Yesterday, Joe Girardi discussed a few things with Mike Francesa (H/T to Steve for this). I’ll briefly run through the points General Joe made and my reactions to them:

1. Nick Johnson will bat second.
This is something with which I whole-heartedly agree (and Moshe does, too). Johnson at the top of the order will give Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez yet another man to drive in. While Johnson may not be the fleetest of foot out there, the important thing is being on base. In fact, in 2009, Johnson scored 11 times from second base when a single was hit. In the same situation, Curtis Granderson scored five times. I wouldn’t worry too much about Johnson “clogging the bases”.

2. Curtis Granderson is going to play center field.
Though I ran the numbers, way back on my second day at TYU, and they came out saying Granderson in left and Gardner in center would be better numerically, I don’t have a problem with this. If Granderson really has issues defensively, he can be moved. No matter what position he’s at, Granderson’s bat will play, and he’s still likely to be a good defender in center. Regardless, Gardner-Granderson-Swisher will be fine offensively and will be one of the best defensively.

3. Cano will hit fifth to avoid “stacking lefties” (5-9: Cano, Posada, Granderson, Swisher, Gardner).
I’m rather surprised by this, actually. I thought for sure Jorge would’ve been the five place hitter. Frankly, though, it doesn’t matter. The reality is that the 5-8 guys listed above could all bat at any of those spots (and some of them could bat higher) and this “problem” just speaks to how strong and “circular” the Yankee lineup is. Cano’s power should play well in the five spot and having a lot of guys on in front of him–from Jeter through A-Rod–should help correct his problems with runners on.

4. Girardi believes Cano’s struggles w/RISP are sample size issues.
I agree. Cano’s eventually going to hit like he normally does when there are runners in scoring position. Perhaps “forcing” the issue by putting him higher in the order will correct this issue. As long as Robbie puts up numbers like he did in ‘05-’07 and ‘09, I’ll be happy.

5. Posada will catch 100-120 games.
He caught 111 games last season, and that was with a hamstring issue, so he could do that again this year. At his age, though, catching that many games may be wishful thinking. If it happens, though, the Yankees are in great, great shape. An additional note, Girardi added that Johnson will primarily DH (see below) and on days that Posada sits, Johnson will still DH. This is clearly aimed at keeping Jorge healthy.

6. Nick Johnson will play 1B 2-3 times a month, spelling Tex, who will DH on those days.
This, too, surprises me. While it’s nice to give Tex a little break, I’m not sure if it’s necessary. Johnson’s generally been a strong fielder, though, so it can’t hurt–unless, of course, Nick gets hurt.

7. Granderson plays every day.
Yes. 100% yes. The only way Curtis can work through his problems against left handers is to face them as much as possible and get as many reps as he can. Obviously, if there isn’t progress by May or June, it’s time to scrap that plan. I have faith, though, in Granderson and Kevin Long to fix the problem and make Curtis even better than he is.

John Walsh of THT did an interesting study recently in which he looked at trends in OBP at the leadoff spot over time. What he found was a bit strange:

As the data shows, teams have been placing players with below average on-base skills in the leadoff spot for much of the last decade. This exhibits a failure to properly optimize the lineup, as it tends to result in fewer runners being on base for a club’s big hitters. Joe Pawlikowski at RAB touched on the issue of optimizing the top of the lineup yesterday in explaining why Nick Johnson should hit second:

To illustrate this point, let’s take an ideal scenario. Jeter and Johnson both hit in front of Teixeira for all of Teixeira’s plate appearances, and they OBP somewhere around their 2009 totals, .400 and .420. Running a quick percentage check, this means that Teixeira would come to bat with both runners on 16.8 percent of the time, and at least one runner on about 65 percent of the time. Given Teixeira’s 707 plate appearances from 2009, that means he’d come to bat with at least one runner on 460 times, and two runners on 119 times…..

Last year, with Jeter’s .400 OBP and Damon’s .365, Teixeira had a 14.6 percent chance of coming to the plate with both runners on, or 62 percent with at least one runner on…..If Granderson recovers to his 2008 form, he’s essentially a clone of Damon. While that’s good, and while he’ll be able to take extra bases that Johnson will not, I think that the added plate appearances give the Yankees a bigger advantage. It means more opportunities for Tex and A-Rod.

To sum up, Johnson batting second means more opportunities with runners on for Teixeira and Rodriguez. The Yankees need to keep this in mind and avoid the problem Walsh discusses in his study, whereby teams are placing fast players who do not reach base frequently in lineup slots ahead of their big boppers. Rather, they should stack as many high-OBP players in front of Tex and A-Rod as possible. In fact, Dave Pinto suggested that the Yankees should consider batting Johnson 9th as a second leadoff man. This would allow Johnson and Jeter to reach base for power hitters such as Granderson (who would hit second), Tex, and A-Rod. A similar option would be to put Nick Swisher or Granderson 9th and keeping Johnson at #2, which might be a good way to further optimize the lineup and provide as many opportunities as possible for the middle of the order hitters to bat with men on base.

How would you optimize the lineup?

In an interview with WEEI, while discussing left field for his ballclub in 2010 and stressing the importance of defense at that position, Red Sox architect, Theo Epstein, inadvertently made the case for starting Brett Gardner in left field for the Yankees as well. And, though it pains me to give any Red Sox fan credit, his argument was rather effective.

Here’s what Epstein had to say via a WEEI transcript (the interviewer’s words are in bold, Epstein’s are not):

We knew Julio Lugo stunk and Lowell was hurt. But we never thought Bay was less than average or Ellsbury was less than good.

What you will see this year, contrast with Carl Crawford’s left field defense for example, with what we’ve typically see in left field. We’ve had bat-first left fielders. If you don’t see a left fielder making an egregious mistake, that doesn’t mean he’s doing a great job. Look at how hard it is to hit doubles when we play Tampa Bay. We’ll hit balls that would doubles that turn into outs, that’s a huge swing. If that happens once a game, once a series, you take a ball that would be a two-base hit and zero outs recorded and turn it to zero on base and an out recorded, that is a monumental swing. If you add that up over the course of a season and add that into a player’s offensive value, it changes the whole nature of what the player contributes. Again, those players who contribute offensively and turn those balls into outs that others wouldn’t defensively that makes a really valuable player.

That’s basically the reasoning behind playing Brett Gardner in left field, right? Although his bat may not be the typical weapon wielded by most left fielders in the baseball, Gardner does excel at run prevention – more so than the average left fielder – and that has real, tangible value, value that can be measured and then translated into wins (WAR).

Long-term, I’m not a big fan of Gardner as the Yankees’ everyday left fielder, but, this season, he can be a very useful player in the left corner at Yankee Stadium. His defense alone will make it worthwhile for Joe Girardi to deploy him. As said by Epstein, such fielding can provide a big impact, and alter the “whole nature” of a player’s contributions.

Photo by the AP

Earlier this week, Moshe asked readers what kind of a deal they’d give to Carl Crawford. Obviously, it’s a fair question. He plays left field and, unless Brett Gardner totally blossoms this year, the Yankees may need a stronger left fielder next season. Extension talks between Crawford and the Rays have apparently stalled, so the likelihood of Crawford hitting free agency seems bigger now than it did even just a few days ago.

Let’s turn our heads from Crawford, though, and shift them to a somewhat familiar foe: Jayson Werth.

I briefly profiled Jayson before the World Series when I was back at Bronx Baseball Daily and he, like Crawford, is in the final year of his contract.

The definition of a late bloomer, Werth has flourished in his age 28-30 seasons with the Phillies. Since arriving in the City of Brotherly Love, Werth has been a .276/.376/.494/.870 hitter. His power is impressive, as marked by his .218 IsoP for the Phillies, and his speed is great too. In his time with the Phils, Werth has stolen 47 bases while being caught only five times (90% success rate). He’s played all three outfield positions (mostly right field) and has been worth 13.6 WAR over the last three seasons, which is a mark 2.3 wins higher than Crawford over the same time.

When thinking of Jayson Werth’s style of play, think of Nick Swisher. He’s not going to hit for a very high average (career: .265, last three years: .276) but he’s going to walk a lot (12.2% career walk rate) and hit for a lot of power (see the aforementioned .218 IsoP). Like Swisher, though, he does tend to strike out a lot: 29.5% for his career (Swisher: 25.5%).

On paper (spreadsheets perhaps?), Werth would be a perfect fit for the Yankees. He fits their power and patience scheme well and can play both corner outfield spots very well.

There are, however, some caveats.

The first is Werth’s age. Jayson will turn 31 in May, so he’s exiting the age-based prime for players. Secondly, Werth is likely to look for a big deal. While he’s been underrated for the past few years, his stock is rising and his star is shining a little more brightly these days. He’s going to make $7MM this season and if he has another strong season, he’ll definitely want a big raise. The third caveat really doesn’t even depend on Werth. If the Yankees do indeed change things up and put Brett Gardner in center and Curtis Granderson in left (however unlikely) and they’re both successful in their new roles, there will be no need for the Yankees to sign a left fielder.

As with most potential free agent signings, my concern is not with the money (the Yankees will likely not have much trouble in terms of being able to afford a player), but with the years. For Crawford, I’d like a short term deal because I’m not sure how the legs of a speed/defense guy are going to hold up. For Werth, I’d like a short deal because he’s older. His age doesn’t mean he will decline, but it is more likely than it is in a younger player.

We should keep a close eye on Crawford and Werth this year. If they hit free agency, they’re likely to be targets for the Yankees. Both players would be great additions and if Crawford becomes too pricey, Werth could be a good alternative.

Jim Bowden and Jody MacDonald interviewed Brian Cashman on Sirius XM yesterday, and he had the following to say about the Granderson v. Gardner for center field debate (h/t Ben at RAB):

I think that what’s taken place is when you’re asked questions like ‘Is there a possibility of Gardner playing center?’ I’m like, well, if we feel Gardner makes us our best team with Gardner at center because we’re blessed to have two above average center fielders patrolling Yankee Stadium’s outfield out of the three man alignment. So we have [Nick] Swisher in right, Granderson in center and Gardner, assuming he holds it down and wins it, will be in left.

But Granderson’s our center fielder. He’s an above average center fielder and that’s why we acquired him. But to be quite honest if somebody asked, ‘Hey, but is it possible Brett Gardner might be a better center fielder?’ Our defensive metrics on Brett Gardner made him one of the elite center fielders in the game. I’m not saying he’s the top but he’s close to it.

So in fairness we acknowledge that but does that mean it’s the right thing to do to move Curtis Granderson over to left? I’m not saying that but I’m also open minded to say, alright, we’ve got a new player. We’re gonna see how our team fits and we’ll make decisions accordingly as we see things playing out. But Granderson’s our center fielder.”

Cashman is alluding to what we have discussed in this space a number of times: while there might be a small statistical advantage to having Gardner in center field, practical concerns make Granderson a better fit in center field. Firstly, Gardner will likely be sharing time with Randy Winn and one of Marcus Thames or Jamie Hoffmann. Granderson would play center over all of those players, so it would not be prudent to have him moving back and forth every couple of days. Furthermore, the Yankees do not know at this point whether Gardner is a long-term solution for them. If they need to replace him next offseason, it is significantly easier to fill a hole in left field than it is to find a solid center fielder. Moving Granderson to save a few runs in 2010 only to move him back in 2011 does not seem like an efficient use of resources.

The second thing Cashman discussed was to state that Nick Johnson, he of the amazing on-base abilities, would be batting second. I do not know if Cashman is simply making an assumption that Girardi will bat Nick second or if Joe has told him as much, but let’s take that statement at face value and assume that Johnson will bat second. What might the batting order look like? This would be my expectation:

Jeter-R
Johnson-L
Teixeira-S
Rodriguez-R
Posada-S
Cano-L
Granderson-L
Swisher-S
Gardner-L

Cano, Granderson, and Swisher are interchangeable here, but I like having Granderson sandwiched between a switch hitter and Cano, who hits lefties well.

What would your lineup look like?

On Monday, I talked about the Yankees offseason on the mound and today, I’ll talk about the hitters. To keep this more brief than the previous post, I’ll limit this to additions and subtractions that will affect the Major League team most.

Let’s start with Johnny Damon’s departure. Obviously, losing a player of Damon’s caliber is going to mean the team’s offense takes a bit of a hit. However, I’m of the opinion that Johnny Damon needed the Yankees more than the Yankees needed Johnny Damon. The Yankees also got a more-than-adequate-replacement for Mr. Damon: Curtis Granderson. Curtis represents an upgrade over Damon because he is not only younger, but he is also more versatile. At this point, Damon is an LF/DH; Granderson, on the other hand, can–and likely will–play center field for the Yankees in 2010.

The deal that brought Granderson to the Yankees was a good one. At the beginning, I was skeptical about bringing him in. Then again, that’s when the cost was reported to be Austin Jackson and Phil Hughes. Trading Jackson, along with Phil Coke (and IPK to the D-Backs), for Granderson was a deal that you have to make 100 times out of 100. Jackson’s stock has taken a small hit at each level–though I still think he can be at leat an average Major League player at his peak–and Coke has limited upside. Adding a center fielder with a pretty friendly contract (never makes more than $10MM guaranteed, $13MM option in ‘13) is always a good thing.

Next, we come to the DH situation. The Yankees let WS MVP Hideki Matsui walk after he had an absolutely fantastic year. Like the Damon situation, this is a case in which the player needed the team more than the team needed the player. Matsui stayed (relatively) healthy in 2009 by just hitting and not playing the field, but by letting him go, the Yankees were signaling to Matsui–and perhaps the rest of baseball–that they do not have faith in Matsui’s knees holding up for another year. And maybe they’re right.

To replace Matsui, the Yankees brought back old friend Nick Johnson. Johnson projects to be the team’s number two hitter and could easily produce at a similar level to that of Matsui, though he’ll do it in different ways. Obviously, Mastui’s power made him a more traditional DH. While Johnson likely won’t hit for that sort of power, his on-base ability gives the Yankees another piece to the patience machine that is their lineup and he should fill in quite nicely.

Rule V pick Jamie Hoffmann will compete for the last bench spot against spring training invitee Marcus Thames. In Hoffmann, the Yankees would be getting the outfield only equivalent of Jerry Hairston, Jr: he’s not going to be there for his bat. The book on Hoffmann is that he plays great defense, but may not be much of a hitter. Thames would be a righty version of the lost Eric Hinske: he’s there to mash the ball when he gets to the plate.

After four frustrating years in pinstripes, Melky Cabrera is also gone. He’ll be replaced by Randy Winn. Essentially, they are the exact same player: switch hitters who hit at a league average level, play good defense at the corners, and iffy defense in center field. While it’s unlikely that Winn makes us forget about Melky, he likely won’t make us wish for another “glass of Leche.”

Backup catcher Jose Molina recently signed with the Jays, and his spot will be taken by “incumbent” Frankie Cervelli. As depth, the Yankees signed veteran backstop Mike Rivera to a minor league deal. It’s unlikely he makes a big difference on the 2010 team, but he’s better depth than Kevin Cash (well, that isn’t saying much).

Lastly, there’s the relatively forgotten man of 2009: Xavier Nady. Deemed too pricey for the Yankees, Nady will play for the Cubbies in 2010. I was never a huge fan of Nady, but if healthy/at the right cost, he could’ve been a very useful bench outfielder.

In terms of upgrades and downgrades from 2009, I think Curtis Granderson will be the biggest upgrade; that is, the upgrade from last year’s CF to this year’s (presumably CG) will be bigger than any other addition. The only one that could come close is the DH spot. I think Johnson could easily match, or even outproduce, what Matsui did in ‘09, but that improvement will likely not be bigger than the one Granderson brings.

According to Bryan Hoch (MLB.com), manager Joe Girardi “said that he knows Granderson can play left or center field without issue and believes that Gardner can learn to play left. While Granderson is athletic enough to go back and forth between left and center depending on if Gardner is in the lineup, Girardi said he would prefer to have players in a set position.” This is an important aspect when deciding who will play left and who will play center for the Yankees in 2010. If the club has significant doubts about Gardner’s bat that cannot be alleviated by his defensive value, you could see them play him in left so that they have the option of improving the position at the trade deadline. If they were to play Gardner in center, only to see him get exposed over the course of a full season, then the club would likely have to find another left fielder – good left fielders are more available than good center fielders – which would then force Granderson to shift to center midway through the year. That does not appear to be an ideal situation for Girardi.

While it may not matter who plays center or left field defensively, it will matter with regards to roster flexibility.

Photo by Reuters

Let’s continue the unintentional Curtis Granderson theme on the day.

Prior to camp, Granderson had visited hitting instructor, Kevin Long, in Arizona in order to pick Long’s esteemed brain about hitting and, specifically, hitting left-handers. “I wanted to get a philosophy that he had going before I got down to spring training and all of a sudden he wanted to change a bunch of things,” Granderson said when asked about the visit. “I am not opposed to change, but once I get here I am ready to go. I wanted to make sure we were getting on the same page. He didn’t want me to change anything. He didn’t want me to bat right-handed all of a sudden.”

With that said, what, exactly, did Long think was the cause of Granderson’s southpaw struggles – he owns a career .210/.270/.344 line against them – and, more importantly, what did he suggest to correct or lessen the issue?

Here’s more on that via the NY Post’s George King:

“It was nothing major because his mechanics are good. It’s just that with his upper body against lefties, he tilts a bit,” Long said. “That coils him in on the front side and that doesn’t enable him to use his hands. You want him to stay on the ball more and hit it in the left-center field gap.”

“He told me that, mechanically, everything was great against right-handers, and against left-handers I broke down a little bit,” Granderson said. “I get over the plate a little bit and try to hit the ball the other way and break down. As you try to coil up a little bit, you are going to uncoil. If you start yourself open, you are going to close. [Long's philosophy] is, stay straight. That position puts you in a better situation to be successful.”

This is pretty interesting because, based on Granderson’s poor numbers against lefties, especially those from last season, it seemed that he was attempting to pull everything, which resulted in an alarming number of innocuous fly balls (infield pop-ups, in particular). However, if he was aware of his own dramatic split against lefties, perhaps he was trying too hard to cover the outer portion of the plate when facing them. This then can explain his woes (in part).

Long believes Granderson can “fix” the problem, though, and is not worried about him in 2010:

“I’m not too concerned about it,” Long said. “I really feel like he’s going to have a good year and that is not even going to be an issue. And you know what? We’re not going to make it an issue.

“We’re going to be positive about it, work on it. Half of it might be the battle of, ‘People don’t think I can do it.’ If we get him over that obstacle, we can go from there.”

I agree with Long. Not only is Granderson too good of a hitter to not bounce back against left-handed pitching this season, but his numbers versus lefties were so poor in 2009 that they would be hard for him to duplicate again.

Photo by the AP

One of Joe Girardi’s biggest challenges this spring will be crafting an effective lineup.

The two primary candidates for batting second this season are Nick Johnson and Curtis Granderson. While that is not at all surprising – as seen by the poll in our sidebar – according to Bryan Hoch of MLB.com and George King of the NY Post, the player that is not selected to bat second will most likely bat seventh. Neither Hoch nor King offer any specific explanation for this decision, therefore, I assume Girardi simply made an off the cuff comment about it that was summarily glossed over by the two writers (maybe they thought it was an unimportant blurb). It does come as surprising news, though, as many fans seemed to think that whoever did not bat second, whether it be Johnson or Granderson, would bat fifth behind Alex Rodriguez so as to avoid a logjam of lefties in the bottom half of the lineup.

If accurate, this news leads me to believe that Granderson might end up in the two-hole with Posada hitting fifth and Cano hitting sixth. Johnson, with his healthy .292/.424/.438 career line against southpaws, would then bat behind Cano, who would be followed by Nick Swisher, and presumably Brett Gardner. Then again, what would the harm be in flipping Johnson and Swisher to have Swisher hitting seventh and Johnson eighth? Granderson can only bat seventh if Cano is hitting fifth and Posada is hitting sixth, but I don’t think that Girardi is ready to install Cano behind A-Rod just yet. If one of Johnson or Granderson is, indeed, slated to hit seventh, the rest of the lineup can be pieced together.

However, the “if not second, then seventh” item seems to lack utility. Hopefully, it is not set in stone.

Photo by the AP

In 2006-07, Curtis Granderson’s two-year UZR was an impressive 27.9. Since then, though, the results have been less than stellar. In 2008, Granderson went backwards, posting an -8.9 UZR. Last season, he recovered with a 1.6 mark. So, after a pretty scattered defensive showing in Detroit, what do the Yankees expect from Granderson in 2010?

Well, a rebound, of course. Via the NY Post, here’s third base coach Rob Thomson discussing the issue:

“Not giving anybody an excuse, but I’ve heard it from a lot of our outfielders – it’s very tough to see in Comerica Park,” Thomson said. “You see a lot of route problems, read problems – it happens in Comerica, the glare off the seats …

“I’ve watched a lot of tape on him. This kid is a special cat. He’s really athletic, really strong, really fast, a quick-twitch guy. I think a lot of that stuff is overblown. He is a much better defender than people are giving him credit for.”

Perhaps there is some legitimacy to Thomson’s claim regarding Comerica Park, however, I doubt that seat glare would fully explain how Granderson could be as good as he was from 2006-07 only to see his defense completely bottom out in 2008. 2008 could have been a dramatic statistical outlier – that is a possibility – or it could have been the result of timid play after Granderson fractured a finger earlier that year (that plus seat glare). Whatever the reason for his defensive downfall two seasons ago, the young center fielder’s 2009 also indicates a lost step in the outfield. There are no clear excuses for Granderson’s performance, though, unless he brought his offensive struggles to the field.

Whatever the case may be, Granderson rebounded enough in 2009 after his disastrous 2008 to spur genuine optimism regarding his defense. He has the range needed to be an above average center fielder, plus his arm isn’t too bad either. Thus, it is reasonable to expect a rebound on the field, as Thomson does, given his overall track record.

Photo by Reuters