Granderson or Gardner, it doesn’t matter…
February 16, 2010, 4:45 pm by iYankees · 27 Comments
According to Dave Cameron of FanGraphs, it does not matter who the Yankees select this spring to play center field or left field, whether it be Curtis Granderson or Brett Gardner, as both players are capable of playing center field. Therefore, it is not entirely important who ultimately mans center or left when either candidate can play center well. Cameron does write, though, that if Gardner, who is generally considered the better outfielder, roams left while Granderson stays in center, “the total difference in defensive performance between the two alignments is simply the drop in value in right-center balls caught minus the rise in value in left field line balls caught.” So, while there is some added value in playing Gardner over Granderson in center – i.e., right field gap coverage – it is offset by the slight defensive gains made if Gardner, rather than Granderson, is in left. This leads Cameron to claim, “We’re talking about a marginal difference on just a handful of balls in play over a full season. We’re talking about fractions of a run.”
If this is truly the case, perhaps it would be best for the Yankees to simply go with Brett Gardner in left and Curtis Granderson in center. If Gardner’s bat absolutely fails, then it would be easier for the Yankees to move him out of left field over the summer, and replace him with another left fielder (one acquired via trade). Also, although Cameron does not mention this in his article, Granderson appears to have a better arm than Gardner (UZR says otherwise, but Gardner’s arm rating is somewhat inflated and the scouting reports are kind to Granderson), therefore, using Gardner in left, where his arm strength is not as important, might actually make more sense for the team, defensively.
Photo by the AP
Even if it is only a handful of balls worth of difference, why not go with the alignment that will catch those balls?
CF gets more chances during the season than LF. Gardner is a better CF than Granderson. So, no question Gardner should be in CF.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
But if you weigh the benefits of saving that “handful of balls” during the course of a season with the added flexibility of playing Gardner at a position where it is easier to find a replacement later in the season, I’m not so sure that it is worth it. If Gardner’s bat fails while in CF and Granderson is in LF, then at the trade deadline the Yankees will have to find a new LF (it is a lot easier to acquire a solid left fielder than it is a solid center fielder) and then shift Granderson back to CF (the best CF replacement for Gardner is Granderson). That can cause a number of problems. Perhaps its best then to forgo the “fractions of a run” saved.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Asking Granderson to switch positions in the middle of the year would be a mistake. If Gardner is in LF and Grandy is in CF and there is no huge difference between the two, that sounds fine. Granderson will play CF next year and I doubt Gardner will be the LF so why not?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Chris,I agree with you unless the Yanks are convinced Gardner will stick,and if thats the case then put your best alignment on the field.I have said it before that the fact they are considering moving an allstar CF to left shows us the Yanks think alot of the tools Gardner brings to the field.Give this kid a chance he has game changing speed and if we won a WS series with Melky in CF we can do it with GARDY.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I see that, BP. The only thing is that Melky had a proven track record at the Major League level prior to 2009 (even though he was awful in 2008). With Gardner, that’s not necessarily the case. I do think the best alignment, defensively, is Gardner in CF and Granderson in LF, but if the Yankees want to install a safety mechanism (Gardner in LF), just in case, and if that mechanism won’t cost them more than a “fraction of a run,” I don’t see the harm in doing that. In fact, it might be to their benefit.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Chris as much as I like Gardner I can’t argue with your point.It’s the safe way to go. Melky played himself of the team in 08 so don’t see the logic there?Gardner is a better cf than the Melkman and his speed makes him a better fit in the 9 hole.Gardners speed makes him an elite defender and a game changer on the base paths.He only needs to slightly improve his OBP to be a very good ,I like his chances.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I gotcha BP, I was just responding to the “we won a WS with Melky so we can do it with Gardner” comment. I def like Gardner and think he can be a very good player for the Yankees. I do, however, think if there is no real defensive disparity between Gardner in CF/Granderson in LF and Granderson in CF/Gardner in LF, then maybe, for precautionary reasons, we should stick with Gardner in LF for 2010. I was arguing just a few weeks ago that Gardner in CF makes more sense, but if only a “fraction of a run” is saved by doing that, then maybe the flexibility afforded to the team by keeping Gardner in LF (in case he struggles) is worth the nearly nonexistent difference in run prevention.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Well put and I do see the reasoning.I like keeping the triangle in tact,(ss,cf,2b)Great teams are strong up the middle.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Im in favor of putting whomever the best CF is out there b/c CF’s are involved in many more plays than LFs. I love Gardner in CF and doubt CG is better than him. I like that he plays shallow and takes away those cheap hits and prevents runners from taking extra bases. That said, the yanks would probably be better off if CG can prove to be an equal or better CF than Gardner and they keep him in CF.
Granderson will see more PAs than Gardner so for continuity and less defensive switches its probably better to keep him there. Grandy is likely a better CF than Winn so when the 2 of them play together you are better served with Grandy in the middle also.
On the other hand, perhaps the Yankees are thinking long term and believe in Gardner as a starter for yrs to come. If that’s the case and they think Granderson will eventually profile as a LF than why not make the inevitable switch now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
How come everyone is so worried about either one of them? If one fails, it could as well be Granderson as not. If one fails (either one) we will need a LF replacement…these guys are pros, they have both played a good time in CF…one doesn’t forget how to walk after being in a leg cast for 3 months.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Ballpark, I finally got around to the comparison of players to Gardner you were interested in. I did the first three seasons for each guy’s wOBA (then their career wOBA) since Gardner is entering his third season in the bigs.
Gardner – .282wOBA in 141 PA, .337wOBA in 248 PA
Dykstra – .318wOBA in 237 PA, .375wOBA in 498 PA, .357wOBA in 479 PA, .362 career wOBA
Rivers – .385wOBA in 30 PA, .310wOBA in 296 PA, .242wOBA in 176 PA, .330 career wOBA
Crawford – .288wOBA in 278 PA, .305wOBA in 661 PA, .344wOBA in 672, .343 career wOBA
Butler – .330wOBA in 145 PA, .252wOBA in 268 PA, .328wOBA in 613 PA, .345 career wOBA
Coleman – .319wOBA in 692 PA, .300wOBA in 670 PA, .348wOBA in 702 PA, .320 career wOBA (BABIP season 2)
Figgins – .177wOBA in 12 PA, .314wOBA in 240 PA, .339wOBA in 638 PA, .339 career wOBA
Victorino – .205wOBA in 83 PA, .352wOBA in 19 PA, .332wOBA in 462 PA, .345 career wOBA
Do keep in mind the small sample sizes for most of these guys. Also, league average wOBA is always .330 (I think?). I have seen league average wOBA for CF being in the area of .325, and replacement level at .295.
Basically, Gardner was better than league average as a hitter last season, but his PA were very limited. If he is around league average over a full season of PA, when his defense is factored in, he is a valuable and legit starting CF. However, there are concerns he will be “exposed” if he gets a full season worth of PA, including facing more LHP.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Gardners 337 wOBA would have even been better had he not broken his thumb.His numbers were not good when he came back.I think they rushed him back for the playoffs.I can really see Gardner being a Figgins type hitter is that so bad?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I like it, this is all true.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Figgins-(age25)AB240,OBP=345,OPS=711,SPD=6.9,WOBA=314,SB=13,CS=7,K%15.8
Gardner-(age25)AB248,OBP=345,OPS=724,SPD=9.2,WOBA=337,SB=26,CS=5,K%16.1
Figgins-(age26)AB577,OBP=350,OPS=770,SPD=7.4,WOBA=339,SB=34,CS=13
Gardner-(age26)AB550,OBP=360,OPS=775,SPD=9.2,WOBA=349,SB=55,CS=10,PROJECTION
Plus or minus what do you guys think?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Thanks a lot tedbrogen, we have all been waiting for your report…well done!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Pretty cool, ted (if you want to expand upon it and make it a post, feel free). League average wOBA is roughly equal to league average OBP, right? I believe they’re on the same scale. Either way, the .330 and .325 seem accurate (and RL is about .300).
Speaking of Gardner, anyone ever think of the Angels’ Reggie Willits when they see Gardner? Willits had some great minor league numbers, which translated to a solid season in 2007, but has struggled since, mainly due to injuries and a crowded roster. He’s not as fast as Gardner or as good with a glove, but still.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=willit001reg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My understanding of wOBA, which could be wrong, is that it is on a scale to resemble OBP, but the way it’s done means that league average is always .330
I thought about making it a post, but the numbers are so filled with small sample sizes and I don’t have a database to extract the players’ numbers from, so to add more players I have to manually look up their numbers on fangraphs, which is a bit tedious.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I gotcha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent job Ted. These #s show Gardner compares favorably with the top speedy/leadoff types of the past 30 yrs. The Yanks need to give him time to develop and not pull the plug on him if he goes through a cold stretch.
Before his injury, his wOBA was approx .345 which is superb when you consider the type of defense he brings to the table. His minor lg history shows he improves considerably when given a full season to adjust to a new level so he should be poised to improve.
As Ballpark has stated before, the Yankees could save millions by developing Gardner into a solid starting OF for the next 4-5 affordable yrs. If he can post a .350 OBP with 45-60 SBs, there will be no need to sign someone like Carl Crawford to a huge $100 Million deal. That will allow them to use their resources on a Cliff Lee, Beckett or BWebb.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
TedB thanks for the comparison.Gardner’s 2nd year matches up pretty well with some guys that have had solid careers.I think he has a chance to improve off of what we saw last season.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Great stuff guys! Grandy s/b the CF for reasons stated above. Plus, CF is a hitting/RBI position; a strong hitter with confidence(Grandy hit 30 dingers in ‘09). It doesn’t appear that Gardner is a strong, confident hitter. Check out his interview a week or so ago about practicing bunting etc. Remember how he ended ‘09 and the postseason? A number of those at bats were downright embarrassing. Whether or not it was the thumb injury is exactly what Girardi needs to find out. I like Gardner’s speed too, but it falls way short of compensating for the lack of HRs, RBIs, Runs and being a tough out for the opposing pitcher that he demonstrated in ‘09. Jim made a great point, keep Granderson, an all-star CF in CF, as Gardner may not be in the OF next year anyway. Maybe one of the recent pickups will see this as an opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I also meant to state with my post, that we shouldn’t base what we expect from Gardner offensively based on the production/career arcs of previous speedy guys.
It would probably be better to look at Gardner minor league numbers, which were somewhat encouraging based on his OBP and ability to adapt to each level after first not succeeding.
Also, the only true way to find out if Gardner can be a valuable starting OF (as opposed to a 4th OFer) is to just give him a full season’s worth of PA and see if he fails or succeeds. And if they are actually considering moving Granderson to LF, it seems they might just do that. (I hope they do, because the 9th hitter struggling at times but still delivering tremendous defense, can’t really cause that much damage to their playoff hopes)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I concur and have said for yrs that the Yankees can afford to develop a young hitter and young pitcher in almost every given season. They get much better than average offensive production from the other 8 hitters that they can easily carry a developing player in the 9-hole.
Same goes for the rotation. Their front 4 are formidable enough to let Joba or Hughes go through ups and downs in the 5 spot.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Tedb I agree with you.Gardner has not had enough ab’s,but your stats show that it is also way to early to pull the plug and say he can’t hit.I would argue the opposite if I had to look at his numbers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Makes sense to see what Gardner can provide thru June 30, & prior to trading deadline. Keeping in mind however, that Cano is spotty at best with RISP, Swisher is short hot/long frigid, and then Gardner’s productivity is a question mark. That leaves the heavy lifting to the front six….Not necessarily a good thing. Regarding Gardner’s minor league numbers, there’s a rather substantive difference between AAA & ML pitching physically AND mentally. Since they didn’t get JBay or a similar product, pulling the plug prior to the completion spring training is too early. However, it’d be prudent for Girardi to have one hand on the plug & the other on his cell phone, because the back end of this lineup needs more consistency so it can help the front end. Like maybe a “circular lineup”, as they say, to keep the line moving. We all know, a hitter affects the guys to his right & left, thus the lineup.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Cano and Swisher are the best 7+8 hitters in baseball and there’s no other team thats even close to their production in those two spots.
Cano-avg=320,ops=872,woba=370,hr=25,rbi=85
Swish-ops=869,woba=375,hr=29,rbi=82
Like or Dislike:
0 
0