Master Index of Archived Threads


Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

bmfc1 May 21 2010 07:15 AM

Baseball HQ says it is: FB%, hr/f fuel Barajas’ barrage... In shallow leagues, there’s a good chance that Rod Barajas (C, NYM) went undrafted. However, after an impressive power display in the early going, it’s unlikely that he's still available. So, what are the odds he can maintain it? Year AB BA xBA h% bb% ct% G/L/F HR hr/f PX ==== === ==== ==== == === === ======== == ==== === 2006 344 .256 .248 27 5 85 32/17/51 11 7 94 2007 122 .230 .238 26 15 80 31/15/54 4 8 109 2008 349 .249 .256 27 5 83 37/17/46 11 8 107 2009 429 .226 .234 23 4 82 29/14/57 19 9 103 2010 111 .270 .271 24 3 86 18/11/71 9 13 158 Signs are that Barajas will slow down soon: * Despite a low h%, Barajas may not see much of a BA boost. While he’s making good contact, his plate patience is lower than usual – he’s got only three walks on the year. xBA looks good, but it wouldn’t be surprising to see it return to its normal level. Don’t expect much BA growth over the rest of the year. * Barajas has always had a high FB%, but 71% is borderline ridiculous. Combine that with a higher hr/f than usual, and it’s clear that Barajas can’t maintain this production rate. * Barajas’ power is usually about league average; his PX should drop soon. Barajas is about half-way to his career high of 21 HR, despite the season being barely 1/4 over. But it’s not going to last; Barajas won’t be in the 35-40 HR range at the end of the year. Barajas’ power display is a FLUKE, so if you can find someone willing to overpay for him, feel free to trade him.

Benjamin Grimm May 21 2010 07:16 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

I think his home run numbers are high because he's playing in a home run friendly park. Oh... wait...

Edgy DC May 21 2010 07:21 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Well, of course it's an outlier. He's been in the league for 10 years, so he's unlikely to suddenly hit 40 homers, but I could see him getting 24 or 25.

Ceetar May 21 2010 07:24 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

If his career high is 21, that means 25 isn't out of the question this year, as that projects to 15 more. Maybe his fb% is so high because he's getting good swings and hitting home runs, but if it drops, taht doesn't means it won't convert to line drives and singles and doubles? Hitting the ball well over the fence is not a fluke. The porportions may be, and like any hot player it makes sense that they won't keep it up.

G-Fafif May 21 2010 07:31 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Barajas’ power display is a FLUKE, so if you can find someone willing to overpay for him, feel free to trade him. I take it that's a fantasy baseball directive, but if the Mets are out of it come August, and he's got some good numbers, I imagine Rod (if he hasn't completely outlied by then) would be attractive on the actual trade market. He's signed to a one-year deal and is understood as a placeholder for young Thole. But let's not think like that just yet.

Benjamin Grimm May 21 2010 07:36 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Young Thole needs to make a case that a place should be held for him.

attgig May 21 2010 07:45 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

agreed about thole. everyone got on the Thole bandwagon like they did on the murph bandwagon..... a bit premature to crown him the next regular position player.

G-Fafif May 21 2010 07:52 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Agreed that Thole has yet to deserve coronation as catcher of the inevitable future. Nevertheless, Barajas is a short-term solution. A swell one for now, but probably not for very long.

TransMonk May 21 2010 08:12 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Who the hell cares if it's a fluke? Any offense we get from the catcher position in 2010 should be gravy. The more important question should be: Is Mike Pelfrey's 2010 Success a Fluke? Let's see how many bowls of Cheerios we can piss in.

batmagadanleadoff May 21 2010 08:18 AM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

One problem with the "is it a fluke" analysis is that it's premised on the idea that this year's Barajas is the same as the previous Barajas'. Only older. But who knows whether Barajas perhaps altered his approach this year, or is suddenly in the best shape of his life, or is a late bloomer? Or a late boomer. Past performance doesn't necessarily guarantee future results. Anyone waiting for Mike Scott to regress to his mediocre mean in May of 1985 had no way of knowing that Scott was beginning a run of success that would make him one of baseball's best pitchers in each of the next five seasons. Same for Koufax in '61.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 21 2010 12:26 PM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

Yes, but Mike Scott was throwing a different pitch, and mixing the others in different proportion. None of the stuff in Barajas' plate approach-- visually, or in the sort of numbers he has direct control over (swinging/contact rates in/out of the strike zone, e.g.)-- seems to have changed... merely the result. That he's seeing bigger HR/FB numbers out of that is more likely to be fluky than not. And honestly, at least part of reason for such pee-in-the-Cheerios treatment is that it keeps undue hope formation-- you enjoy found money, but if you "budget" for it (either practically as a GM, or in your rooting heart as a fan) that call for it, you're probably setting yourself up for a fall.

batmagadanleadoff May 21 2010 12:42 PM Re: Is Barajas' 2010 Success A "Fluke"?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yes, but Mike Scott was throwing a different pitch, and mixing the others in different proportion. None of the stuff in Barajas' plate approach-- visually, or in the sort of numbers he has direct control over (swinging/contact rates in/out of the strike zone, e.g.)-- seems to have changed... merely the result. That he's seeing bigger HR/FB numbers out of that is more likely to be fluky than not. And honestly, at least part of reason for such pee-in-the-Cheerios treatment is that it keeps undue hope formation-- you enjoy found money, but if you "budget" for it (either practically as a GM, or in your rooting heart as a fan) that call for it, you're probably setting yourself up for a fall. I totally agree with you. I'm not suggesting that a Mike Scott-like turnaround is common generally, or even likely to be happening to Barajas. But just to play devil's advocate, how do you know that Barajas' new found HR output isn't attributable to something other than luck? Maybe he's swinging a lighter bat this year ... or choking up an inch or two higher ... or standing closer to home plate ... or farther from home plate? Me, I hardly knew anything about Rod before this season other than that a few years ago, the Mets wanted him and then spurned him. He's kinda Kingmanesque offensively, only much more tolerable because he's taking his AB's from the 7th and 8th slots. And he's got defensive value.