Well, let’s see, right here in this very space, I said, “Pena absolutely will not be traded, he will be non-tendered. Write it down. In ink.” Our buddy Lee Panas called me on it, and I admitted, “I might be predicting that more based on what I would do with him, I’ll admit to that.”

See:
http://www.tigerblog.net/a/2005/12/02-look_i_hate.php

Now, they’ve cut Pena and owe him $700,000 in termination pay (as opposed to non-tendering him, as I suggested, which would have cost us $0,000,000). Tell you what, Dave, the next time you have an idea that will wind up basically throwing $700K down the hole, cut all ticket prices by 50 cents or so. Or, better yet, make the check out to me.

I wouldn’t have minded having Pena in AAA to see if he hits again so that we can trade him for a spare part, but after reading the 2006 Baseball Prospectus, I’m convinced Pena’s late-season surge last year was empty. Here’s what the entry says:

“Pena was demoted to Toledo in May with a .235 EqA; after he came back in August, his EqA was .326. It may look like the demotion helped, but looks are deceiving: his strikeouts were way up and walks way down. He took a more aggresive approach, and pitchers were slow to update the book on him that said he was passive at the plate. Strikeouts are the biggest reason why he has never live dup to the numbers he originally produced as a Texas prospect. Last year’s demotion did nothing to help that.”

Look, normally I trust numbers more than I trust my eyes, but sometimes things are too obvious to ignore. Pena swings through more fat pitches than any player I have ever seen. He stinks. Sure, he’s a still somewhat young, but he’s done almost nothing in 1600 major league at bats. He might as well be 45 years old.

I wouldn’t say that Pena has done “nothing”. He has accumulated more win shares than Jeff Weaver since the deal. The Win Shares method is far from perfect but I think this suggests that Pena has done “something”. I do agree that there is nothing to suggest that Pena is going to get any better though.

I was pleased at picking up Carlos Peña in 2002, since I too was bamboozled by his walk rate, ignoring the strikeout rate which should have served as a warning sign. That’s a philosophical issue with me: I’ve been swayed to the stathead POV that strikeouts matter for pitchers, but not batters. I think everyone has been rethinking that philosophy lately, and I will be interested to see subsequent POVs on this.

We all take for granted that when a player concentrates on making contact, he sacrifices power. But to what degree do strikeouts hurt a batter, even one that hits like Babe Ruth or Reggie Jackson? What’s the tipping point in RSAA or Win Shares, for instance?

For instance, if a player Ks 150 times and generates an 80 RSAA, he might drop to a 60 RSAA if he concentrated on reducing his strikeouts to 100, based on the tradeoff of fewer walks, fewer XBH and more GIDP for more overall hits and more SFs and advancing runners. That seems logical. But what if he reduces his strikeouts to 130? Could his RSAA actually rise to 85 as his XBH and walks is less affected, even with fewer hits and “productive outs”?

I’d love to see someone take a disciplined analytical approach to this issue — unless someone is aware of something already published? (Brian?)

The bottom line on this thread, however, is that even though Peña’s strikeouts remained relatively constant or rose, his walk rate evaporated and his fielding either declined or failed to elevate to MLB levels. That’s a deadly combination. I don’t know that he will be still playing big league ball in this country on his 30th birthday.

Chuck, I know what you’re saying, but I don’t necessarily agree about Carlos Pena in that regard. Here’s his walks divided by plate appearances, throwing out his 70-AB pre-rookie taste with the Rangers:

2002: .099
2003: .114
2004: .130
2005: .119

Furthermore, his 2005 started out as a season that Eddie Yost could be proud of. Dividing his 2005 season by month:

April: .190
May: .106
August: .139
Sept/Oct: .064

His April batting line was truly bizarre: .162/.321/.265… out of 11 hits, 5 were for extra bases (4 doubles, 1 HR), but think about this: 11 hits, 15 walks and 1 HBP. Truly bizarre.

It was apparent, though, that upon his return from the minors, he had abandoned that approach, batting .242/.287/.484 in over 100 PA during the month.

To my mind, on the one hand, I say “small sample size”, on the other hand, I have to wonder… We’ve been waiting for the inevitable improvement… How much longer can we wait? Not $2.8 million’s worth, I don’t think.

That batting line of .242/2.87/.484 in over 100 PA… That’s for the month of September. My goof for not getting that in there.

Okay Lee, I’ll amend it: Pena has not developed, and in over 1800 plate appearances in the majors, he has done almost nothing to help the team or to exhibit that he might one day help the team.

The Win Shares are irrelevant. Pena is a guy who can only play first (not well, as was the expectation) and DH. Jeff Weaver is a back (if you’re good) or middle (if you’re not) of the rotation starter who’s a good bet to give you 200 league-average innings per year. I’m not saying it wasn’t a good trade. It was a terrific trade, but using win shares in a straight up comparison doesn’t say anything really. Would you rather have Pena or Weaver?

Pena=garbage