Ventura Bull of Yard

Robin Ventura magnanimously accepted a $5 M, 1-year contract to return to the Yankees yesterday. The way that the press is spinning it, it's as Ventura will next walk on water or something.

Ventura had a good year last year, but there are a lot of reasons to believe he will not have as good a year in 2003. He will turn 36 in the middle of 2003. For a player who has seemed old for some time, the dropoff after 35 could be precipitous. He had an awful second half:

               AB  R   H 2B 3B HR HR/AB RBI BB  SO K:BB  AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS
Pre All-Star  262 43  69  8  0 19 7.25%  62 45  55 1.22 .263 .367 .511 .878
Post All-Star 203 25  46  9  0  8 3.94%  31 45  46 1.02 .227 .371 .389 .760
Total         465 68 115 17  0 27 5.81%  93 90 101 1.12 .247 .368 .458 .826

That's a Jeckle-and-Hyde year. Which half is a better indicator of his career talent level? Well, both really. What do I mean? Take a look at his first- and second-half numbers for the last three years combined:

               AB   R   H 2B 3B HR HR/AB RBI  BB  SO K:BB  AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS
Pre All-Star  825 137 209 35  1 52 6.30% 156 147 156 1.06 .253 .364 .487 .851
Post All-Star 565  62 123 25  0 20 3.54%  82 106 137 1.29 .218 .343 .368 .711
Total        1390 199 332 60  1 72 5.18% 238 253 293 1.16 .239 .355 .439 .794

In both cases Ventura lost batting average and slugging points but remained relatively close in on-base (actually his walks improved in the second half in both sets of data). So what does this mean? First, that the much-publicized slide in the second half is par for the course for Ventura. And second, the Yankees can almost expect it in 2003. However, the chances that Ventura will have as good a first half as in 2002 aren't great.

One thing that I want to be clear on is that Ventura did have a pretty good year. He ranked fifth among third baseman in OPS in the majors (based on stats as a third sacker only; all around he is probably a notch or two lower). Even if he fell to be in the middle of the pack offensively, he still does have a pretty good glove and is only signed for a year. So it's not a bad deal for the Yankees, especially if Drew Henson actually is ready for the majors in 2004 (which may be a big if).

One thing that surprised me was that Ventura had only a .751 OPS at Yankee stadium (.233 BA and .386 slugging) and had only 9 of his 27 homers at home. You would think that Yankee Stadiums' short right field fence would be perfect for him. This may be specious logic, but that makes me think that a slide is more probable in 2003 given that I would trust the larger data set of data at home as opposed to the

Overall, a dropoff is definitely possible though I wouldn't say inevitable. Given that he is somewhat of a gamble, a similar payroll reduction is in order. People seem to forget that he was somewhat of an albatross around the Mets' neck soon after signing the four-year, $43 M contract to begin with. The Mets traded him to the Yankees in last offseason's perhaps prescient move to dump high-salaried problems. Given what Bell got and though Ventura has been a better player for longer, $5 M seems about right in this market.

The place that would be best suited-though his 2002 numbers don't necessarily bare this out-to Ventura would be Yankee Stadium. So there's incentive for him to stay, not to mention teh added bonus of playing for a known winner. The Yankees need at least a short-term solution at third, and he's the best fit for now. One could advise the Yankees to sign Edgardo Alfonzo and chuck both Ventura and Henson, but they are not prepared to do that as yet. Of course, if Ventura has a bad first half, a decent second half is less likely, and the time may be nigh to replace him. Whether Henson will be available to step in is doubtful, so they may be stuck with Ventura for the year no matter what. They can always find another Andy Fox/Luis Sojo/Clay Bellinger type to fill in short term I guess.