The hottest topic in Yankee Universe at the moment is who should win the fifth spot in the starting pitching rotation between Phil Hughes, AJ Burnett and Freddy Garcia. So, over the last week I have read and heard many opinions on the topic from bloggers to analysts to the manager at my local Starbucks. The most annoying trend is the immediate discounting of Burnett, as entitled Yankee fans have branded him as the pitcher’s A-rod. Personally, I like both A-rod and Burnett because they work hard and when they are on, they are great. But getting into that discussion is for another time. The point is that no matter what happens in Spring Training, Burnett deserves the fifth spot in the rotation. This has nothing to do with money because it is not like I am writing the paychecks. The reason is Burnett has earned it, and here are three reasons why: Since signing with the Yankees, Burnett has been totally healthy making all 33 starts each season. This is not the case with Hughes as he ha…
Continue Reading:
New York Yankees: AJ Burnett Expects To Start And I Do Too
Some Intriguing Grade C Prospects to Follow in 2012. I wrote a piece yesterday about Jorge Posada , pointing out that the retired Yankees star was just a Grade C/C+ prospect in the minor leagues. I want to expand that theme today by looking at some Grade C prospects in the upcoming 2012 Baseball Prospect Book , who in my opinion have a chance to get beyond that and surprise us. First, here is how I define a Grade C prospect: Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys.Some don’t make it at all. . .keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment for my full opinion about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player. Here are six Grade C prospects who I think should be watched closely in 2012. Two of them are “limited upside” guys who could end up being surprisingly solid contributors, and four of them are players from the low minors with upside but who are a long distance from the Show. Andrew Carraway , RHP, Seattle Mariners HT: 6-2 WT: 200 B:R T:R DOB: September 4, 1986 (Carraway posted a 3.66 ERA with a 106/25 K/BB in 138 innings for Double-A Jackson in 2011, allowing 123 hits and nine homers) Carraway was a 12th round pick in 2009 from the University of Virginia. He doesn’t generate much buzz due to a mediocre fastball in the 86-90 range, but he has a good curveball and will mix in some sliders and changeups. The best thing he does is throw strikes, and he pitched well in Double-A last year after surviving the murderous environment at High Desert in ’10 with his sanity intact. You won’t see his name on many prospect lists, but Carraway is the type of efficiency expert who could sneak his way into some major league success as a fifth starter or long reliever, especially in a pitcher’s park like Seattle. Grade C. Tyler Greene , SS, Philadelphia Phillies HT: 6-2 WT: 175 B:R T:R DOB: December 1, 1992 ( Greene hit .276/.386/.379 in 17 games for the GCL Phillies, with 11 walks and 23 strikeouts in 58 at-bats. He stole five bases in six attempts). Greene was drafted in the 11th round by the Phillies last June, out of high school in Boca Raton, Florida. His draft position was deceptive. At one point he was considered a candidate for the second round, but an erratic spring and a University of Georgia commitment hurt his stock. The Phillies signed him for $375,000, and he showed intriguing tools in his pro debut, demonstrating gap power, speed, and a willingness to work counts. Greene is a very good athlete with the arm strength to remain at shortstop, although problems with his footwork may move him to third base. His swing mechanics need refinement and he strikes out a lot, but he will show patience at times and has above-average power potential. Greene is under-the-radar at the moment and will need time to develop, but his ceiling is higher-than-normal for an 11th round pick. Keep an eye on him. Grade C for now Juan Perez, 2B-SS, Cincinnati Reds HT: 6-0 WT: 180 B:L T:R DOB: November 1, 1991 (Perez hit .346/.424/.496 in 33 games for the AZL Reds, then .268/.344/.476 in 19 games for Billings in the Pioneer League. He stole 15 bases in 19 attempts with a 25/38 BB/K in 215 combined at-bats). Juan Perez was a 26th round pick in 2011, from College of the Canyons in California. He was Player of the Year in the Western State South Division Conference, and he continued to play well in pro ball, showing an intriguing line drive bat, good speed, a feel for the strike zone, and some defensive versatility. His best position is second base but he’s not horrible at shortstop. We need to see what happens at higher levels, but he’s got potential. Grade C. Kendrick Perkins, OF, Boston Red Sox HT: 6-2 WT: 225 B:L T:R DOB: September 12, 1991 (Perkins hit .257/.362/.386 with 27 walks and 62 strikeouts in 171 at-bats for the GCL Red Sox) Perkins was drafted in the sixth round in June 2010, from high school in La Porte, Texas. It took $628,000 to sign him away from baseball and football at Texas A&M. A raw athlete, Perkins has good running speed and excellent raw power, but is very unrefined. His swing is inefficient and he strikes out too much, but he makes an effort to work counts, so he is certainly not a lost cause. He could be a 20+ homer power source if he figures out how to play baseball, but it will take time and slow progress is more likely than a sudden breakout. Grade C with a high ceiling. Jorge Reyes, RHP, San Diego Padres HT: 6-3 WT: 195 B:S T:R DOB: December 7, 1987 (Reyes went 10-3 with a 3.12 ERA and a 98/30 K/BB in 113 innings for Double-A San Antonio, allowing 111 hits) Jorge Reyes was drafted out of Oregon State in 2009, a 17th round pick. He had a rough patch in the California League in 2010, but was much more effective in Double-A in ’11, seeing good success as a swingman in the Texas League. He posted a 3.90 ERA with a 74/24 K/BB in 88 innings over 20 starts, fair performance, but he was outstanding after moving to the bullpen in early August, posting a 0.36 ERAwith a 24/6 K/BB and 19 hits in 25 innings. He also vultured five wins in relief. Reyes has a low-90s fastball and a good slider, but his changeup is lacking and he’s probably best-suited for a relief role. Although not overpowering, he throws strikes and works very quickly. The Padres have a lot of raw material for a future bullpen, and Reyes is another piece. Grade C. Neftali Rosario, C, Chicago Cubs HT: 5-11 WT: 193 B:R T:R DOB: July 22, 1993 (Rosario hit .294/.351/.490 in 102 at-bats for the AZL Cubs, with six walks and 28 strikeouts). Neftali Rosario was drafted by the Cubs in the sixth round last June, from high school in Gurabo, Puerto Rico. He didn’t receive much attention pre-draft, but there are things to build on here. Although he needs more experience to refine his blocking skills, Rosario is mobile and should be an effective deterrent against baserunners due to a strong throwing arm. He has power, but his plate discipline needs work; he strikes out a lot and doesn’t draw walks yet, but he was just 17 on draft day and has plenty of time on the clock. He bears watching. Grade C with higher potential. 
It’s almost February, the Yankees have finally resolved their starting pitching woes, and we’ve all grown tired of complaining about Alex Rodriguez and A.J. Burnett, so our attention has turned to perhaps the only remaining question mark for the 2012 season – the DH position. We’ve heard preposterous trade propositions (Jason Bay?? Seriously???), and the Yankees have been linked to just about every remaining free agent hitter over the age of 35, though most of them are hitters in name only these days. Personally, I’d prefer to see Brian Cashman stand pat, because at this point, with these options, there’s really no sense in worrying that much about the 23rd or 24th spot on the roster, not in February or October. When you think of the DH position, it’s a pretty safe bet that the names of at least one of a handful of players will pop into your head – Edgar Martinez, David Ortiz, Frank Thomas, Paul Moliter. Hitters such as these have become synonymous with the position, but when you dig a little deeper, you realize that they’re the exception to the rule, and it’s actually quite rare for a team to carry an established, regular DH. Using the play index at www.baseball-reference.com , I searched for hitters who batted at least 500 times in a season with at least 80% of those plate apperances coming from the DH position. Believe it or not, only 65 players have managed to do it at least once. 31 have done it in two or more seasons, and 7 have managed to do it 5 or more times. Considering that the DH has been around for 39 seasons, these are small numbers. All in all, there have been 538 AL team-seasons since 1973, and using our definition of a regular DH, teams have only had one about 26% of the time. Does this tell us anything we don’t already know? Well, kind of. Throughout recent baseball history, most teams have viewed DH as an inherently flexible position, at least in practice if not in theory, and this makes sense. From a strategic standpoint, it’s better to focus on having depth at the actual fielding positions and use the DH as a way to keep everybody in the action. Signing a one-dimensional player like Hideki Matsui, or a fielder-in-name-only like Johnny Damon might fill the remaining DH at-bats, but these types of players do you little good throughout the injuries, day-night double headers, and extra-innings games that inevitably dot the regular season. Unless he can absolutely rake, the left-handed hitting half of a DH platoon is just a glorified pinch hitter if he can’t play anywhere on the field or pinch-run. Accordingly, the Yankees should take a pass on the remaining hitters left on the market, (edit: ESPECIALLY Raul Ibanez) and I suspect hope that they will. 
We are all familiar with the idea that across major league baseball some parks favor hitters while some favor pitchers. The dimensions of the park combined with other features can increase or decrease the run scoring environment. After opening Citi Field in 2009, the New York Mets saw a significant decline in their ability to score runs. The team averaged 681 runs scored per year from ’09-’11 compared to 812 over the previous three seasons. Additionally, management worried that pitchers were developing bad habits while pitching at their spacious home park that led to worse performances on the road. Let’s set aside whether we think that reasoning is legitimate. The question I came away with was whether the kind of home park a team has increases or decreases their chances of winning games. If a team has a pitcher-friendly home park, does that create issues for them on the road that they cannot overcome? What about a hitter-friendly park? First, I took all ballparks from 2004 through 2010 and calculated their average park factors for run scoring based on ESPN’s park factor data . Next, I calculated the average number of wins over that time period for the home teams playing in those parks. The correlation between run scoring park factors and wins for each of the 35 parks was .11–so essentially, no relationship. The kind of park a team played in did not significantly impact their ability to win games (positively or negatively). But what about at the extremes? Part of the Mets’ reasoning was that their park had become so pitcher-friendly that their hurlers developed approaches that got them into more trouble on the road. There was also talk of hitters changing their swings and approaches based on Citi’s unforgiving confines (e.g. David Wright ). To examine this, I bucketed the parks into three categories–hitter-friendly (run park factors > = 1.06), pitcher-friendly (
