Steve Finley signed

[BigRapidsJackass]

From Rotoworld:

Fantasy Baseball - Rotoworld.com

Rockies signed outfielder Steve Finley to a minor league contract and invited him to spring training.

A bad idea. It doesn't hurt to bring Finley in, but it seems likely that he'll be handed a spot regardless of his performance this spring and he could very well hurt the team if he gets a considerable number of at-bats. The soon-to-be 42-year-old Finley has lost too much range to be a capable center fielder in Coors Field, and his OBP is under .300 over the last two years. The Rockies should carry Cory Sullivan as their fifth outfielder instead.

And that just about says all there is to say about it.

Is my memory failing, or is this just about the worst crop of NRIs we've seen in Tucson?

Danny Graves (33)
Matt Herges (37)
Dave Veres (40)
John Mabry (35)
Javy Lopez (36)
Steve Finley (42)

Look, I've got nothing against picking up a low-risk old guy who might just turn out to be a useful player. But I've got a feeling the Rockies are gonna go north with at least 3 of these guys. Hurdle's already been talking about the need for a veteran 7th/8th inning reliever to take pressure off Hawkins (read: Graves or Herges), about how Iannetta needs to work on some things "as a receiver" (read: Javy Lopez), and now Rotoworld hits the Finley nail on the head -- they wouldn't be bringing him in unless they have every intention of keeping him.

[Below C-Level]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

they wouldn't be bringing him in unless they have every intention of keeping him.

If they had every intention of breaking camp with him, why wouldn't they have brought him in months ago and given him a guaranteed roster spot? It's a non-roster invitation to camp. Relax.

Why not at least wait to see who they break camp with before you criticize them for breaking camp with the wrong guys?

[Below C-Level]

"He will be coming in competing as an extra outfielder and a left-handed bat," manager Clint Hurdle said.

"He's proven to be in good shape and he played a volume of games last year," Hurdle said. "His average wasn't what he would want it to be, but we think he can improve that. He's a fierce competitor and a smart player. He's the kind of player who can mix and match with our outfielders and could prove beneficial to everybody who is out there."

Doesn't sound like he's penciled in for 350 AB's to me. Actually, it sounds more like a zero risk flier on a guy who may or may not help address a bench that hit .214 in pinch hit appearances last year.

DenverPost.com - Rox sign Steve Finley

[GerryInCS]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Danny Graves (33)
Matt Herges (37)
Dave Veres (40)
John Mabry (35)
Javy Lopez (36)
Steve Finley (42)

What's scary is the fact that as many as three of these guys could make the opening day roster.

[Roxpert]

Jackass, now you are showing why Clint is the real "Jackass". He will lean on these old "crutches", and then when they struggle, he will be able to go with who he should have broken camp with all along.

The ONLY good thing about a Finley signing is that he may be SLIGHTLY more useful than John Mabry, so if he bumps Mabry off the roster, it's not the worst thing in the world.

Oh, you forgot to put Mike DeJean in that NRI list too. Like our minor league system, our group of NRI's has a lot of "depth", but not a very high ceiling.

[Below C-Level]

I'm sure your assumptions are right on the money, as usual. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see all of those guys offered multi-year deals during Spring Training. The Rockies are at it again, I guess...

Then again, maybe they're just non-roster invitees?

[Heltonfan]

The problem with the Finley signing is that there's absolutely no upside at all. Nobody expects great things to come from the NRI pool, but it's not too much to ask that we target players who might conceivably have value.

And the Hurdle quote is just laughable. They think Finley can improve his batting average? When he's 42 years old and was even worse in '05 than he was last year? Uh-huh. That is happening.

[indianadrew]

isn't he the guy that tawney kitean beat up?

[Heltonfan]

That would be Chuck Finley...

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

And the Hurdle quote is just laughable. They think Finley can improve his batting average? When he's 42 years old and was even worse in '05 than he was last year? Uh-huh. That is happening.

And what would you have said last year? He's 41 years old and has been declining for a couple of seasons already. There is NO WAY he improves his average. Well he DID, as you mention yourself with 06 being better than 05. Got to get beyond that stuff. The generic rules are not as important as the specific unique circumstances.

In this specific circumstance, it's not a bad signing at all. I see no reason for much excitement either way here. I can't get as upset about it. Having a veteran on the bench with some experience for a young team otherwise isn't a bad idea. And that's if he makes the team. There are no guarantees of that. We'll see how it goes, but there is no risk here. Are we really that upset Sullivan might not be on the 25 man roster now?

I think people have it backwards. They used to get veteran stopgaps years ago and I threw a fit. It was pointless then. They were going nowhere. They did need to rebuild instead of spinning their wheelings in meaningless mediocrity. They did need to give young players a chance (and not rushing our young guys, but all those gettable alternatives to veteran stopgaps instead).

But we have the young talent now, and we are at the developmental stage where winning is supposed to be emphasized now. We are supposed to be turning that corner from rebuilding to competing. Now is a much better time to fill in some of your critical bench spots and late-inning pinch hitting spots with VETERANS who have been there before. Now is a much better time to add LEADERSHIP on your young bench with inexperience all around.

Now is a much better time for adding a veteran or two. It seemed like I was alone back then, when we really did need to try to discover some upside and provide opportunities. Now we have a different objective and things have shifted, but people are sounding like I did back then. Things are different now, though. The upside is in the starting lineup now. We don't need to host a talent search as much any more. Now we are trying to win with these guys, and having a Choo Freeman on the bench isn't going to cut it. I'll take some veterans leading the way and helping our young core develop further.

Ask almost any successful ballplayer and they can tell you a veteran or two who were CRITICAL in their development once they reach the big leagues. I can't see getting too hung-up on the Rox adding some veteran leadership to the very young core otherwise now. That's exactly what they need to be doing. Even if these guys don't make it to the 25 man roster, I don't mind the youngsters spending time with some good veterans for the next month.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Scrolling through the comments at purplerow, I noticed one particularly insightful one from "malakian":

Taveras is completely worthless against southpaws. He has a .242/.292.314 career line and his base-stealing abilities are almost entirely neutralized (5 career SB vs. LHP) when a lefty is on the mound, so wouldn't it make sense to platoon Spilborghs and Taveras?

I had not noticed this before. The sample size v. LHP is small (only about 300PA), so I'm not particularly concerned about the batting line. But the SB thing is real. Obviously Willy (who appears to have had the green light in Houston, as Hurdle says he will in Colorado) just doesn't feel comfortable getting a read on LHP. Over his career he's reached 1B safely against LHP at least 87 times on hits, BB, or HBP, and yet he's only tried to steal 10 times. And 5 of those times he was caught. (Yes, I know he's probably had runners on 2B ahead of him on some of those occasions, and I also know he probably reached 1B as the lone baserunner a bunch more times on fielder's choices/beating out double plays, etc. The point remains true. Someone with more time on his hands can do the retrosheet research.)

So there's my problem with the Finley signing. It once again shows a club that's out of touch with the skills and weaknesses of its own players. Tavares has virtually no power and rather poor OBP skills, so his limited value as an offensive player comes from his baserunning. And that is largely negated when a LHP is on the mound. So when you have a useful-but-limited player like Tavares, you look for a guy who will complement him. A Tavares-Spilborghs platoon would be unorthodox, but it would at least make sense. A Tavares-Sullivan platoon would be counterproductive, resulting in Tavares getting most of his PAs in situations in which he's least effective.

Even though Finley historically shows no significant lefty/righty split, a Tavares-Finley reverse platoon would not really be any better. At least Cory is a very good defender in CF. Finley? Not anymore. And you've got a lot of talking to do to convince me that Hurdle would plan on playing Willy against righties and Finley against lefties ...

(Interesting sidenote: BP has Finley's 50th percentile projection (assumes about 245 PA) at -2.3 VORP offensively/-3 CF defense. Choo Freeman (assumes about 195 PA): -0.5 offense/0 CF defense. Now that's the way to upgrade!)

EDIT: And while I'm railing about getting the optimum out of what we have, let me pick on Renck's cheerleading for "Brad Hawpe, everyday player." (In all fairness, I will note that Hurdle never took the bait; he resisted the temptation to say that Hawpe would be out there full time until he fails.) If the Rockies want to see if Hawpe can learn to handle lefties, the last 6 weeks of last season would've been the ideal time to experiment. But they also wanted to see if Jeff Baker could handle lefties at the same time ...

... so if this club has expectations of competing this year (realistic or not), Hawpe absolutely has to be platooned with Baker or Spilborghs. It's easy to pick on Hawpe's poor performance against lefties in a limited number of PAs. But let's flip it around and focus on the positive: he put up a .302/.395/.528 line last year against RHP [923 OPS]. A reasonably productive platoon partner would make RF a very strong position indeed for the Rockies. So it's fine and dandy for Hawpe to want to be a full time player, and for the Rockies to encourage that hope. But not now; that's for throw in the towel time or winter ball or something that doesn't count. And please don't encourage bad strategy, Troy ... or maybe you see that as the proven route to becoming a Hall of Fame writer?

[Heltonfan]

And what would you have said last year? He's 41 years old and has been declining for a couple of seasons already. There is NO WAY he improves his average.

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

Because a good projection system works on the basis of multi-year weighted averages, not trends. Which means, generally speaking, that if a player declines from one year to another more than would be expected by aging alone, he is expected to rebound, not to continue his decline. I had Finley projected at a .255 ABR last year - he wound up at .250. I'd call that a pretty successful projection.

But now, Finley is two years removed from usefulness. And a player his age isn't likely to recover much of his past glory; that 2004 season doesn't weigh very heavily in the projection any more. I now have him projected at .239, worse than both Sullivan and Spilborghs (and that's before taking defense into account, which certainly doesn't help old man Finley's case).

I don't expect you to accept my projections as the gospel truth, but hopefully, you now have a little better understanding of what it is you're criticizing. Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that projection systems are trend-driven? I'd like to track the source down and beat them over the head with a mallet. That's just a colossal misrepresentation of sabermetric methods.

[Heltonfan]

Tavares has virtually no power and rather poor OBP skills, so his limited value as an offensive player comes from his baserunning. And that is largely negated when a LHP is on the mound.

No, it's not. Taveras's basestealing is largely negated, but it's of very little value anyway (~1.5 runs per year). His baserunning (i.e. advancing on batted balls) is worth probably three times that, and that's not affected by the handedness of the pitcher (or, rather, it might be, but the presence of a LHP shouldn't be any more damaging to Taveras than to anyone else). And I'd be astonished if the reverse platoon split is for real. MGL's work on platoon splits was pretty convincing; ascribing unique platoon differentials to individual right-handed batters is a fool's errand.

Finley should have nothing to do with Taveras' playing time at all. My problem with him is that he doesn't do anything better than Sullivan.

Re: Choo Freeman and PECOTA, that's just the goofy MLEs at work again. Freeman has never hit even as well as Finley did in 2005. I was absolutely thrilled to see that he signed with, of all teams, the Dodgers... hopefully he can cancel out whatever benefit they get from Tsao...

[hiaspire]

Who said anything about trends? I was just responding to your own statement from before. Since you mention it, though, you had better STRONGLY consider trends and not just 3-year averages with old players (as well as elite young talent breakout stars who finally put it all together after learning the ropes out of the gate) or your just in for massive mistake after mistake. When a player loses it, sometimes he just loses it (as well as the opposite when a young star gets it). What he did 2 years ago often makes absolutely no difference to the new reality. You can't make general rules about that stuff, though, because paper is paper but people are different.

They think Finley can improve his batting average? When he's 42 years old and was even worse in '05 than he was last year?

You were comparing his age, how he did last year, and commenting that he did even worse the year before. So how on earth could someone predict improvement, right?

Well he DID improve in that very area last year as you comment upon yourself, so I don't think it is as laughable as you make it out to be. It is less silly to think he can do what he did last year (but this year with the benefit of Coors Field and probably in more advantageous situations only as a part-time player) as the Rox hope than what you said IMO.

Beyond these numbers, there are vastly more important issues within these matters that play out in reality. Finley's ROLE is going to be different. He isn't going to start 100 games. He isn't going to get 426 ABs. Generically speaking, to treat numbers as if nothing is different is silly IMO. We can't honestly compare sets of numbers within completely different contexts and pretend there is no difference as they are analyzed numerically only. There is a huge difference between a guy platooning only against favorable matchups, for example, and someone who is out there everyday no matter the matchup.

So I don't see that as laughable as you do. He already did that exact thing last year which you find so incomprehensible this year. I think there are far better odds of him improving in that area this year for a number of reasons from role to hitting environment and possibly being more productive because the burden will be reduced in a more limited role.

[Heltonfan]

Who said anything about trends?

You implied that my methods would have foreseen a continued decline for Finley in 2006. For that to be the case, my methods would have to be trend-driven, that is, they would have to say that decline is generally followed by further decline rather than by a rebound. That's not the case, and I wanted to set the record straight. It's true that older players can just "lose it" and young players can break out, but in the projection model, that sort of thing has to be accounted for simply by applying aging factors and giving less weight to their numbers from two or three years ago, not by expecting the trend to continue. We can capture collapses and breakouts without resorting to the fallacious "trend" concept.

It already happened last year.

"It" being what, improvement? You can't generalize like that. Last year, Finley improved after having a season that was dramatically worse than the one before it. That's normal. That's what any good projection model would expect. This year, though, he's being called on to improve after having a season that was considerably better than the one before it. That's an unlikely scenario for the overwhelming majority of players, and it's even more unlikely for a player of Finley's age.

Players can be expected to improve for one of two reasons. One, because they're in the right part of the aging curve to do so (that is, they're young). Two, because their most recent performance was far worse than their track record would have predicted. That was the case for Finley last year, because his '05 was so far out of line with his '02-'04, but it's not the case anymore. His history, adjusted for age, now indicates that he's a worse hitter than he was in 2006. Because the further away we get from the years in which he was good, the less relevant those years become in projecting his future.

And so what if his role is going to be different? Shouldn't we expect Sullivan (or whoever) to benefit just as much as Finley would from being platooned?