OT: Curtis Granderson

Submitted by drboud on April 4th, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Curtis Granderson on his first at bat in 2010 hits a deep deep homerun off Josh Beckett

Good for him


Steve Lorenz

April 4th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

He's been in the top 17 in K's 3 or the last 4 seasons. I'm as big a Granderson apologist as there is, but you're wrong in saying his K rate is within the norm. 2008 definitely looks like the anomaly of his career. That being said, his Ks won't hurt as much at the back of the NY lineup as they did leading off in Detroit.


April 4th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^

I fear he's going to cite some sabermetrics to make his point.
Being in the top 17 in K's for a leadoff hitter is unacceptable no matter what the metrics say. I love Curtis, but for what the Tiggies got in return I think it was a good move by Dombrowski.

Steve Lorenz

April 4th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

To his credit, his K rates have gone down a bit since his earlier years but they are still way too high for a leadoff hitter.

If anything, his saber numbers would mostly point towards an increase in batting average and probably a slight decrease in his K numbers. His power numbers are going to be inflated because of the effect new Yankee Stadium has on LHH, so there's that too.

And yes, for what we got back, it was a good deal to make, despite my allegiance to Granderson.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^

His Career BABIP is like 320 or something, which is on the high side, and normally would indicate a drop is like, 20 or so points of batting average. Hitter's are very goofy with BABIP though because of the types of contact they get, and because he's been able to sustain it through his career I'm not expecting any type of drop off. Really he is what he is, He's gonna be about a 4 WAR player for his entire career, which is pretty good but not amazing.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^

Might be a little high because of uneven salary distribution to what WAR gives out as a players value. It's not in the ridiculous range where it starts spitting out insane numbers, like Matt Holliday in 2008 being worth 28 million dollars.

Steve Lorenz

April 4th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^

That's not taking into account his spot in the lineup, which has a huge effect on his overall value.....which is one of the reasons why he will likely be more valuable to New York hitting seventh than he would leading off in Detroit.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^

haven't done that math. he leads off once per game more than everyone else which means getting on base is at a premium...but not a big premium. one PA per game of an average hitter instead of a replacement level hitter isn't even 1 WAR over the season. and if your argument is that he's trading off times on base for outs, you're going to need to prove it. why would he do that? for two, why should we hold Granderson responsible for the manager's stupidity? he didn't ask to lead off.

Steve Lorenz

April 4th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^

I don't necessarily need to do a lot of math. Most of his WAR value, at least outside of '08, has been defensively....and when your overall WAR is a little less than four, that one PA per game that almost does add up to 1 WAR over the course of a season has an effect on your value.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^

that was an extreme example to show that it doesn't add up. and believe me the math has been done. there are lineup simulators, etc.

and no, most of his value has not come from his defense. he's a career .360 wOBA. that would be good enough to be above average at 1B. he's obviously a good defender, but he's also a really good hitter.


April 5th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^

His career rate is 24%. Last season was 22%. League average is 17%. Egregious is 25%+.

Is there any reasoning behind this other than that 25% is a nice, "round" number to go by? If the league average is indeed 17%, then Granderson's career rate is 41% worse than average, and last year's rate was 29% worse than average. That sounds awful for any position, let alone one in which a player is especially supposed to be good at getting on base.


April 5th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^

in 2009, average was about .20 k/pa with a stdev of .06. so yeah, i rounded a bit to 25% i don't really feel like running other years, because i know from having read so many stat lines about where you have to start worrying about K's necessitating a power/BABIP boost into a realm I don't suspect a prospect or whomever i'm mentally wishcasting can. tyler flowers, for example. josh fields was another of that type. granderson doesn't fall into that group because his BABIP and ISO are so high. that's what makes him special at the plate. the comments about his weaknesses are exaggerated if even worth mentioning. over the last three seasons, he's contributed 17th most wins above replacement of all position players and has added more runs above average with his bat than Jim Thome over that time span. he's been one of the best players in baseball since he started playing full time.


April 4th, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^

that the largest ovation in Comerica Park this year (unless we win World Series in Detroit) will be Granderson's first at-bat when the Yankees visit.

Wallaby Court

April 4th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

I'm still a Fanderson of Curtis Granderson because he is the Manderson.

I'm wearing my Granderson shirt tomorrow for opening day, and it's going to hurt like hell.


April 4th, 2010 at 10:00 PM ^

Thats the main reason Detroit traded Grandy. They loved his power and defense but his plate discipline was horrible and they wanted him as a leadoff man which he obviously isnt. Granderson will benefit though from Yankee Stadium and batting with so much talent around him.

Im a Tigers and Yankees fan so I dont so much mind the trade. Especially given how good Austin Jackson and Johnny Damon have looked.

Number 7

April 4th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^

Grandy's power numebrs should shoot up -- 40 homers, anybody? -- and he'll make the web gem plays in center that will make the casual fan think the Tigers did the baseball equivalent of drafting Darko Milicic. But he'll still be a hole in the lineup against lefties -- and an automatic out against lefty relievers -- and limits to his range and arm will offset his penchant for the spectacular. The Yankees can probably afford those deficiencies more than the Tigers could, so I'm excited the A-Jax era is at hand.

It's Marcus Thames that I'm going to miss.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^

so he's only a couple ticks worse than average in the first place. In fact he was below his career rate in '09. But typically K rate and power are correlated, so the suggestion is that power hitters miss more in order to hit the ball harder. That scores more runs. And certainly there's no problem with Granderson's career line. Even last season despite a lot of bad luck he was still league average.

Maybe the best way of thinking about it is the alternative. A weak ground ball in the MLB is not sufficiently different to make up for the lack of power that comes with making that adjustment. Juan Pierre/Scott Podsednik types are absolutely not better hitters than Curtis Granderson, so why ask him to change?


April 4th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^

Granderson doesn't hit for enough power or walk enough to make up for his strikeout rate. If you look at K% from last year, almost all of the top line players with K% around his had higher OPS's, a lot in the order of 50-100 points higher. If you take his career rates of 24 K% and 828 OPS, its a little better, but it's still not enough to overshadow the K's.

Curtis Granderson is an excellent player as a part to a championship level team, but he is not a centerpiece.


April 4th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^

"Granderson doesn't hit for enough power or walk enough to make up for his strikeout rate."

If that were true, he wouldn't be an above average career hitter. Which he is. Do you think he would be even better if he changed something? I'm sure he's aware that he makes a relatively large percentage of his outs via strike out and would change that if he didn't think it would cost something else in his game. If the argument is that Granderson isn't great enough despite being very good already, then I don't get that. He's one of the best CFs in the game. He doesn't cost his team anything compared to all but the very best players in the league.

Also, if you're trying measure both on base and slugging skills equally, use wOBA, not OPS. If you just want to look at power, use ISO.


April 5th, 2010 at 2:35 AM ^

Did you just suggest that Granderson could be a better hitter but he thinks it would hurt his power numbers (or some other undetermined hitting statistic) so he chooses to strike out more? I don't even know what to say to that. He has never hit more than 30 homers or driven in more than 74 RBI. He isn't a power hitter.


April 5th, 2010 at 3:42 AM ^

I suggested that he is who he is and as such is a very fine ballplayer.

But he is a power hitter. League average SLG - AVG, known as Isolated Power (ISO) is ~ .150. His career ISO is over .200 and over the last 3 seasons he leads all qualified CFs in ISO. Over that period, he's hit for more power than Justin Morneau, Jack Cust, Carlos Lee, and Chipper Jones, among others. The reason he's an above average hitter is his power.


April 5th, 2010 at 9:08 AM ^

Colin, as someone who has read plenty of Bill James, you're being WAY overly reductionist. NOBODY, including James, would claim that K's are irrelevent. They exert a tremendous negative pressure on batting average, which...is the largest component of OBP - the holy grail of offensive statistics. It's extremely difficult to strike out 200+ times and hit .270 - and if you can't hit that, it's extremely difficult to put up a "good" OBP (.350+?).


April 4th, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^

Lots of comments about Grandy's K rate, but lets not forget about his complete inability to hit lefties.

0 for 1 with a K tonight.

.183 last season.

.210 with 169 Ks in 619 ABs lifetime.

I love Granderson, always will, but he has obvious deficiencies.