t many any sense whatsoever.

First of all, the Twins are the reigning AL Central champions and they figure to at least be serious contenders again in 2011. That’s not the kind of situation that would motivate most teams to deal their best pitcher.

Minnesota didn’t face any serious challengers in 2010, but their six-game advantage over the second-place White Sox is too small for the Twins to feel fully secure about another title this year. Plus, their main competition, the White Sox and Detroit Tigers, have upgraded this winter by bringing in Adam Dunn and Victor Martinez, respectively; unless they got equivalent big-league talent in return, trading their ace would be enough for the Twins to lost their status as preseason favorites.

But beyond that, trading Liriano would be stupid because—strange as it may sound for a pitcher who went 14-10 with a 3.62 ERA last year—his trade value is too low.

Impressive as his stats may be, Liriano in fact suffered from miserable luck in 2011. His .331 BABIP was the second-highest in baseball among qualified pitchers, behind only James Shields (.341).

How big of a difference did that make? Consider this: Liriano posted a 2.66 FIP (a better predictor of future ERA than past ERA), good for second in the AL. His 3.06 xFIP was the best in the league. A couple of bad bounces and some poor backing defense were all that separated him from a prominent spot in the Cy Young conversations.

Not convinced? Consider this: FanGraphs’ wins above replacement statistic (which uses FIP instead of ERA) has him at 6.0 WAR for 2010. Remember how big the Twins’ lead over the White Sox was? Without Liriano anchoring Minnesota’s staff, the AL Central ends in a tie.

In addition, inquiring GMs will be weary of Liriano’s inconsistent track record. After going 12-3 with a 2.16 ERA as a rookie in 2006, he underwent Tommy John surgery, which cost him the entire 2007 season. In 43 games in 2008-09, he went 11-17 with a 5.12 ERA.

Given Liriano’s exceptional peripherals, previously demonstrated talent and age (he’s only 27), there’s no reason to think he can’t continue to play at this level or even improve.

Unless the Twins know something we don’t (maybe his elbow’s acting up again?)—in which case, any suitor would demand the relevant information—why would they sell one of the best young pitchers in the game for the price of an inconsistent starter who’d just had a very good-but-not-great year? Especially right before the start of a season when they’re planning to play well into October?

Of course, this is all assuming the Twinkies don’t get a fair offer, and if the pitching-starved Yankees are indeed after him, they might be desperate enough to over pay. But it’s hard to see Minnesota getting a decent return on an investment that could cost them the season.

For more of Lewie’s work, visit WahooBlues.com. Follow him on Twitter @LewsOnFirst or @WahooBlues.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

With Major League Baseball’s spring training just around the corner, most teams are about done with their offseason shopping.

But for most clubs, that’s just the first step—even once everyone has signed, there are still big decisions to be made about who will play and where.

Here’s a look at each team’s biggest position battle heading into Spring Training.

Begin Slideshow

Who are the best players in the league? It’s a debate that will persist for as long as there is professional baseball.

But it’s one thing to argue it during the season—predicting who the best players will be is a horse of an entirely different color that eats oranges instead of apples.

Last week, I picked and projected the best players in the American League for 2011. This week, I did the same for the National League—one for each position, plus five starting pitchers and three relievers—along with explanations for why I snubbed the closest competitors.

In addition, I’ve included my best guesstimate, completely unscientific projections for how each player will fare in the coming season.

Please do not hold me accountable for the accuracy of my predictions, especially for the pitchers (unless I’m right, in which case feel free to make me into some sort of demigod).

Be sure to tell me who I got wrong!

Begin Slideshow

Who are the best players in the league?

It’s a debate that will persist for as long as there is professional baseball.

But it’s one thing to argue it during the season—predicting who the best players will be is a horse of an entirely different color that eats oranges instead of apples.

In this slideshow are my picks for the best players in the American League for 2011—one for each position, plus a DH, five starting pitchers and three relievers—along with explanations for why I snubbed the closest competitors.

In addition, I’ve included my best guesstimate, completely unscientific projections for how each player will fare in the coming season.

Please do not hold me accountable for the accuracy of my predictions, especially for the pitchers (unless I’m right, in which case feel free to make me into some sort of demigod).

Be sure to tell me who I got wrong!

Begin Slideshow

When you think about the most important positions on a baseball field, what comes to mind? The starting pitcher is the one who gets his name in the paper before the game. The catcher calls the shots, a corner infielder anchors the lineup and the closer pumps his fist when the game is won.

Outfielders don’t get much glory. Patrolling the big green is a thankless effort.

In an attempt to help shine some light on these deserving players, I humbly present my power rankings of the 30 Major League Baseball teams’ outfields.

I based the rankings on my best guesses for who each team’s three Opening Day outfielders would be, not bench depth or up-and-coming prospects.

Read on, and be sure to tell me who I got wrong! 

Begin Slideshow