Coco Crisp v. Jason Michaels

Sheldon Ocker covers the Tribe for the Beacon-Journal and has been somewhat critical of the Crisp deal. Today, the Beacon-Journal published his responses to fans' letters about the transaction. In one of those responses, Ocker reiterated one of his concerns about the deal:

"The allure of Jason Michaels is based almost solely on his on-base percentage as a part-time player.

But on-base percentage isn't everything. A better measurement of a hitter's value is how often he gets himself into scoring position (by double, triple, homer, steal).

Michaels doesn't run and doesn't amass many extra-base hits. In the past two years, he has gotten himself to second or beyond only 18 percent of the time he reaches base. Crisp, by contrast, has reached second or farther 34 percent of time, a substantial difference over a 550-at-bat season."

I agree with Ocker's comments about the limited basis for people to be upbeat about Michaels and his conclusion that OBP isn't everything. However, I think he misses the boat in the statistics he chooses to use to measure the difference between the two men. There are a number of statistics beyond batting average and OBP that are essential in measuring the overall offensive productivity of a player. The most notable of these, and the one usually regarded as the best measure of productivity, is OPS, or On-Base Plus Slugging. Sheldon Ocker knows that, so why bash the Crisp trade with a more obscure, and likely less valid, offensive statistic?

Maybe because if you don't like the Crisp deal due to its potential impact on the Tribe's 2006 season, you don't want to hear about OPS. Jason Michaels has a career OBP of .380 and a slugging percentage of .442. Coco Crisp has a career OBP of .332 and a slugging percentage of .424. That means that Michaels has a lifetime OPS of .812, compared to Coco's .756. Even though Coco had his best year last season, and posted an OPS of .809, Michaels was still more productive, with an OPS of .814.

Now, does this mean I'd prefer to have Jason Michaels in the Tribe's lineup instead of Coco Crisp? Of course not. Michaels is a part time player who will be 30 years old in May and who shows limited upside potential. Crisp is three years younger, just coming into his own as a big leaguer, and could be somebody special. All I'm saying is that if Michaels can produce full-time with the Indians in a manner consistent with what he's done in a part-time role with the Phillies, then the Crisp deal may not hurt the Tribe's performance in 2006. That's the good news. The bad news is that Michaels' performance as a full-time player is a very big "if" indeed.

Update: For a wittier critique of Ocker's column this morning, click on over to Let's Go Tribe.