Ken Griffey Jr.: Are His Days In Center Over?
| 13
|
by user Timothy Moreland(Bball3345)
"For somebody who can't play this (expletive) game to sit there and criticize me ..." Ken Griffey Jr., on recent talk radio claims that he should move out of center field to help the team (Cincinnati Enquirer)
All discussion of this quote centered around Griffey’s response to the radio show. What should be investigated further is the validity of the claim to move Griffey out of centerfield. There are three questions to ask to determine if such a move is indeed a good idea. First, can Griffey no longer field centerfield sufficiently? Second, can someone else on the roster field the position significantly better? Third, would the move ultimately improve the team? The stat used in this article to measure defense will be Rate. Rate is a BaseballProspectus stat that measures how many runs above/below average a player is in the field per 100 games. A Rate of 100 would be average, while a Rate of 90 would be 10 runs below average per 100 games. One question at a time, let’s go…
In 2000, Griffey was an above average fielder, recording a Rate of 105. He only made 5 errors, while showing his great range with a high number of putouts (376 in 141 games). The very next year trouble began. Injured, Griffey played in only 111 games, 90 in centerfield. Griffey managed to throw out only one runner, after having nine assists in 2000. His Rate dropped to a pathetic 84. Still struggling with injuries from 2002-2004, he posted pedestrian Rates of 81, 90, and 93. Last year, which was Griffey’s healthiest season since 2000, the injuries had clearly taken a toll. Whether his speed was gone or he was scared to re-injure the leg, Griffey no longer had the tremendous range of his days roaming center in Seattle. Griffey has yet to make an error this year, but that is due more to him not getting to the ball than anything positive. Unfortunately, his Rate in 2006 has stuck down around 90. So, to answer the first question, Ken Griffey Jr. can clearly no longer field CF adequately.
Knowing the Reds need to look elsewhere, there are three legitimate options: Adam Dunn, Ryan Freel, and Austin Kearns. Dunn, the current starter in leftfield, has enough troubles fielding. With no experience in CF and a career Rate of 93 at the easier position in left, a move to center would probably hurt the team more than help. Ryan Freel, the speedy utilityman, has played 27 games in center this year (108 Rate) and 107 in his career (107 Rate). Defensively, it appears as if Freel would add approximately 20 runs, or about 2 wins, to the Reds if started over Griffey in center from here out. This does not include the change in offensive production, which will be addressed in the next paragraph. Finally, Austin Kearns, the starting rightfielder, has limited, although impressive, experience in center. In only 49 career games in CF, he has a Rate of 108, three assists, and only one error. Strong fielding should be expected as shown by his play in RF (104 Rate in 2006, 105 in 361 career games). Therefore, it appears as if there are two viable options to improve the defense in centerfield: Freel and Kearns.
While Freel would save about 20 runs on defense, one would expect Griffey’s offense to offset this gain. According to BaseballProspectus, Freel and Griffey are both one run below average and have EQA’s of .255 and .252, respectively. So, there has been virtually no difference in offense this year; however, history favors Griffey, by quite a bit. Just last year, Ken Griffey had an EQA of .313 with 36 runs above average. In comparison, Freel had a .275 EQA with 7 runs above average in 2005. Freel had two seasons of .272 EQAs in 2003 and 2004. At 30 years old, this appears to be the most one could expect from him. On the other hand, Griffey followed his strong year last year with EQA’s of .312 in 2003 and .290 in 2004. It appears as if his offense should pick up considerably; although, age may catch up to him as he is 36 this season. Assuming Griffey can find his groove at the plate, centerfield is his to keep. If Griffey fails to outperform Freel on offense by a noticeable margin (at least 10-15 runs), moving Freel into the starting lineup in center appears to be a smart decision for the team.
As far as the option of moving Griffey to left for Kearns, this does not seem to have as much of an advantage. Both of these players are already in the starting lineup, so the team would not notice an offensive boost or slide. There might be an advantage in placing Kearns between Dunn and Griffey, both below average defenders. Currently, balls hit between Dunn and Grifffey are likely not going to be fielded. Kearns could significantly reduce the gaps Dunn and Griffey would have to be responsible for. This appears to be a smarter way to align the outfield and does not have to send a future Hall-of-Famer to the bench. This seemingly smart decision does not come without a glaring negative. Whether or not this is true I don’t know, but the Reds insisted they could not move Griffey to a corner-outfield position, because having to make sudden stops while running toward the foul-line/wall would re-injure his leg. I do not know if there is really anymore sudden stops on the corners than in center, but this should be a concern. Otherwise, it seems as if moving Kearns to center and Griffey to left would considerably improve the amount of outs made in the Cincinnati outfield.
Date
Mon 05/29/06, 5:14 pm EST
