It’s not as crazy as it sounds. Here are three reasons why the Yankees should trade Ellsbury for Chen:

1. Luxury tax implications. Wei-Yin Chen is owed almost the exact same amount of money as Jacoby Ellsbury over the next two seasons: $42 million. The completely misguided five-year, $80 million contract that the Marlins gave him is very backloaded. As a result, his cap hit is just $16 million. Jacoby Ellsbury is owed just over $21 million per year over the same time period, but with the $21 million cap hit. The Yankees could save some luxury tax money without increasing their actual payroll.

2. Roster space. The Yankees have no room for Jacoby Ellsbury on a healthy starting roster. Assuming Clint Frazier recovers, Ellsbury is at best the 6th best outfielder on the team, but can’t be optioned down to the minors. His skills make him a poor bench player. Chen could slide into a lefty relief role without interfering with roster construction much.

3. Chen should be an effective lefty situational reliever. Wei-Yin Chen’s 30s have not been kind to him, and he’s a true talent 5.00 ERA starting pitcher in the National League. While the Yankees are short on starters, they’re not that short on starters. However, Chen is still effective against left-handed batters, who hit .211/.286/.386 off him this season. The Yankees lack that guy at the moment. If you shorten Chen’s outings and protect him against tough righties, you might get a the lefty situational reliever that the Yankees have lacked since Justin Wilson left.

Why would the Marlins do the trade? Jacoby Ellsbury is a veteran presence and probably better than Chen in a vacuum. He played a season with Derek Jeter. If the Yankees have to throw-in a Low-A prospect, that’s okay.

Why would Jacoby Ellsbury waive his no-trade clause? I hear Miami is a nice city. Also, it’s either that or ride the bench for the rest of his career. I bet he could be persuaded. Do it, Cashman.

Ellsbury is an easy target to revile considering his contract and performance to date with the Yankees. Yet, his salary seems to cloud that he was actually decent last season. His .264/.348/.402 batting line (97 OPS+) wasn’t remarkable but paired with fair defense, Ellsbury was worth 1.7 WAR per Baseball Reference in 2017. Sign me up for that again in 2018 in whatever amount of playing time he gets. Alas, it doesn’t necessarily work like that.

PECOTA is very pessimistic about Ellsbury in 2018 and projects a .246/.318/.368 triple-slash, a steep fall from last season. Other systems aren’t quite as bearish on Ellsbury as PECOTA is, but none of them could be misconstrued as optimistic. Wherever you look, Ellsbury is expected to decline in 2018. There’s plenty of precedent for this: players rarely improve as they get older, particularly as they tack on years in their thirties.

How have other center fielders in Ellsbury’s age range fared? In the last twenty years, there have been 23 players who primarily played center field in their age-33 season and accrued 300 or more plate appearances (including Ellsbury). Only eleven of those same players wound up primarily playing the position the following season. Depending on what Ellsbury and Denard Span do in 2018, the number could increase from eleven to thirteen. Here’s the eleven:

Of the eleven who got another opportunity at 34, seven posted a WAR of 3.4 or greater as 33 year-olds, so they were still evidently good players deserving of a continued run. Hence, another chance in center at 34. Yet, all but two of them demonstrably improved per WAR in that following season: Steve Finley and Jim Edmonds. Technically, Andres Torres also improved, but going from 0.9 WAR to 1.4 WAR could essentially be chalked up to an error bar. Edmonds and Finley were exceptional players and outliers. Yet, there are plenty of other great players on this list who weren’t outliers, such as Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton, who declined swiftly.

And what happened to those who no longer were center fielders as 34 year-olds?

From 33 to 34, five of ten players declined, two of ten didn’t play in the majors, and three improved. Yet, for those who fared better, the move down the defensive spectrum explains at least part of the improvement. If all were left alone in center, odds are that those who apparently improved might not really have had better seasons after all, but rather were in a more appropriate position.

It’s not surprising that most of these players declined from age 33 to 34, whether or not they stuck in centerfield. That’s what is expected to occur as a player ages. Center field is a demanding position physically, so it’s also not stunning to see so many from this group no longer playing the position after turning 34, too. All this goes to say that history isn’t on Ellsbury’s side, and the projection systems recognize this and are in unison with poor forecasts. There’s always a chance that a replica of Ellsbury’s 2017 is in store for 2018, which would be fantastic, but the deck is stacked against it. Hopefully, Hicks’s stays healthy and proves that his breakout last season wasn’t a blip on the radar. It would be better not to roll the dice with Ellsbury for an extended period of time this year.

Photo credit: Anthony Gruppuso / USA TODAY Sports

The best free agent centerfielder is Lorenzo Cain, meaning that Carlos Gomez could go to the runner up of the Cain sweepstakes. In turn, could that make Ellsbury the consolation prize for the team that can’t sign Cain nor Gomez? Perhaps. That’s not the only reason to pay attention to Gomez’s landing spot this winter, though. His payday could serve as an example of how much the Yankees could recuperate from an Ellsbury salary dump.

Although there are some significant distinctions between Gomez and Ellsbury, the two players are surprisingly similar statistically. Here’s what happened in 2017:

With a .004 separation in TAv, the two offered virtually the same offensive output, albeit both took different routes to the same destination. Ellsbury made up for the power deficit with base running, as he stole 22 bases in 25 attempts whereas Gomez went 13 for 18. Defensively, Gomez has a leg up primarily due to Ellsbury’s weak arm strength. In sum, Gomez had a slight edge in WARP, but it was negligible gap.

Statcast data from 2015 and onward makes an even better case for the two being similar hitters in terms of contact quality. The two are practically deadlocked in terms of expected results, though Gomez had better outcomes.

It’s safe to say that these two players were similar in terms of the value they offered their clubs in 2017, even though they got there in contrasting ways. Even the past three years of Statcast data indicates that the two aren’t all that different. Whether the two perform similarly going forward is another question, particularly because Ellsbury, 33 years of age, is two years older than Gomez. Though PECOTA is not yet available, Baseball Reference offers the Marcel projections that give us a very high level benchmark for the two in 2018. The system expects Ellsbury to deliver a .708 OPS while Gomez to offer a .738 mark. Again, not that much different.

If both were free agents, I’d guess that Gomez would get a slightly larger contract than Ellsbury, primarily due to age. Both players are far more similar performers than I think many realize, and both players can reasonably be expected to be similar hitters next season. With that in mind, would it be fair to expect another team to take on Ellsbury’s contract at a discount that brings it somewhat near whatever Gomez gets this offseason? I think so.

That leads us to figuring out what a team will pay Gomez this winter. A baseball insider told Jon Heyman that Gomez should expect to obtain a three-year, $35 million contract. Heyman expects something more modest: two years and $22 million. MLB Trade Rumors estimated the very same thing. Fangraphs’ crowdsourcing forecasts two years and $24 million. All four of these guesses peg Gomez’s annual salary between $11 million and $12 million. Meanwhile, Ellsbury is due approximately $68 million through 2020, which equates to just under $23 million per year on average.

If teams are willing to pay Gomez close to the terms of what Heyman’s insider predicts, perhaps the Yankees could recoup something like $25 million to $30 million of Ellsbury’s remaining deal. If teams are only willing to give Gomez a two-year contract, the Yankees might not even be able to recover $15 million of Ellsbury’s salary. My very rough estimates attempt to acknowledge that Gomez is younger and probably a tad better. The former scenario would be preferable, obviously, but even regaining $15 million of a sunken cost would be a satisfying outcome. The 2018 roster doesn’t have much use for Ellsbury, who’s basically been relegated to a bench role, so moving him makes sense. Moreover, based on my understanding of how the luxury tax payroll is calculated, the savings would be spread ratably across the life of Ellsbury’s remaining contracted seasons. That means $5 million off the payroll computation per season assuming a total recovery of $15 million. Though it doesn’t seem like much, it would help the Yankees remain below the $197 million tax threshold in 2018.

Of course, there’s a long way to go before the Yankees find a trade partner for Ellsbury. In all likelihood, Cain and Gomez need to find new homes first. Next, a team has to have interest in Ellsbury. That is, if any team has a desire to add him to its roster. Perhaps it winds up like a game of musical chairs, with one team having nowhere to go in order to fill its void in center. Should that come to fruition, both teams will need to haggle on the financials and the non-prospect goes to the Bronx in exchange. Perhaps, before getting to that stage, the Yankees can find out if Ellsbury is willing to waive his no trade clause (the two sides haven’t discussed that yet). There are plenty of hurdles for the Yankees to clear before moving on from Ellsbury, but at least it appears that a reasonable benchmark in Gomez will present itself this winter, abetting the facilitation of a trade.

Photo credit: Anthony Gruppuso / USA TODAY Sports

Just because it makes sense to eschew both of these players, at least from a financial perspective, doesn’t mean it’ll be easy to find takers. The other 29 teams aren’t lining up to take on a 34 year-old center fielder owed $68 million through 2020 who hasn’t produced a season of more than 1.1 WARP since 2014. 2014! Yeah, it’s going to be hard to move Ellsbury without the Yankees taking on a significant portion of the salary. One other obstacle is Ellsbury’s full no-trade clause, but perhaps he’d be willing to leave New York for more playing time. On the contrary, Headley is the far more affordable of the two trade candidates, though asking another team to fully absorb all $13 million of his 2018 dues is likely to be returned with a chortle. That said, the switch-hitting third baseman does have a couple of redeeming qualities that make him more attractive to potential suitors: his contract will be complete after 2018 and he’s still a capable performer (2.3 WARP last year). Ultimately, in order to find a taker for either of these two, the Yankees will need to find a match that needs either a center fielder (or left fielder?) or corner infielder and has the wherewithal to add payroll. Or, someone looking to do the team a big favor.

There are plenty of teams that will sign or trade for outfielders and corner infielders this winter, but that doesn’t mean all of them would want to add Ellsbury or Headley. For example, teams likely not to contend next season, such as the White Sox or Athletics, who didn’t get much production from center field last year, wouldn’t waste their time considering Ellsbury. Basically, a club willing to inquire is likely trying to contend in 2018. Otherwise, there’s not much of a reason to take on such a financial commitment.

In cycling through the other 29 big league clubs, finding a potential match for Ellsbury is almost impossible. Only a couple come to mind, and even the following two take a bit of a stretch to make sense with: the Giants and Mariners. The two teams won 64 and 78 games this season, respectively, though it stands to reason that both clubs would like to contend next year considering the current makeup of its rosters. Both teams still have excellent core players (Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner for the Giants; Robinson Cano, Nelson Cruz, and James Paxton for the Mariners) though those players’ peaks are likely nearing an end (Paxton the lone exception). Both clubs could use help in the outfield: Seattle’s starter in center field, Jarrod Dyson, is a free agent and San Francisco got little production from left and center field (though Denard Span is still in tow). A more sensible path to filling either of the team’s outfield needs could be to sign either Lorenzo Cain or J.D. Martinez, though only the former can play center field. Should the Mariners and Giants lose out on the big splash, perhaps taking on, say, $15 to $20 million of Ellsbury’s remaining $68 million salary is reasonable. Hey, one can hope!

When it comes to Headley, finding a prospective buyer isn’t as unimaginable as it is for Ellsbury. Two teams come to mind: the Angels and Giants (yes, again). Both teams didn’t get much out of the hot corner this year, so Headley would represent a certain on-field upgrade. For the Halos, the combination of Yunel Escobar and Luis Valbuena struggled in 2017, failing to reach a measly 1 WARP at the hot corner. For the Giants, Eduardo Nunez was the guy at the position until he was traded away. Otherwise, the amalgamation Ryder Jones, Pablo Sandoval, Jae-Gyun Hwang, Conor Gillaspie, Christian Arroyo, and Aaron Hill didn’t cut it. That’s a lot of flops, though Jones and Arroyo have some prospect sheen at least. We already went through the Giants potential to contend next year, so let’s quickly touch on the Angels: they have Mike Trout. Also, they won 80 games without him for much of last season, so it’s pretty easy to see them being in contention next year with a healthy Trout. One more plus on the Angels side: it can’t hurt that its general manager, Billy Eppler, used to work in the Yankees’ front office. From a financial perspective, perhaps the Yankees could shed more than half of what Headley is owed next season, considering that it’s only a one year commitment and he’s a solid player.

Trade partners aside, is it sensible for the Yankees to deal one or both of these two from an on-field perspective? It’s not much of a question for Ellsbury, as he’s already crowded out by Aaron Judge, Aaron Hicks, Brett Gardner, and Clint Frazier in terms of ability. The practicality of moving Headley, on the other hand, isn’t as clear. Moving him would create a void at third base, as Todd Frazier is a free agent and Miguel Andujar is unlikely to be handed the job. In fact, it’s probably more expensive to eat some of Headley’s salary and subsequently re-sign Frazier rather stand pat. Plus, Headley’s one remaining year on his deal makes him a good option as a holdover until Manny Machado’s free agency after 2018.

If you’ve made it this far, you might be wondering why I didn’t consider moving Gardner to shed salary. It’s become a yearly routine to discuss him as a trade candidate during the hot stove season, and this winter will probably be no different. He’s in the final year of his contract and costs $13 million next year toward the luxury tax cap. Plenty of clubs would be happy to add Gardner, though the Yankees are certain to exhaust all options with moving Ellsbury before moving on to its stalwart in left field.

It’s a fool’s errand to speculate about baseball trades, especially ones with large financial ramifications. Yet, here I am trying to find a landing spot for Jacoby Ellsbury and Chase Headley. It’s not ridiculous to ponder potential suitors for Headley, but it’s somewhat humorous to suppose that some team would be interested in acquiring Ellsbury. Brian Cashman gets a lot of credit for his trade history because it seems like the Yankees always come out on top, but finding a trade partner for a sunken cost like Ellsbury while obtaining some salary relief would have a chance to be his best work yet.

Contract information from Cot’s.

Photo Credit: Robert Deutsch / USA TODAY Sports

Torres will undergo Tommy John Surgery to repair a torn UCL in his non-throwing elbow. An injury sustained Saturday as he slid into home plate head-first, in a game against the Toronto Blue Jays’ AAA affiliate, the Buffalo Bisons.

A column from the New York Daily News brought with it some insight into the timetable for his return, as well as the sly dismissal by Brian Cashman that Torres was an option to see time in the big leagues at some point in the next few months. Torres should be ready for Spring Training 2018 and even with my love for Cashman, we can call his bluff on the Torres debut that could have been.

The corresponding move to take Torres’ roster spot is the promotion of fringe top 10 prospect Miguel Andujar to AAA. I say fringe because Baseball Prospectus has him ranked as a “lottery ticket” while other sites place him just outside their top 10. Raw tools and upside are a combination of characteristics often mushed together, blanketing a good majority of prospects in any team’s organization, but it’s an apt descriptor for this Venezuelan righty bat. Andjuar possesses well above average bat speed, with raw power to his pull side, but is prone to the weak fly balls; a knock on a lot of hard swinging 22 year olds. With an arm that grades out at 70 per Jarrett Seidler (20-80, 70 is “plus-plus” aka, very good), he has the ability to stick at third, but needs to polish up his actions to become a viable option at the hot corner.

Almost as if it was meant to be, I had the pleasure of watching Andujar in Hartford, CT last Thursday, with his now former team, the Trenton Thunder. After reading scouting reports post-game, I couldn’t speak more to the athleticism he showed, and also the raw and mildly immature actions Seidler and company have cited as the key to smoothing out his game. I love the upside he possesses, and find myself instinctively attracted to any prospect with plus raw power and a sub 15% strikeout rate at AA. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Andujar as he showcases his talents in Scranton-Wilkes Barre. Seidler closes his Andujar blurb with a great catch-all statement.

“If nothing else, he’s a walking highlight reel complete with enthusiasm and hustle…” – Jarrett Seidler (link)

With Andjuar’s showcase set for AAA, it’s important to point out the order of names Cashman rattled off when presumably asked about the Yankees’ third base situation (NY Daily News). Chase Headley, Ronald Torreyes, and Tyler Wade. The former two we’re all too familiar with, while the latter – I would bet – eventually sees some time in pinstripes. Let’s start with Headley.

The issue I think we have with the perception of Headley is that mediocrity is not the best medicine when you have a 20-year-old phenom who can do the same thing, sitting the in the minor leagues (RIP 2017 Gleybermania). It’s not that Headley has been atrocious, he’s just below average in the things that matter: offense and defense. Difficult to infer on aesthetics alone, his base-running and six stolen bases through 62 games seem to be buoying his overall production metrics. Projecting out to be a 2 WARP player, there isn’t anything less exciting for fans who have the honor of watching Aaron Judge take batting practice, than also watching Headley do the same. Is former MVP candidate a liability? I would argue not, but if Cashman ever wanted to induce a bit more flare than the name Headley will ever have sharpied onto a lineup card, the other non-Torres option in the minors is Wade.

Regarded as an outfielder with a middle infielder’s hands, Wade possesses plus game speed, with 46 steals over his last two minor league seasons. The decision for Wade to see time at third base – nine games in 2017 (AAA) – is a bit perplexing especially given his tag as an above-average utility man, but the arm strength allows for a fit in small doses from my perspective. Currently slashing .324/.384/.466 in 63 games at AAA, Wade’s profile is one that will indeed be unique for a utility third baseman, which Cashman seems to imply as another depth option in his chat with reporters. Better than Headley? Well, I’ll give him different than Headley, and with some upside in every young bat, different may suffice without Torres. Wade’s offensive profile is one that might remind some Yankees fans of Jacoby Ellsbury and Brett Gardner, and I think the faithful would stomach that over the current option.

Whichever path Cashman decides to walk, regardless of his skirting around the topic to journalists, my guess is – hold onto your seat – it won’t be as exciting as Torres. But if average production is all that the Yankees can muster, mixing and matching between Headley, the plus glove of Torreyes, or the speed of Wade, isn’t the worst of situations to be in. Especially with an offense that is firing on all possible cylinders.

Get well soon Torres, New York wants to fill the hot corner with a fresh face to purify the once sinful hot corner of New York.

After going 3-for-5 in a loss to Oakland on Thursday, Ellsbury was given Friday off with left-hander Matt Moore on the bump. When he was forced into action in the fifth inning after an apparent Aaron Hicks injury, Ellsbury efforted a tying run with a single to left, and a steal of home.

With Brett Gardner batting in a 3-2 count, Ellsbury took off from third, surprising Moore and catcher Curt Casali, to record the Yankees’ third run.

It was the first straight steal of home by a Yankee since Derek Jeter in 2001, and the first steal of home of any kind since Chris Young did it as part of a double steal in Sept. 2014.

A straight steal of home?! @JacobyEllsbury can FLY. #StealAHomehttps://t.co/8oW6VR23Jq

— MLB (@MLB) April 23, 2016

The risk here was great for Ellsbury. Gardner had already been awarded first base on a walk, and Ellsbury would have ended the inning with an out at home if he were caught. It was a big gamble, and one that surely paid off.

He’s done this once before, against the Yankees in 2009, but it wasn’t nearly as hard. Andy Pettitte threw a speed that lacked some power toward the plate on that play, whereas Moore was throwing full speed on Friday.

This might be what the Yankees need to wake up.

Lead photo: Andy Marlin / Getty Images

Basically, because of bad contracts the Yankees have given out in the past, they are categorically unwilling to give out bad contracts, or contracts at all, in the present. In fact, the Yankees are probably the only team in baseball (except for maybe the Angels) that has so many payroll albatrosses we can argue over who holds the most damaging contract on the roster.

So without further ado, here are the candidates for worst contract on the Yankees.

Contestant 1 – Alex Rodriguez

Years remaining: Two
Dollars remaining: $40 million
WARP in 2015: 2.5
WARP over past three years: 3.2
Age: 40

Just a year ago, our first contestant not only looked like a frontrunner for worst contract on the Yankees, but also worst contract in baseball. But an emphatically solid .250/.356/.486 campaign boosted A-Rod’s deal from disastrous to merely inconvenient. In fact, it’s not far fetched to say that, based on the value of a win on the open market, Rodriguez’s play was actually worth his pay in 2015. Of course, A-Rod has two more years left on his deal, and given his age, it seems unlikely he’ll ever again be worth three wins. This contract may no longer be a catastrophe, but it’s still not one the Yankees are happy to be carrying.

Contestant 2 – Mark Teixeira

Years remaining: One
Dollars remaining: $22.5 million
WARP in 2015: 3.0
WARP over past three years: 3.3
Age: 35

Like A-Rod, our second contestant entered 2015 with a contract that appeared worthless, and like A-Rod, he had a nice year in 2015 and more or less earned his pay. Teixeira has been about as valuable over the past three years as Rodriguez (even though the latter missed all of 2014) but has two things going for him by comparison: He’s five years younger than A-Rod and is under contract for half as long. It’s not too hard to imagine Tex putting together another three-WAR campaign and riding out his Yankee deal as a productive player.

Contestant 3 – CC Sabathia

Years remaining: Two
Dollars remaining: $50 million
WARP in 2015: 0.4
WARP over past three years: 1.0
Age: 35

Things once looked so promising for our third contestant’s contract. Over the first four years on Sabathia’s seven-year $161 million deal, the left-hander averaged 32 starts and 226 innings a year, pitching to a 3.22 ERA (3.28 FIP). But a one-year extension and a dramatic decline in performance have made Sabathia a replacement player and his contract a massive burden. Unlike with our first two contestants, we have no reason to assume Sabathia will contribute any value over the remainder of his time in pinstripes. For all the fuss about A-Rod’s deal, Sabathia is actually a much worse player owed much more money.

Contestant 4 – Jacoby Ellsbury

Years remaining: Five
Dollars remaining: $110,714,285 (including $5 buyout)
WARP in 2015: 0.6
WARP over past three years: 8.4
Age: 32

While our first three contestants are all old guys whose monster contracts are almost done, Ellsbury is something scarier: a player with five years and a boatload of money remaining but rapidly diminishing value. The outfielder’s 2015 was about as bad as it gets, with injuries limiting him to 111 games and a meager .257/.318/.345 slash line mixing with uninspiring defense to produce 0.6 WARP. Five more years of that lack of production is scary to consider. On the other hand, Ellsbury has more upside than the other contestants. If he can return to his 2013-14 levels of output (3.9 WARP/year) for the next couple years this contract won’t look bad at all. It’s the worst-case scenario that makes this one so worrisome.

The winner

So who has the worst, most damaging contract on the Yankees? Well, Teixeira has only one year left, so he’s out, and A-Rod is owed less money than Sabathia and remains a better player. So our contest comes down to two very different players with two very different financial situations. Ellsbury is a slightly built center fielder with five years left on his deal and a high ceiling. Sabathia is a burly starting pitcher with two seasons remaining and little hope of ever again being a good player.

Here’s why Ellsbury’s contract is worse: Even if he bounces back from 2015 with a solid season or two, the end of his deal won’t go well. On a pure WARP-per-year basis Sabathia will likely be worse, but Ellsbury might submit three or four sub-average seasons while clogging the Yankees’ payroll for half a decade. When Teixeira, Rodriguez, Sabathia and others leave to make room for the next crop of expensive big-name stars, Ellsbury will still be around, most likely looking more like a bad investment by the day.

Lead photo: Andy Marlin/USA Today Sports

Good. Now make sure you don’t get too drunk in this daydream. Alcohol has a nasty way of decreasing one’s interest in complex things like the statistical analysis of baseball.

You are sitting with a friend who is not a big fan of the New York Yankees but has some rooting interest and you’ve been watching the game at the bar. In this hypothetical, Jacoby Ellsbury has a really good game. He goes two-for-five with a double and a stolen base like he did on Tuesday.

It’s possible your friend might remark on a lot of different things, but let’s keep it focused and say he takes note of Ellsbury’s performance.  “I like that Ellsbury guy, seems like he can do a little of everything,” he says, perhaps in a slightly stilted intoxicated way, but undoubtedly coherent. “Does he have power?”

This is the type of question casual baseball fans ask hardcore baseball fans all the time. “Does X player have Y characteristic?” Normally it’s not a very interesting interaction. The hardcore baseball fan produces a simple answer and the casual fans uses that information to file the player in question into a pre-existing archetype like “slugger”, “speedster” or “power pitcher”.

In Ellsbury’s case it’s a little different.

If your conversation happened in 2010 you may have said the center fielder has no power with some confidence. After all, he’d hit only 20 home runs in over 1,500 career plate appearances and his career-high ISO in a full season was .114.

One year later it seemed absolutely foolish to ask any questions about the power of a guy in the midst of an MVP-caliber season.

Nowadays, things aren’t so clear. After all, what are you supposed to make of a player whose ISO has fluctuated this wildly?

Far more often that not Ellsbury has been below-average when it comes to power production. Not only that, but his speed has given him the opportunity to stretch singles into doubles and doubles in to triples meaning that a stat like ISO or Slugging Percentage oversells his ability to hit the baseball a long way.

As recently as last year he hit 16 home runs, albeit in a favorable home ballpark. That falls under most people’s definition of “having power”. This year 66 of his 82 hits have been singles. Even with the three home runs he’s hit in August, he has been hardly more than a slap hitter this season.

So, Ellsbury has been a singles hitter all-season and he’s approaching his 32nd birthday, but he has driven the ball with authority in the no-so-distant past. What do you tell your friend?

It really depends on how much pop a player has to have in their bat for you to say that they ‘have power’. It is an incredibly vague term completely left up to your interpretation.

When you say a player ‘has power’ what you are really talking about is their potential to get an extra-base hit. Even the most dynamic sluggers get extra-base knocks just over 10 percent of the time so it’s not like you expect it every time you seen them step to the plate. But the potential is there.

Similarly the potential is there with Ellsbury. He’s not a Ben Revere or Dee Gordon type who is almost physically incapable of putting the ball over the fence. However, there are 214 players with at least 300 plate appearances and he ranks 177th among them in ISO.

You can use this information to create two equally valid answers. One of them goes like this.

“Yeah he’s got some pop. Hit 16 homers last year, once he hit 30 but that’s was a while ago. Got off to a slow start but has hit a couple recently.”

The other goes like this:

“Not really. Had one fluky year where he knocked out 30 but that’s not happening again. Got up to 16 last year, but this year is looking like single digits and he’s getting older. More of an on-base guy.”

That there is the beauty of being the “expert”. There are tons of reasonable conclusions floating out there in the ether and its your job to grab the one you like best.

When it comes to the concept of “having power” much is left to your discretion, especially in the case of Ellsbury. It is one of the few times where there really is no wrong answer.

(Photo: Anthony Gruppuso-USA Today Sports)

The 31-year-old outfielder has gotten on base at a gaudy .419 clip, he’s been a menace on the basepaths swiping 12 bags, and his 27 runs scored are tied for 4th in the major leagues. These are the things that Ellsbury is paid handsomely to do and he’s undoubtedly getting the job done.

One could nitpick and say that the runs scored are fairly circumstantial and his stolen base efficiency isn’t ideal, but in the greater scheme of things it’s hard to complain about Ellsbury who has already accumulated 1.3 WAR and has a 134 wRC+ to his name.

While his work to date may be unassailable, his outlook for the season certainly isn’t. For one, he isn’t driving the ball. Ellsbury’s breakout season in 2011 probably inflated expectations surrounding his power to unreasonable levels, but he did hit 16 home runs last year.

This season he has only recorded one round-tripper and his ISO of .051 is less than half of Dee Gordon’s. Ellsbury only has four fly balls that have resulted in hits this season and has posted a pitiful -29 wRC+ when putting the ball in the air.

Although Ellsbury’s walk rate is a healthy 9.0%, the vast majority of his offensive value is coming from singles, which is a bit of a scary proposition. The .405 BABIP is an obvious red flag, and the underlying numbers behind it are even more problematic.

Of Ellsbury’s 43 singles this year, 21 of them have come on the ground. He is hitting his share of line drives, but that level of reliance on ground-ball hits is worrying. Even though a player with his speed might be expected to beat out a few hits on grounders, that doesn’t come close to accounting for the numbers.

The chart below show’s Ellsbury’s history batting average on grounders compared to the MLB average over the course of his career.

Ellsbury’s wheels have allowed him to often beat league averages in ground-ball hitting, but the disparity this year is extreme and can only really be explained by luck.

What makes the situation more interesting is the fact he’s pulling the vast majority of his ground balls, making them easier to defend with shifts, or at least heavy shading to the right side of the infield.

For a frame of reference here’s the spray chart of his partner in crime, Brett Gardner:

Garner keeps defenses honest by using more of the field when he puts the ball on the grounder and is therefore pretty much shift-proof. Even with Ellsbury’s superior speed one would assume Gardner would be squeaking more balls into the outfield.

Ellsbury has been outstanding so far this season, but if he continues with his current approach there could be some lean days ahead. The veteran is relying far too much on yanking balls to right field on the ground, and at the end of the day that’s no way to enjoy sustainable offensive success.

From Tom Selleck to Ron Burgundy to more recently, Ron Swanson, thick moustaches were a birthright and a true symbol of manliness. For the Yankees they serve as a workaround for the “no beards” policy, and as a sacrifice to the baseball gods.

For the team as a whole, the ‘staches have been an overwhelming source of strength. The Yankees have won every series since adopting them on April 17th and as of Wednesday morning, find themselves three games ahead in the AL East. But on an individual level, the moustaches are having more varied levels of success.  Some players are taking to them well but others weren’t born to handle the burden of the moustache. So now it’s time to perform the very first ever With Or Without Stache (WOWS) analysis to determine whether any Yankee hitters should break out the razor or whether they should all keep rocking the ‘stache.

*”Swansons” are the SI unit of moustache quality and range from 1 (worst) to 5 (best)

Jacoby Ellsbury

Moustache Rating: 3 Swansons

Fun fact about Mr. Ellsbury: according to Baseball Reference, his nickname is Tacoby Bellsbury. Through April 17th, the “day of stache-ing,” Jacoby Ellsbury was hitting like the leadoff hitter of Joe Morgan’s dreams. A decent average, good on-base percentage, but nothing but singles (only one extra base hit). He was hitting like a side taco at the aforementioned Taco Bell; you’re left wanting more. Now, he’s satisfying you like someone wrapped your taco in a quesadilla or shoved a a burrito inside your enchilada, in other words, the entire rest of Taco Bell’s menu.

Jacoby has turned it on ever since he sprouted his moustache. We’ve forgotten all about those “oh is this all he is now?” or “now I know why Philly fans hate Ben Revere” thoughts we were totally having a week into the season. He’s cut his early-season strikeout rate nearly in half, down slightly below his career average of about 13%, a key for a speedy hitter who does damage by putting balls in play. Jacoby’s also turned more fly balls into line drives this year. He’s currently rocking the highest line drive rate of his career at 28.6% and a career-low fly ball rate of 27.5%. Keeping the ball out of the air is a recipe for success for him and he’s among the top line drive hitters in baseball to this point. These crazy numbers might be fueled a bit by an absurd .435 BABIP since April 17, but in the past few weeks he’s been hitting exactly like the player Brian Cashman expected him to be.

Verdict: Never shave above the lip again

Alex Rodriguez

Moustache Rating: 0 Swansons

Ok I’ll admit, I fudged the date a bit on A-Rod’s WOWS splits. But in my defense, the alleged date of Brett Gardner’s facial hair inspiration was a turning point in A-Rod’s season to this point. So rather than April 17, I used April 18 as the first “With Stache” date for Mr. 660 and let’s be honest, nobody got the memo before then anyways.

April 17 was the opening game of a series sweep in Tampa Bay and A-Rod carried the team to victory that night. He hit two home runs, including this blast, and knocked in the game winning run in the eighth inning. I also have a faint recollection of him picking up the save but that might have just been my imagination.

After that game, A-Rod was sitting on an MVP-level slash line and an OPS of 1.313 (#13 for lyfe). He was knocking the cover off the ball, walking more than ever before, and I was raving about his new, possibly bionic hip. Since then he’s been hitting on the interstate. But if you look at a few of his peripheral numbers, he’s actually improved parts of his approach, but just fallen victim to an expected foe. His batted ball stats show he’s hitting about the same proportion of line drives, fly balls, and ground balls this season as he has throughout his entire career. From the STATCAST leaderboard at Baseball Savant, he’s still among the league leaders in hit velocity. His strikeout rate is down, his walk rate is up, but his BABIP has been perilously low ever since “growing a ‘stache.”

That’s where the real problem lies for A-Rod. He’s been “unlucky” with a .162 BABIP since April 18, a telltale sign that the baseball gods are angry with him. And why might they be angry? Well for one, I’ve seen no evidence that he even tried to grow a moustache.  There were allegations he never took to the idea at all, and some tongue-in-cheek comments from A-Rod himself in the New York Post that “it’s going to take [him] a long time” to grow one.

Hey A-Rod, sack up and grow a hideous moustache like the rest of your team. Here are some blueprints for your new getup. I think I speak for most of us here in saying you should give the ‘stache a chance.

Verdict: Stop BS-ing and grow one already!

Photo credit: Bob DeChiara-USA Today Sports