And the guy has a new haircut, too!

Damon's new haircut

While I agree with your conclusion, your depreciation scale is off. There's no reason to think Damon's decline will slow down from year to year. If he loses 2.5 WS in year one, he's not going to lose 2.25 in year two, 2.0 in year three, and about 1.75 in year four.

Of course, I think you just have the numbers backward -- he'll lose about 1.75 in year one, 2.0 in year two, etc. That actually _strengthens_ your argument!

I don't know if comparing his contract to Matsui's is really a good idea. For one thing, part of Matsui's contract is based on the excess international revenue he brings to the team. While people in Boston seemed to like Damon for some reason, I can't imagine him getting the same reaction in NY and I can't imagine his value in terms of promotions and sponsors is anywhere near Matsui's. People there like Bernie too much, and Damon doesn't have his hair and beard anymore which... as ridiculous as it sounds... will probably end up accounting for about $5 million of the money he earns in his lifetime, via sponsorships and increased fan and GM interest.

My biggest surprise in all of this was that Damon had a 113 OPS+ last season, compared to a 114 from Dave Roberts. Granted, Roberts had a good year for himself, but a lot of people point to Damon's past season behind the plate as a "career year" as well. But Roberts only made $1.35 million... and if he has a good agent, maybe he'll get something like 2.0 or 2.5 next year.

Now which team do you think is better: the team that pays $13 million for Damon's .366 OBP as a leadoff hitter, or the team that pays $2 million for Roberts' .356 OBP (that's a difference of ONE time on base per HUNDRED) and spends $11 million on a pitcher (say, AJ Burnett) to replace whoever would have been their 5 man in the rotation?

On a final note, with DLowe gone and guys like Schilling in the rotation for Boston... is there any adjustment made to a fielder's putouts and such for the fact that he's a centerfielder playing with a 12 year old in LF and a lot of "fly ball" pitchers?

Dave - thanks, first, for the link. Second, you're partly right; yes, I chose a particular way of looking at Damon to illustrate a specific point. But this particular aspect of Damon's game has been bothering me for far longer than the past couple of days; I've only now found the 'inspiration' to write it up.

To me, the real issue here is what kind of hitter we can realistically expect Damon to be going forward, which is what I was trying to get at at the end of the article. A hitter that is as dependent as Damon on singles is going to find that - lacking other more predictable skills - his value will depreciate a lot faster than 10% a year. For example, just a quick look at his Fenway hit chart tells me that somewhere in the vicinity of 12-14 of his 77 Fenway singles, or about 17%, were infield singles. How many of those does he lose as he ages? Let's say that in 2 years, Damon is essentially the same player, except that he's lost the ability to leg out a lot of those infield hits - maybe 50% of them. That means that in total, after applying that to his 2005 totals, he's lost about 12.5 base hits. That alone drops his SLG and OBP by about 20 points each. All of a sudden, Damon is a .760 OPS player. That's just one example, of course, to illustrate the point that when a player like Damon, who is that dependent on one specific type of skill - especially one that is impacted by a thing like speed, which tends to decline pretty rapidly in the mid-30's - he'll feel the impact of age a lot more sharply than players who get their production from a better mix of skills.

Mike, you're comparing Roberts and Damon by OPS+ and OBA is disingenuous. Sure, their OPS+ and OBA were relatively close, but look at the more telling stat: Win Shares. Roberts had 15 while Damon was 4th in the AL with 25. 15 WS is pretty close to average, while 25 is among the tops in the league. Plus you need to take into account history. Does Roberts have a history of high Win Shares (or high OPS+)? No, not really. Roberts career OPS+ is 90. 90! That's horrible. Meanwhile Damon's is 102, with most of his low OPS+ years being early in his career. The last 4 years, Damon's OPS+ have been 113, 94, 117, 113. Roberts' last 4 years of OPS+ were 88, 85, 94, 114. I'll take Damon over Roberts, no question.

And really, Damon's major value for the Yanks is in the field. His range is key to his providing a positive impact. His solid .360 OBP is fine for a leadoff hitter, as is his ability to run from station to station and steal about 20 bases at an extremely high success rate. He has long been capable of drawing walks, and last year was low point for him on that front. Regression to the mean suggests that he'll lose plenty of batting average, but keep his OBP at a similar rate based on a return to his average walk rates. In the AL, the only better leadoff hitter than Damon will now be hitting in the two-hole behind him.

I think that in a lot of ways, this signing is a win-win situation. The Yankees win because they get a solid defensive CF and one of the league's better lead-off hitters. Chances are Damon will continue to be an above average fielder and hitter through the 4-year contract. The Yankees are overpaying for talent, but, who cares? That's what the Yankees do. The Sox win because they can replace most of Damon's production for 1/3 (or less) of the price that the Yankees are paying.

Win Shares are problematic, for a couple reasons (and incidentally, I think it's in many ways a less telling stat). First, is the somewhat arbitrary nature to which they determine "important" (or, in James' ironic words, "marginal") runs. Second, the way in which fielding is incorporated in is also a bit archaic. In short, I think Win Shares was a great idea that's sort of outdated.

But the biggest problem here is that Win Shares are an absolute stat. And there's obviously going to be a big difference between a full-time leadoff hitter on the most potent offense in the majors in a hitter's park (thus he gets the most opportunities to bat) versus a non-full time player on the Padres. Damon had 688 Plate Appearances last year, to Roberts' 480. If you keep Roberts' rate constant to the same number of opportunities that Damon got, Roberts' Win Shares goes from 15 to 21.5

So, if we actually let both of these guys play a full season last year, we're comparing 21.5 win shares to 25 win shares.

Pardon me for not quite knowing everything about win shares... as I said I don't really like it from what I do know about it... but is it park-adjusted? Is it lineup-adjusted? OPS-wise, Damon had a better season last year. But it's not until you factor in league and park that Roberts' OPS+ is better.

Anyways I'm certainly not saying Roberts is better in the abstract. And I acknowledged that he had a great year last year. But saying you'll pick Damon over Roberts is akin to saying you'll take steak over ground beef. I think we all would, if we didn't have to pay for it.

But as I concluded with, Damon costs $13 million... I think it's safe to say that Roberts will cost around $2 million next year. And we know AJ Burnett costs $11 million. Which makes this the more appropriate question:

Dave Roberts and AJ Burnett, or Johnny Damon?

Your appropriate question really isn't that appropriate. The Yankees need it pitching, yet they can't fit any more pitchers on their roster - they're already overloaded. There was no way the Yanks were going to sign Burnett. Plus you seem to ignore the fact that Roberts is, in general, a poor everyday player. He only batted 480 times for a reason. He's been a spot player his entire career for a reason. Last season was by FAR his best, so, regression to the mean states that he's going to suck next year just like he did the three years previous. I'd rather spend $13M on a sure thing (which includes removing him from your arch enemy's lineup) to spending $2M on a player who had a career year at 33 years old (remember Tony Womack?).

Damon's win shares jumped from 18 in 2003 to 27 in 04 to 25 in 05. Are 04 and 05 his accepted level of performance? (I don't have his full career WS spread at hand). I would guess his decline would be a little worse than represented towards the back end of the contract, but maybe he ages gracefully.

Was Bernie Williams considered an asset as a defender? Because his fielding certainly fell off a cliff the last couple years, making him a liability out there. If Damon loses fielding range and his OBP isn't at or above 350, he's not going to be helping.

Still, I think it's a great signing for the Yankees for the next two years, but I wouldn't want to be paying Damon 13 million in 08 & 09 and as a Sox fan, I'm OK with losing out on him even though it hurts them in the near term.

Damon's hidden value as a hitter is his patience: He sees a lot more pitches than most batters, and so even when he gets out, helps other batters who follow (and builds the starter's pitch count early).

That said, I think Damon is almost certain to do worse in New York than in Boston in 2006.

Look at 2005: Great first half, big dropoff in the second. Will he rebound from that second half slump? Probably, but based on his age and the amount of miles he's put on his chassis by playing every day, playing hurt for so long, the adjustment to a new park, and the very different New York situation, I'd predict a dropoff overall.

(I'm not even mentioning the fact that there is just so much, much more for a rockstar athlete to do in NYC after midnight than in Beantown. This will be one distracted guy, especially with his grasping wife wanting to make Page Six once a week. I'm buying stock in Visine on this basis alone. Johnny's going to need truckloads of the stuff.)

Can we stop comparing Damon to Bernie Williams? I realize it's easy to do, but it's just wrong. Damon's top year in OPS+ was in 2000 and 2004 when he was at 117. Bernie beat that in 9 straight years, from 1994 (when he was 25) to 2000 (when he was 33).

Bernie got 54 WS in his year-32 and year-33 seasons, but just 29 in his 34 and 35 seasons. If Damon follows your 10% rule, he will get 43 in his first two years (less than Bernie) and 34 in his last two (more than Bernie). Bernie did not decompose at a 10% rate, it was actually much higher.

Will Damon? I don't know. But stop turning him into Bernie Williams.

Hudson - Interesting that you bring up patience, because as it turns out, in 2005 at least, Damon was really fairly impatient. Out of the 148 MLB hitters that qualified for the batting title, Damon ranked 84th - well into the bottom half - in #P/PA, and his pure walk rate was really pretty small. His PA/BB grew by about a third between 04 and 05, too; maybe a fluke, but I see Damon's breakdowns and I see a guy who has alread started to decline, but had that decline masked by other factors.

Looking forward, and touching on a great stat for leadoff hitters - pitches per plate appearance - I think Brad Wilkerson would be a great addition to play CF for the Sox.

* In all of MLB, Wilkerson was #7 in pitches per plate appearance in 2005 (as mentioned, Damon at #84). He was #2 in 2004 (Damon #13), and #1 in 2003 to Damon's #8.
* He can play all OF positions or 1st, and had most time in center last year.
* Seems to hit better playing center too - had his highest BA there at .267, and a nice .374 OBP in 2005. 3 year numbers are almost identical.
* His 3 year BA is .257 to Damon's .298 - BUT - his OBP for that time is .368 vs. Damon's .364. He walks a ton.
* He can lead off or hit lower in the order for power. Before last year, hit 20, 19, and 32 homers.
* He's played in pitcher's parks his whole career, and had to deal with Frank Robinson messing with him last year. He also played through injuries all of 2005.
* He's only 28, and made only $3 million last year.
* He's a gamer, and his defense is at least solid. Much stronger arm than Damon too.

He's expendable to Texas, who needs pitching - which the Sox have. This is the kind of guy the Sox should bring in. From everything I've seen and read of him, he's a team guy and plays all out. Make this deal, they could still throw Johnny's money at Millwood or other pitching too.

Aren't pitches/PA more a valuable statistic for a #2 hitter? The leadoff guy just needs to get on, and then the #2 man is supposed to have the patience to let his man move on the basepaths.

While Wilkerson is a good player, is he fast? I'd think you'd need a fast CF in Fenway, what with all of the space out there and weird shapes. Not to mention Manny in LF, and the need to get into position for the caroms off the Monster and the RF corner.

Roberts, Reed, or Crisp are all good speed players. But it's unclear who's actually available. The most obvious, and maybe easiest, of the trades to make is Roberts for David Wells. But Reed for Arroyo? I'd make that trade. For Clement? That's a tougher call, because even with his second half decline, his potential upside is higher. (Then again, he's older.)

Without a study or anything to back it up I would say p/pa is an important statistic for any hitter, for purposes of tiring the pitcher out. It's probably slightly more important at the top of the order in order to show the lower order guys what kind of pitches the pitcher is throwing on that day. This would only really be true the first time through the order.

Personally, I think OPS is a much better stat than Win Shares for hitters.

I think if you are a lead off guy on a good hitting team, you're going to have a lot of Win Shares.

Look at say, David Eckstein. He had 28 Win Shares. Did he have a good season? Yes. But pretty much anyone with a decent OBP in the lead off spot for the Cardinals would have had something similar.

Of course, P/PA are important for all hitters, but the spot where they're most important is the #2 man.

I think pitches/PA have value anywhere in the lineup, but can help set the tone when your leadoff guy takes a lot of pitches. As Chris mentioned, it can give your teammates a better look at what a pitcher is showing - plus inflating pitch counts is always a good thing. Anyway, that's just one of Wilkerson's strong points. In 2003 and 2004, he 33rd and 39th in all of MLB for OBP.

I like Crisp's potential and age, but he seems to be much more of a LF than a CF. As a LF in '05, .302 BA & .348 OBP vs. .268 BA and .302 OPB in center. In '04, he had a .352 BA and .391 OBP in left vs. .281 BA and .327 OBP in CF. That's enough of a sample size to show me his comfort zone is much higher in left. Throw in Fenway's tricky nooks, he may not be the best fit. Plus he'd cost an arm and a leg in trade.

Roberts - I love him, but just don't believe he's a full-time CF anymore.

Reed, it's all about potential. He could just as easily never do anything as he could be a star. Too much uncertainty there for me, especially with his season ending with a partially torn ligament in his left wrist last year. He didn't have surgery, and Foulke's non-operated-on knees are flashing in my mind there...

Wilkerson takes a lot of pitches, has great OBP, has a strong arm and from all I read plays smart and hard. He's versatile, yet posts his best hitting stats playing center. Plus, he's about to enter the prime of his career, is relatively cheap, and realistically should be an option as Texas has Nix and Matthews Jr. as CF options too, and always need pitching.

The other move I hope for is Wells for Itzuris and a reliever if possible. That guy is hand's down the best defensive SS in the game, and his bat is decent too. If the Sox pull those two moves, I think they'll be back on track again.

One thing that seems to be left out in this discussion is team-specific value. Dave Roberts is pretty valuable on a team like the Red Sox who need a quick guy with high OBP to man centerfield. He lacks value on a team like the Padres who already have a quality centerfielder and have exactly zero players who can be relied upon to hit 25 home runs next year.

The Yankees are in a similar situation. They had to choose between an aging fan favorite (Bernie) in centerfield or a hit-free kid (Crosby). They decided that it made more sense to sign the best free agent centerfielder they could find, and eat the cost. The Sox, on the other hand, have the luxury of trading an Arroyo or a Clement for a better centerfielder than Crosby and plugging in one of their many great pitching prospects into the rotation. Because the Yankees don't have a strong minor leagues right now.

My main issue with this is not that Damon is now overpaid, but that the Yankees biggest weakness has not been addressed. Johnson, Mussina and Rivera aren't getting any younger; Pavano and Wright didn't perform well last year; Gordon is gone; and Farnsworth, Wang and Chacon are question marks in terms of sample size, in my opinion. They have a potential all-star at every position except catcher (although he is a former all-star), but their pitching could easily be worse than the Orioles or the Devil Rays this year, let alone the Blue Jays and Sox.

Has anybody mentioned Damon's splits? He's been a much better hitter in Boston than on the road. He's been particularly poor in Yankee Stadium over the last 3 years. Obviously some of that is due to the Yankees having above average pitching, but I think the park dynamics - lots of foul territory & a right field wall a long way away, especially compared to Fenway - are part of the problem for Damon. Take a look at Giambi's splits to see what to expect.

On the flipside, he was the best FA CF on the market, the Yankees needed a CF, and bidding up salaries helps the Yankees b/c it limits the talent other teams can afford to accumulate.

i like eckstein over damon as a leadoff hitter. and the lack of speed of the yankees outfield makes me believe damon will have to constanly hustle to makeup for shef and godzilla.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Ken, take a look at the stadiums - Fenway's right field wall is MUCH farther away from home plate then Yankee Stadium's. The Pesky Pole might be closer, but it quickly shoots back to 380' right from the pole.

The Red Sox are sinking in a hole of dispair, oh woe is me.

Beg to differ on Yankee Stadium vs Fenway:
CF Right Center RF Line Height
Yanks 408 385 314 7-10
Sox 390 379 302 3-5

Park Rankings (3 yr avg) vs 100 index
Yanks 99
Sox 103

Johnny's gonna have a long year.

Yeah, it's notoriously impossible to hit in Yankee Stadium, why they've never had good hitters.

Yeah, especially left-handed hitters. Not a good one in the bunch. Ever.

I dont care about his stinkin' haircut,
he cheated on his wife, and he cheated on his team. Money has ruined sports, and all people talk about is his haircut.
The redsox nation are going to boo his paints off, while the yankees pay their way to the top. What has happened to the players who played for the love of baseball?