Elvis A. versus Manny B.
First off, full disclosure: this is a mailbag-inspired piece and Eric/OR should get his credit. He asked a good question, and it deserves some attention.
Who will be better from here on out this season, Elvis Andrus or Emmanuel Burriss?
First, let’s look at all the things this diminutive middle infielders have in common. They both weigh under 190 pounds, they both make their living in the middle infield and own shortstop eligibility in most leagues, and they are both fleet of foot. Okay, enough of the obvious, because the similarities run much deeper.
Check out their batted ball statistics. Burriss features a 19.8% line drive percentage, a 58% groundball percentage, and a 22% fly ball percentage. Andrus? How about 19.5%, 58.5%, and 22% respectively.
It gets even crazier when you start looking at their approach to the strike zone. They both make great contact inside the zone – consider Andrus’ 93.5% contact percentage in the zone, and Burriss’ career 92.8% number. Andrus reaches a little more than you’d like from a table setter (25.2% O-Swing %), and hey, Burriss has that same fault (24.8%). Both could walk more (Andrus – 5.8% BB%; Burriss – 7.3%), but a good walk rate does not a good batting average make.
No, their speed and good contact in the zone seems to presage that these players will put up decent batting averages in the future, if only because they’ve done so before. Given their skills, their high-ish BABIPs shouldn’t be too worrisome (Andrus – .309; Burriss – .326).
ZiPS, at first, seems to predict the same regression for both, though the reason for the regression is not immediately clear. Andrus owns a rest of season projection of .249/.304/.428 with 26 steals, and Burriss has a projection of .256/.312/.301 with 27 steals.
That slugging percentage is where the twins begin to separate a little more. The doubles and triples that Andrus has on Burriss will be valuable in many leagues (8 combined for Andrus, five doubles and no triples for Burriss). On the other hand, don’t count on home runs from Andrus – an 11% HR/FB percentage is not sustainable when you’re only hitting 22% of your balls in the air.
If there is a difference between the two, it just might be found in their slugging percentage, their BABIPs and in their differing strikeout percentages (Andrus – 13.1%; Burriss – 16.9%). Strikeouts are negatively correlated with batting average, and Burriss’ also has a little farther to fall because of his higher BABIP. Give a slight edge to Andrus for his lower strikeout rate, lower BABIP, and higher slugging percentage.
Any edge that you’d like give Burriss for his 300 extra plate appearances might disappear depending on your opinion of the 4-component speed score. While he had elite totals in the minors (7.8 and 7.7 in A ball), his 4.1 this year is dwarfed by Andrus’ 7.3 (despite only topping 7.0 in the minors once).
Though they seemed like twins to begin, Andrus looks to have slight edges in some key categories. The improving lineup around Andrus is the final nail in the coffin. Don’t bet against Elvis.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
Those similarities are a little eery, though Burriss’ drop-off in speed score shocked me. I think your reasoning is sound here – and Andrus’ age only lends further weight to it.
Andrus is said to have the potential to develop a little pop….he is 20 years old right now, so I really don’t think there is a comparison. Most guys his age are in loA ball. Burriss is and always will be an offensive black hole who can hide it with his average and stolen bases. Andrus has much more power potential, as well as present power, from the looks of it. Doesn’t hurt that Andrus has plus defense either….gives him better job security than Burriss.
No doubt whom I’d rather have long term, for sure. Given their ages and power potentials, it’s a slam dunk in Andrus’ favor.
However, I do bet that Andrus’ age probably works against him in that ZiPS projection. I can’t see why else his RoS ZiPS projection would, in many ways, look worse than Burriss’, and this post was about trying to figure out the rest of this season alone.
Yeah, I missed the “this season”….of course I would miss the 2 most important words of the article. About ZiPs, I feel the projections on this site should have their place in an analysis, but should by no means be the main component. In this case, I’m not even sure it’s worth looking at ZiPS at all…it is working off of limited samples, and (correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it uses minor league stats) minor league stats that don’t reflect the true talent level of the player.
Eno is right; the question speaks to offensive production for ’09 and little else. That said, wouldn’t Andrus’ age have the effect of reducing the reliability of his ZiPS projection? There just aren’t a lot of guys who take this particular career path. My thinking is that, if either of them is likely to show extraordinary in-season growth, it’s going to be Andrus. Of course the reverse is probably true in that Andrus is probably more likely to struggle horrifically, but in a fantasy situation of this sort I think you go with the risk-reward guy.
Remember we’re dealing with a Machine, an evil human-brains-for-breakfast, blood thirsty machine.
If there’s a 25 percent shot that Andrus brings the fail, and gets sent to the minors, and a 75 percent shot that andrus continues hitting in the 265-270 range, the human-killer will just spit out the average.
I’m actually not sure how the numbers are computed, but it’d be nice to see the frequency charts for Andrus. I’m sure there’s a lot of high, and a lot of low, and he definitely doesn’t follow the bell curve you’d expect from a 10 league vet.