Mike Cameron > Jason Bay ?
Written by Joe Veno on November 10, 2009 – 2:48 PM -An exploration of the future…
Fangraphs had an article recently, describing both players’ (Jay Bay and Mike Cameron) past impact. And ultimately coming to the conclusion that Cameron has been more valuable than Bay in recent years.
Why you say?
Cameron is a defensive pleasure, and one that covers ground in center rather than at a corner.
Bay is a liability, disguised by the eyes that watch him, and a giant lingering wall that takes away some of the ground he wouldn’t be able to handle to begin with.
By the “eyes that watch him?” Yes, Bay doesn’t look bad out in left, in fact he looks like a definite upgrade over what we used to watch out there. Manny was notorious for taking funky looking paths to the ball, and making circus catches…or circus misplays, all while possessing terrible range.
Bay doesn’t do that. Bay breaks to the ball, wide-eyed, alert on making the play, and rarely does he not make the play on a ball within his range. But what is within his range isn’t exactly a lot.
His UZR is terrible. And since UZR has to be taken in doses that are greater than a year, preferably three, then Bay has been the worst defensive left fielder in baseball, among qualifying defenders.
And my friends, the metrics don’t lie. They may not be omnipotent, but they definitely do not lie.
Anyway, over those same three years, Cameron has, according to UZR, been the second best defensive center fielder in the game, behind only BJ Upton.
Not too shabby.
Basically, Bay is a very good offensive player, but gives back a lot with his inability to be even an average defender. Cameron however, plays very good defense, even as he is not the same force at the plate as Bay.
But what about now? After all, that was the past. Cameron is now 37. Bay is 31. Will Cameron still be “better” than Bay? And what about if Cameron were signed by an AL East tea, such as, well, how about the Red Sox?
We know Bay can hit AL East pitching. Even though he has a few holes in his swing, strikes out a ton, and struggles with the breaking stuff. He still has the ability to work the count, draw walks, and hit for enormous power. And he does that against any pitching in baseball. Although naturally, struggles with the better arms in the game, just like everyone else does.
Would Cameron respond well with the bat in a return to the AL? Or is his “success” due in large part to a weaker, inferior National League?
That is a legitimate question, as I am not just pounding the “league difference” argument into your head because it is such a hot topic nowadays. Cameron would definitely see some decline with the stick, switching to the stronger league. How would his defensive talents translate into his overall game if he hit for a lower average, reached base a little less, and slugged a few less over the fence?
The one thing, other than Cameron’s good D, that is playing in his favor, is his “ability” to sign a one year deal, two at the most. Sure, he is old. But is one year at say, $10 million much more comforting to a front office than 4 years, $60-65 mill?
Sure sounds like it would be.
Cameron may or may not have been better than Jason Bay, it is fairly close. And metrics aren’t perfect.
But could we really blame a front office for choosing to bring in Cameron for one year, rather than Bay for multiple seasons? Especially if they happen to have a left fielder waiting in the wings?
Although subjectively, trust me, I would want Jason Bay.
Tags: Boston Red Sox, Jason Bay, Mike CameronPosted in Boston Red Sox | 12 Comments »
November 10th, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I don’t agree with bringing Cameron in primarily because doing so would hinder Ells’ development.
Nice to see you back.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
would this predicate ellsbury moving to LF and if so would the combination of he and cameron realistically provide enough offensive production for your OF?
and it’s great to see you back
November 10th, 2009 at 4:51 PM
PS it’s too bad the gold gloves are such a sham. Tex deserved it but how could someone like Guttierez not win for CF? and Polanco? jeter over andrus? oh well….
November 10th, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Dirty Water, I don’t really want Cameron either. But he wouldn’t be a bad idea if Bay’s contract demands get out of hand.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Mike, the signing would really be a stopgap for players such as Josh Reddick or a free agent such as Carl Crawford. The fans would simply have to suck it up for a year…
November 10th, 2009 at 5:49 PM
And yes, Mike, the Gold Gloves are mostly garbage. Jeter improved defensively, and that is great and all. BUT he clearly wasn’t the best defensive SS in the game. And Gutierrez, according to some metrics was the most valuable defender anywhere on the diamond (outside the unquantifiable catching position).
November 10th, 2009 at 6:56 PM
The difference in CF and LF is ~2 wins so Cameron isn’t nearly as valuable playing left than center. Also, I don’t think the Fangraphs crew is properly accounting for his expected decline in defensive ability.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:13 PM
“But he wouldn’t be a bad idea if Bay’s contract demands get out of hand.”
Uh, yes he would. I’m as big a fan of defense as the next enlightened guy but I don’t think the Sox survive without a strong DH in LF, like Bay. That is an offensive spot, especially in Fenway.
Defensively, putting Ells there is a waste. Ditto, Cameron. And neither guy will provide the runs required to compete in the AL East.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
That is an offensive spot, especially in Fenway.
That’s incorrect.
From MGL:
I broke each park down into small and large LF, CF, and RF, based on the square footage of each section (LF, CF, and RF) of each park. Then I looked at the UZR of bad fielders (and I think slow players independently, although slow players as a group are bad fielders of course) in large and small outfield sections and did the same for good fielders. I found that the good fielders had a gap in favor of the small parks and that the bad fielders had a gap in favor of the large parks. Basically, I found that you can leverage a fast outfielder in a small park and not a large park. I don’t see any reason why this is counter-intuitive. I’ll say this again. Just as you can argue that you “need” fast fielders to track down balls in large outfields, I can also argue that in large parks, much of the expanse is “wasted” in that no one can track down a ball in the far reaches and that a small park is perfectly suited to a fast player who can track down almost every ball hit in it. I just don’t see how common sense and intuition is going to answer this question.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Interesting read, not that I especially agree with the conclusion, or assumptions.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:06 PM
slightly off-topic–
who is going to be Wakefield’s catcher next year and won’t that burn a roster spot with Varitek picking up his option?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:08 AM
V-Mart can’t catch Wake? If he can, I assume Varitek will catch Beckett and V-Mart will catch everyone else.