Pat The Bat?

Yeah, I know, football blog and all, but I couldn't let this Rich Hofmann story go unremarked upon.  Let's cut right to the chase:

Since 2000, when Burrell broke in with the Phillies, there are only 23 players who have hit at least 200 homers and driven in at least 750 runs. He is one of them. Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, Pat Burrell - all on the same chart.

And then at the bottom of the story he then helpfully goes on to provide that chart.

Now I'm not what you'd call a real baseball stat head, but doesn't focusing entirely on home runs and RBIs seem like it's putting a bit too much weight on just two, not particularly comprehensive stats?  If you look at the list, you see that Todd Helton is "ranked" one spot above Burrell.  So they're pretty much the same player, right?

Uh, no.  Burrell's career OPS is .859 (which isn't bad).  Helton's is 1.005.  And yes, ballparks effects, but there's a 22-point gap in the their OPS+ as well.

Hofmann is also just using cumulative numbers from a very specific date range, which makes the comparison even more meaningless.  You won't find either Chase Utley or Ryan Howard on that list (yet), but you're not going to get many people arguing that those guys haven't been better than Burrell the last few years.

Besides, the problem with Burrell has never been that he isn't a pretty good hitter.  It's that being a pretty good hitter and being an underachiever are not mutually exclusive labels.

Take it away, Tom.

Comments

[Housh]

By what standard is he underachieving?

People often trot out the first overall pick business without much of a notion of how the MLB draft works and what realistic expectations are.

Here are the first overall picks from 85-00:

B.J. Surhoff
Jeff King
Ken Griffey
Andy Benes
Ben McDonald
Chipper Jones
Brien Taylor
Phil Nevin
Alex Rodriguez
Paul Wilson
Darin Erstad
Kris Benson
Matt Anderson
Pat Burrell
Josh Hamilton
Adrian Gonzalez

Are you trading Burrell for anyone other than Griffey, Rodriguez, or Jones?

He certainly isn't underachieving when compared to other left-fielders, in any year except 2003.

So I'm curious what you mean.

(BTW, long time reader, first time commenter, love your blog)

[Me]

Ouch. Matt Anderson. Another Rice baseball failure.

Been a tough week there.

You're right about the draft being a crapshoot, but the standard by which he's underachieved has always been twofold: 1) his contract and 2) his obvious talent.

If, as seems likely at this point, he puts up the best numbers of his career during this, his contract season, that's only going to cement the notion that Burrell's never been a guy who cared as much as he should have.

Glad he's playing so well this year. Wish it would have happened before he faced the prospect of imminent free agency.

[Tom G, ballssticksstuff.com]

I tend to think that yes, looming free agency is a big part of Pat's resurgence this year, but if you look at the numbers, his resurgence really began in the second half of last season when free agency wasn't looming quite as large. I think the other two factors are that his ankle is finally healthy [as evidenced by his batting stance] and two, he's having fun. Winning equals fun and there is no one who cheers from the dugout more than Pat.

And by the way, for a football guy, good use of the OPS+. Maybe I'll work a DVOA into one of my posts...

[Rich]

He picked that range because 2000 is when Burrell started, it's not really specific to help Burrell's case. It wouldn't make sense to compare him to players who were playing a few years before him.

You have no proof he's underachieved though, and I really don't see how he has. 2003 was awful, but it was one year. He's currently (and has been for a few years) one of the very best in MLB at the most important part of baseball: not making outs.

[Me]

I don't have any problem with starting the comparison the year Burrell came into the league. My problem is with using cumulative -- rather than season average -- statistics from that point. It's like the trick the Eagles always used to try to pull with McNabb's winning percentage. He was always the guy with the best winning percentage among active quarterbacks who had started X games, where X = One plus the number of games Tom Brady had started. That's bogus.

[Me]

How about this for all the Burrell fans out there -- when Pat gets his new contract this offseason and yet continues to tear up the league in 2009, you can tell me you told me so.

If the converse is true, I'll be sure to do likewise :)