Who is Rocco Baldelli?

by jmoultz on Dec 28, 2005 9:15 PM EST Comment 53 comments

We all remember how highly touted Baldelli was coming into the bigs (BA player of the year in 2002) but his numbers have never matched the hype. He hits for little power, hits too many ground balls, and doesn't know how to take a walk. That's very bad for a guy that only hits around .270-.280. Now pile on the ACL and TJ surgeries and what's a fella to think?

He won't be 25 until late September 2006 so there's still time to develop, but not much. Can this guy turn into the uber-hitter scouts had him pegged to be or is he a bust?

Is he Andre Dawson or Garry Maddox?

0 recs | Comment 53 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Maddox

At this point I'm willing to say he's going to end up much closer to Maddox than Dawson.

Still, I'm old enough to remember Garry Maddox, and he wasn't a terrible player. LOL

I don't think Baldelli was ever projected to have Dawson's power.

FWIW Dawson, Rice, and Baldelli should be in the HOF IMO.

by GregJP on Dec 28, 2005 9:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dawson...

How much extra credit are you giving Andre for playing in Montreal?? He had some great seasons before he hurt his knee, but it still did get hurt and affect his play. If you judge him against the least of the HOF'ers, he's a shoo-in (of course so is Andy Van Slyke), by a reasonable standard he's borderline.

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dawson

Some career numbers

HR = 438
SB = 314
OPS+ = 119

1977 NL ROY
1987 NL MVP
8 Time All Star
8 Time Gold Glove Winner
Top 10 in Total Bases 10 times

When you combine his longevity, peak years performance, power, speed, defense, and leadership qualities, to me it's a no brainer.

Give me Andre Dawson over Kirby Puckett any day of the week.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But,

He basically had four nice seasons from 80-83 and three good ones later on 87, 88, 90. I don't like Puckett as a HOF'er so I really don't like to use him as a benchmark. He did have lots of total bases, but he made lots and lots of outs as well. He was a really good baserunner for several years, but he balanced that out IMO by being an awful one for just as long a time. He really didn't have that much power as he was in the top 5 in slugging only three times in 17 full seasons (Manny Ramirez has had eight straight in an era where there are far more guys to compete with).

His defense is the only possible key to his entry and I freely admit to not knowing how much his glove helped early in his career although I did witness his 'living statue' years in Chicago where he was really bad.

Leadership qualities?? Such as......?

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Defense/Leadership

I guess I remember Andre as an Expo back in the early 80's.
He covered a lot of ground, and had a cannon for an arm.
He was unique in those days as there were guys stealing up to 100 bases, but there were virtually no other 30/30 guys.
He was a very quiet leader that guys like Tim Raines looked up to like a big brother.
He wasn't a vocal "leader" like Gary Carter, but he had the respect of the rest of the guys in the clubhouse.

Speaking of Raines, there is a guy that should go in on the first ballot. (don't laugh) I was reading a Bill James book a while back that I believe had him ranked in the top 100 of ALL players in history. I think Raines is the most underrated player of the past 20-30 years.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Career Win Shares

This years HOF ballot

Andre Dawson 340
Bert Blyleven 339
Will Clark 331
Dave Parker 327
Allan Trammell 318

Already in HOF

Lou Brock 348
Billy Williams 347
Ozzie Smith 325
Kirby Puckett 281

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Puckett

Puckett is more Koufax than Dawson. He was coming off an age 33 .314/.379/.515 season when glaucoma forced him to retire. Let's not forget that Puckett posted a career OPS+ of 124 despite being a free swinger, racked up 2000 hits faster than anyone besides Willie Keeler, and could very well have played another 7+ years into his early forties and racked up 3500 career hits had it not been for a career-ending disease. He was also considered one of the best if not the best defensive centerfielder of his generation.

Dawson played into his 40s with mediocrity, never collected 3000 hits or 500 homers, and played league average defense. I wouldn't mind him in the HOF, but I can understand Puckett being in and Dawson being out.

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Puckett/Dawson

I don't see how Puckett having glaucoma is any different than Dawson having a bum knee for the last half of his career.

If Dawson hadn't ruined his knee(s) playing on that cement at Olympic Stadium, he would have way over 500 HR and 3000 hits and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As far as what you said about his defense, I would only reply that he won 8 gold gloves. Comparing the two players in their prime, I would say they covered a similar amount of ground, and that Dawson had the better arm.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

none of 'em should be there

Puckett was on his way to the HOF, but he got hurt before he could complete the resume. He shouldn't have gotten credit for that; after all, no one else does. It was the writers being sentimental, and not really fair to other players.

Dawson and Rice both didn't get on base enough. I'd rather Dawson over Rice because Dawson's case isn't based entirely on hitting, but I don't think either one makes it. Even CF is a hitting-oriented position, and it's hard for me to imagine a modern-day HOF outfielder with an average or below OBP.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 29, 2005 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Take out Koufax then...

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Koufax?

I don't know what Puckett has to do with Koufax except that they both had short careers. Koufax had peak value comparable to any pitcher in baseball history. Puckett did not peak nearly so high; if anything, he was remarkably consistent. The proper Koufax analogy would be to a hitter who put in four years similar to Barry Bonds '01-'04, and didn't do much else. I don't think there happens ever to have been a hitter like that, but in any event, that's certainly not Kirby Puckett. I'm not even saying that Koufax's accomplishment is more HOF worthy, just that there is no meaningful comparison here.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 29, 2005 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Point is

Koufax's career numbers aren't remarkable for their size, but for the run he had while he had it. If you're saying that a HOF "resume" has to include counting stats like hits, wins, or homers, then take out Koufax too. After all, he only won 165 games before retiring due to injury.

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm?

As you point out, Koufax doesn't have the normal HOF counting stats, so no, I'm not claiming that counting stats are the standard. What Koufax does have is an argument that he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball history for a period of years. Puckett doesn't have anything like that. If you want to compare Puckett to other players, compare him to other outfielders who, to put it in the terms used by baseball-reference.com, had a ten-year run with a OPS+ around 130, and nothing else HOF-caliber. OPS+ actually overestimates Kirby because it underrates OBP, but even so, I think what you'll find is that most of those players aren't in the HOF, and the ones who are don't look like such great choices in retrospect.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 29, 2005 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Puckett

Fastest to 2000 hits in the modern era. He was the best contact hitter of a generation that included Paul Molitor and Tony Gwynn.

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Puckett/Gwynn

You think Kirby Puckett was a better contact hitter than Tony Gwynn?

I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That wasn't too important to my argument

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Borderline

I think that Dawson and Rice are borderline, and that Puckett shouldn't be there. Where do you draw the line? You could say that Dwight Gooden was on the way to the HOF, but what held him back was the disease of drug addiction.

I just think that Dawson's speed and defense in his prime is that little extra that takes him over the top.

Still, you are right that his OBP (and OPS) are very low for an outfield candidate.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Glaucoma vs. knees

One is a playing injury that most players suffer and must play through. The other is an unforseen and sudden end to a career that otherwise would have been among the best in history. Puckett never got the chance to rack up stats from age 34-41 like Dawson did, even if Dawson's knees were giving out. Most old players have health issues, but most old players don't have their careers suddenly end from glaucoma.

With the defense, I looked at career Rate and Rate2, and range factor, because Gold Gloves are notorious for being a second Silver Slugger award. Judging by Dawson's stats, I'd say that he deserved a few GGs but won a lot on offensive reputation.

by limozeen on Dec 29, 2005 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Defensive Stats

At this point I think things like Rate and Rate2 are mildly interesting, but there is a lot of work still to be done before defensive statistics gain any acceptance.

I just know that I watched Dawson play on TV hundreds of times, and before injuries took their toll he was the best centerfielder in the NL.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Knee Injury vs. Glaucoma

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!

How many people do you see come back from knee injuries. A lot.....

How many people come back from being rendered blind in one eye so they can no longer dicern the depth or speed of the pitch coming at them.

NONE......

Puckett is a Koulfax inductee. As a guy that was the centerpiece of 2 titles who was a GREAT defender and could have easily ended up in the upper echelon in hits.

The comparision is ludacris

by Terry Ryan Jr on Dec 29, 2005 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Team Titles

As soon as you mention the fact that he was on two teams that won titles, you lose all credibility in my eyes.
That would be like some baseball writer voting for Bartolo Colon for the Cy Young because he had the most wins.

Both of those events are team dependent, and should have no bearing on the discussion. If I was deciding between Don Mattingly and someone else I wouldn't penalize Mattingly because he was unlucky enough to play in an era when the Yankees didn't win any titles.

Puckett was a great player, but him getting glaucoma is no different than a player blowing out his knee or a pitcher blowing out his arm.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One More Thing

5. Voting -- Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s)on which the player played.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Win Shares

I don't really understand WinShares (does anyone??), so I can't comment on that aspect. I concur with the other poster who has a hard time putting in anyone who has a below league average OB%. Outs are bad.

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Win Shares

Win Shares measure how many more wins a team accumulates by having that player in the lineup instead of a replacement level (average) player at the same position.

3 win shares = 1 extra win.

So if a player has 450 career win shares, it means that his contributions allowed his teams to win an extra 150 games.

I like win shares because it does take into account position, level of competition, and runs created and outs wasted are all incorporated in the calculation.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Win Shares

Isn't a team's WinShare total based upon a team's actual win total for a given season?? If that's the case you could have two players have the exact season, but one player would have a higher winshare total than the player on a bad team having the exact same season.

Why should a left-fielder see his WinShare total reduced by a 9th inning loss by the closer.

Or do I have that incorrect?

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nope

The player on the worse team will have a higher percentage of his team's Win Shares than the equivalent player on the better team. It works out the same.

It's a good stat; its failing is that it emphasizes quantity of play over quality, but it's an excellent starting point.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Dec 29, 2005 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmmmm....

Well, fair enough.

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quality vs Quantity

If you want quality instead you can do WS/year, WS/game or even WS/AB.

I also like RC/27.

If a batter has a RC/27 of 5.50 it means that a lineup made up entirely of players at his performance level would average 5.50 runs every game.

Bottom line is scoring runs, and this calculation takes into account singles, doubles, triples, homers, walk, strikeouts, stolen bases, caught stealing, etc.

Baseball Reference includes this stat, and it's quite interesting to compare some great players.

Babe Ruth 12.93
Hank Aaron 7.65
Barry Bonds 9.97
Ted Williams 12.03
Mickey Mantle 8.78
Albert Pujols 9.69
Alex Rodriguez 8.09
Manny Ramirez 9.02
Ty Cobb 8.84
Pete Rose 5.65
Kirby Puckett 6.34
Andre Dawson 5.44

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Win Shares

The calculation is just a formula that predicts extra wins based on the players stats as compared to the stats of an average player.
How many actual games his team wins is irrelevent.
It's like RC. This formula estimates the number of runs a batter creates, and how batters around him do does not affect it at all.
That's why R and RBI are very bad and antiquated stats. Both depend on players batting in front of or behind the given batter. You shouldn't judge a batter using stats that he partially has no control over.

by GregJP on Dec 29, 2005 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.....

I like Runs created, I just don't know that much about WinShares. I don't usually judge a player by runs and rbi, I pretty much look at OB%.

by chris in illinois on Dec 29, 2005 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ooops

I meant Blyleven (not Baldelli) for the HOF.

by GregJP on Dec 28, 2005 9:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

other Baldelli warts

Baldelli hits weakly vs RHP and didn't show improvement from frosh to soph year.

.719 OPS vs RHP in 2003
.709 OPS vs RHP in 2004

For frame of reference that OPS is only about 25 points above Neifi Perez career fig. Mashing LHP is nice for a platoon player. But for my everyday guys... gotta hit RHP or I don't value you.

Another thing I'm not wild about with Rocco... Yes, he is fast. No problem there. But that AVG has been driven up by infield singles - which are the least useful sort of hit. Yes my friends, all singles are not created equal. Do i prefer a hit over an out? Absolutely! But no one is going 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home on my infield single...

Rocco has got along way to go to meet the hype that surrounded him. I'm not saying he can't improve. Just saying he definitely hasn't earned my respect enough to this point to be someone I'd hitch my cart to. Atleast the DRays structured his contract such that they can bail on the big money if he doesn't progress.

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 28, 2005 11:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Infield singles

"But no one is going 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home on my infield single..."

Not that it means much, but I saw it happen at least 4 times for the Rays last year, once by CC, once by Gathright and twice by Lugo. It's not huge, but if one team does that, it's the Rays...

I'm a Rays fan, but I've never been much of a Rocco fan myself. Supposedly he was focusing quite a bit on pitch recognition while he was injured, but we'll see if he actually improves.

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2005 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: infield singles

Yeah, "No one" is a slight exaggeration. I was not exactly stating it has never happened in the history of baseball. Still, it is much much less likely w/ the infield single. Therefore, i stand by statement that "not all singles are created equal" and that the infield single does have less utility than the standard variety single. This is especially true for non-leadoff hitters. With better leadoff candidates on the Rays Rocco's pound it into the grown and run technique won't play as well in the 5th or 6th slot or where ever Maddon puts him.

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 29, 2005 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Point taken

I hear ya and agree for the most part. I wouldn't be surprised if Rocco does turn into a .280/.350/.550 kind of guy a few years down the road (probably not as a centerfielder anymore...he should turn into a right fielder eventually), but it also wouldn't surprise me if the only further development he has is that his batting average dips a bit and his power improves a bit. You're right that his splits are killing him and he really needs to learn how to hit RHPs.

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2005 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: .280/.350/.550

I would be surprised with that. I can't see a .270 ISOp coming from Rocco. That's A-Rod, Hafner, Sexson territory. It's nearly doubling his current ISOp. You see him more than I do but I'm not sure how anyone could predict that for him for what has happened to date. At BEST maybe he figures some things out and becomes a Jermaine Dye.

oh well, I promise not to dissect anymore of your throwaway lines on this topic. I know you're not inscribing them into granite ;-)

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 29, 2005 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not intending to...

....it's primarily based on age, projection and body type. His hits are hard, just low. He adds some loft to his swing and adds 20 lbs, his IsoP could increase dramatically. Like I said though, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'm certainly not expecting it.

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2005 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That and...

...now that you mention it, .270 IsoP does seem a bit high. I do think he can double his current power, however, if he's able to make the right adjustments. He already has a .220 IsoP vs. lefties, so the power can be there...

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2005 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kazmir threadjack LOL

At the risk of the original posters wrath I'm going to take some liberty and tangent.

What is the deal with Kazmir's BB totals? Does he nibble or have no idea where it's going he it comes out of his hand? Why didn't the walk rate improve as the season went on? He had success this year despite the BBs... but I have him in a DMB sim league and walks are death in sim. Do you expect Kazmir's walks to just be part of the package for the next few years? Or can I expect some substantial improvement? Right now a .371 OBP vs RHP makes him no better than Hendrickson for me...

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 29, 2005 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, what the hell...

I'll add to the thread-jack. I think Kazmir is like a kid in a Corvette. He's got a muscle-car arm but hasn't figured out the finer points of driving yet. He didn't walk a ton of guys in the minors, but he did walk enough to raise suspicion that more advanced/patient hitters would take advantage of his wildness. Hard to say exactly how accurate that is, as he was always young for his league. I don't think he'll ever get down to David Wells low walk totals, but I think he'll improve once he matures, maybe cutting down to 60-70 BB in a season where he pitches about 200 innings.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 29, 2005 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nibbler

He nibbles like crazy. He has a Nolan Ryan mentality, where he tries to strike every guy out, usually is ahead early in the count, then ends up with a full count because the batter laid off his pitches on the corners and he's not a respected enough player to get those calls yet. At some point, he'll learn to trust his stuff a bit more and not try so hard to strike every single batter out, and he'll also start getting more calls for balls just off the plate. He does throw the occasional pitch that just flies out of his hand with no idea of where it's going, but it's not that frequent.

by Brickhaus on Dec 30, 2005 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally random gut feel

I have no evidence at all to back it up, but I think Baldelli's gonna have a few really good seasons at some point. I just have this feeling that he'll be a bit of a late bloomer, hitting 25-30 homers, stealing at a good clip, and walking at a non-terrible rate, around age 30.

by delomir on Dec 29, 2005 12:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

remember

those were the years he was ages 21-23. being in the majors at all that young is impressive to me. and holding his own is even more impressive. hes got the tools and i think he will be a good player for a long time.

by taggartd on Dec 29, 2005 1:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

re

Rocco will be a servicable starter for a long time, but no star. I see his best years being a .300 ave with 20 homers and 30 steals, but his ave will be .280 with 15 homers. Definately not a franchise player. The Drays should have traded him this offseason while his value is still high, letting gathright hold cf until elijah dukes is ready. they could have gotten ming-wan from the yankees for him or one of the padres young arms for him.

by ScottAZ on Dec 29, 2005 10:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wang

I think the Yankees liked Baldelli, but they probably wouldn't have traded Wang unless they got a pitcher back. They really need to keep any young pitching that they have considering the age on the staff.

by jc3 on Dec 29, 2005 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: thought about Rocco to Yanks

I can just imagine "Tom from Coney Island" calling into WFAN to talk in his thick new yorker accent about JEEEE-TAH and ROCK-O.

starring Alfonso Soriano as Vinny C in RFK part deux

by natsfan2005 on Dec 29, 2005 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yanks fans

As the one Rays fans to attend their games at Yankee's Stadium, I was constantly asked about "Racco". He'd be pretty popular up there.

They wouldn't have been able to trade him this offseason or last - his trade value is at an all-time low, and he got injured before last year's winter meetings. The year before that, at the deadline, there was a reported offer of Ryan Howard and Brett Myers for Rocco that I'll bet Chuck Lamar wishes he would have taken right about now.

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2005 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

instead of coney island....

i'd go with staten island. when i think of yankee fans calling into WFAN to talk with mike and the mad dog, i always associate it with staten island. coney island also has the cyclones, met's farm team, so i think of it as more of a met area. but all in all, you nailed the typical call-in.

by DavidWrightismyGod on Dec 29, 2005 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well...

I certainly agree with your point about Staten Island and that by and large natsfan nailed the typical yankee call in, but in all fairness you left out the typical, "hey, i really think the Yanks should trade Cano and Small for Pujols, Santana, and Mt. Rushmore - but only if they get cash thrown in as part of the deal AND Mt. Rushmore is reconfigured to show Jeter's profile left, Jeter's profile right, Jeter face front, and a close up of Jeter's calm eyes" proposal.

by LeftyTG on Dec 29, 2005 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

in the interest of brevity....

i left that part out. but yes, that is a fairly typical call. to which francesca usually says something along the lines of cano being too valuable to give up for that little of a return. also, you forgot about how wang is gonna win 20 games next year. mark it down, its gonna happen.

by DavidWrightismyGod on Dec 29, 2005 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Any chance we could stay on topic gang?

If you guys want to chat HOF why don't you start a diary to do so? Somehow this went from Rocco Baldelli, to that Yankees trading for him?, to whether or not Dawson should be in the hall over Kirby Puckett. Good discussions indeed, but way off topic.

"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen." (Hemingway)

by jmoultz on Dec 29, 2005 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

I've been in some good thread-jacks before, but this one is pretty bad.

Don't really have any good advice on Baldelli, just not enough there to get a good read on him for me. He did get a lot of praise from scouts about his skills from what I remember. I've seen many good players have about the same if not a little worse numbers their first season or two. Missing those 2 years is not going to be easy on him at least for a while IMO, but he is still pretty young at 24 and I supppose the window of good development is still OK. Flip a coin?

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Dec 29, 2005 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baldelli

I think Baldelli looked as good or better than Torii Hunter at the same age, at least before his injury. Both guys were top draft picks, both guys are athletic centerfielders, and hit righthanded. Baldelli has actually been better than Torri Hunter in the minors as well. Torri Hunter developed into a 280/330/500 hitter and I dont see why Baldelli can't do the same. Of course the injury is the wild card, it may rob him of his speed and force him into a RF, where his offense would be just average.

by sanchez101 on Dec 29, 2005 5:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs