Update on the 40-Man Roster
As seen in a "Cardinal Nation" entry this February, the downside of having an excellent farm is having a crowded 40-man roster. I wanted to provide an update and look at the present state of the 40-man, as we consider the trade deadline. If you are unfamiliar with the intricacies of Rule V, wikipedia has a great article on the Rule.
40-Man Roster
|
Starters |
Relievers |
Infield |
Outfield/Catcher |
|
Carpenter |
Franklin* |
Pujols |
Ankiel* |
|
Wainwright |
Motte |
Schumaker |
Ludwick |
|
Lohse |
McClellan |
K. Greene* |
Duncan |
|
Pineiro* |
Miller* |
B. Ryan |
Rasmus |
|
Wellemeyer* |
D. Reyes |
Thurston** |
Robinson** |
|
Thompson** |
Kinney |
Barden** |
Stavinoha** |
|
M. Boggs |
J. Todd |
Glaus* |
Mather |
|
Mortensen |
Hawksworth** |
Freese |
Molina |
|
J. Garcia |
Scherer** |
Hoffpauir** |
LaRue* |
|
Walters |
T. Greene |
DeRosa* |
* Indicates Free Agent After 2009 Season
** Indicates Potential for Removal from 40-Man Roster
Candidates for Eligible for Rule V Seizure
|
Starters |
Relievers |
Infield |
Outfield/Catcher |
|
Ottavino* (MEM) |
Samuel (SPRF)* |
A. Craig* (MEM) |
B. Anderson* (MEM) |
|
E. MacLane (MEM) |
Furnish (PBCH) |
J. Martinez (VSL) |
D. Jones* (SPRF) |
|
Garceau (PBCH) |
Degerman (SPRF) |
Hamilton* (MEM) |
J. Jay* (MEM) |
|
Norrick* (SPRF) |
Daley (QC) |
Rowlett (MEM) |
I. Castro (BAT) |
|
Mura (SPRF) |
D. Carpenter (QC) |
D. Bolivar (PBCH) |
Marti (Cazana) (MXC) |
|
Parisi (MEM) |
Maiques (SPRF) |
Solano (MEM) |
Shorey (MEM) |
|
Hearne (SPRF) |
Ring (MEM) |
Rapoport (SPRF) |
|
|
Leach (BAT) |
Parise (MEM) |
J. Martinez (BAT) |
|
|
O. Javier (GCL) |
Ostlund (MEM) |
Yarbrough (MEM) |
|
|
Dickson (SPRF) |
M. Gonzalez (SPRF) |
Pagnozzi (MEM)* |
|
|
E. Hernandez (PBCH) |
Maekawa (MEM) |
E. Gomez (GCL) |
|
|
A. Rosales (BAT) |
Manning (MEM) |
||
|
J. Rada (JCTY) |
O. Perez (MEM) |
Prospects Likely to Land on the 40-Man Roster This Fall
1. Matt Pagnozzi: I will say it myself: huh? I put Pagnozzi first, not because he deserves it or because he needs protection, but because it is a practical certainty, in the absence of a trade, that he will be promoted to fill the fortieth spot on the roster for September. A third catcher is a common add in the September call-ups. Why the club has hung its hat on Pagnozzi as the next backup catcher is totally unclear. OTOH, Anderson hasn't helped his advocates make the case for him with his terrible 2009.
2. Daryl Jones: Sanity restored. Jones is our top prospect eligible for the Rule V draft this fall. Whether he makes an appearance at the big club in 2010 is an open question, and probably depends on his performance at ST next year. There's no doubt though that he would be gone by December if left unprotected.
3. Jon Jay: Coming back to earth after a heady 2008, Jay now gets more Skip Schumaker comps than Colby Rasmus-lites. Jay is a ++ defender in center. His transition to the majors will depend on his bat. But there's plenty of room for him as a fifth outfielder. Free career advice, Jon: learn to hit from the right side this winter.
4. Allen Craig: Also suffered from whatever offensive malaise afflicted the Redbirds in 2009. Didn't even get a chance at third this year; if not this year, likely never will. Could be in the LF mix next year; makes sense as a platoon partner with a healthy, effective Duncan. Wild card: does the management (with whom he seemed unpopular/invisible in admittedly a down year) see a role for him? If not, trade him soon, Moz.
5. Francisco Samuel: Fireballing reliever. Definite plus relief prospect. Could easily be taken without protection. Wild card: ptbnl in Derosa trade?
6. Adam Ottavino: His stock fell hard as he suffered at Memphis. A first-round 2006 draftee, the clock is ticking down for him. Still, deserves one more crack at the Memphis rotation before relegation to the bullpen. A struggling former first-round pick is too easily stashed at the back of a roster as a seventh reliever not to expect him to depart in the Rule V draft, especially after his WBC performance.
7. Bryan Anderson: How far the mighty have fallen! A top ten prospect last year, he fell off the high offensive mark he had set, though his defense continues to improve. Finally, he fell off the active roster entirely. At this point, is he even at risk of being taken in Rule V? While the taking team could stash him on the DL for a while, he still has to stay actively on the 25-man roster if taken under Rule V for much of the year. Few teams are going to carry three catchers, and no team is going to rely on a dicey-shouldered backup. Even though Anderson is far less attractive as a Rule V take than he was last year, he'll probably get protection this year.
8. Tyler Norrick: Some suggest he makes sense as a home-grown LH-reliever for 2010 or 2011. Combines poor command with a lot of strikeouts. Has a potential future as a role-player. Probably a reach to say he needs 40-man protection; an alternative would be to protect him on the Memphis roster, to prevent another team from placing him on their AAA roster.
9. Mark Hamilton: Dogged by injuries, Hamilton has finally put together a nice season, rising to Memphis in the last month. A bat guy, he doesn't figure highly in the ML club's plans, given that 1B is taken. Hamilton's upside is trade chip. If he can't be moved, he's at some minor risk of being taken, though all-bat-and-no-cattle types are pretty common in baseball. Can he play LF?
Worth a mention: Royce Ring - the only leftie reliever to impress at Memphis among the second-tier loogies (also includes: Manning, Ostlund, Maekawa) taken this past winter. Simply too low a ceiling to merit a spot. Ring's current and former teammate (in 2006 in the Mets system) starter Evan Maclane had a fine season at Memphis, but is on the "depth" not the "prospect" track. Donovan Solano is a SS at Memphis; good defense but has plate discipline like Tyler Greene without the power. Not going to translate to the majors without huge changes. Trey Hearne has had a decent year at Springfield; he should merit a promotion to the Memphis roster before the end of the year where he could only be taken by Rule V onto an ML roster (remember that Rule V requires only that AAA players be kept on the 25-man roster of the taking team; players on a AA roster or lower can be put in a higher level of the the taking team's minor league system). That should be enough protection for him. Shaun Garceau, while ranked on 2009 prospect charts, had a muscle tear/burst artery in his leg, has undergone several surgeries, and is out for the season. He should survive the Rule V draft unprotected for medical reasons. Amaury Cazana (nee Marti), while winning the hearts of HPG everywhere, has gone several drafts unprotected and should survive this one as well. Matt Parisi, coming back from TJ surgery, has fallen so far on the starting pitching depth chart that I can't see him attracting Rule V attention. Props to Eddie Degerman, Brad Furnish, Gary Daley, and many others for having such a terrible 2009 that no one will take them.
Free Agents (in order of likelihood of resigning)
1. Ryan Franklin: Barring tragic injury, the ink is already wet on this nine-lived pitcher's cheap 2010 option.
2. Joel Pineiro: The Cards could do much worse than sign Joel to a short extension.
3. Mark Derosa: A flexible 2B/3B/COF. Hey, those are all the positions where we are weak! And he's right-handed. If he comes back later this season with a healthy wrist, he's more likely to sign than Pineiro and could be a very good signing.
4. Trever Miller: Has been a fine loogy, as loogies go. Cheap to retain, but easily replaced.
5. Troy Glaus: Health is a big question mark. Outside chance of returning on a one-year for a discount or taking an arbitration offer.
6. Jason LaRue: Has done very well as a backup catcher. Probably time to move on.
7. Rick Ankiel: Probably done as a Cardinal.
8. Todd Wellemeyer: His terrible 2009 is probably unsalvageable. He will be lucky to still be starting this September, much less next April.
9. Khalil Greene: It's an open question whether he'll ever play again. We all wish you the best, Khalil. Get healthy.
Clearing Roster Space (in order of prefered demotion).
Note that any of these players can be removed from the 40-man in one of two ways. A player promoted to the 40-man the first time can be removed once by outrighting him to a minor league club. If the player has previously done a stint on a 40-man roster, he must pass through waivers to return to the minor league club. During that waiver process, any of the 29 other clubs may take him without giving anything in return.
1. Nick Stavinoha: Not even sure he ranks as replacement value.
2. Shane Robinson: Optimistically, a role-player; pessimistically, no major league role.
3. Brad Thompson: Despite a few nice starts, shows no real sign of becoming more than replacement level. Has fans in management, but makes little sense for a team developing numerous higher potential back-end starters.
4. Joe Thurston
5. Brian Barden
6. Jarrett Hoffpauir
Probably at least one infielder on this list is superfluous. Much will depend on their showings over the rest of the season. Uncertainty at 2B and 3B play in their favor, as does the right-handedness of two of the above candidates.
7. PTBNL: the second piece of the Derosa trade may be on the 40-man. Let's hope his initials aren't "JT".
8. Max Scherer: Consistent performer in Memphis, but has limited upside. Has such a low ceiling that if we had to make cuts, he'd be a candidate.
9. Blake Hawksworth: I would like to see him succeed, and I feel he could be a late bloomer. After many years in the minors, though, his "prospect" expiration date is looming. Any setbacks could jeopardize his roster spot.
Well, that was a lot of discussion. My best guess is that we have about six free agents who don't return, we cut about three names off the 40-man, and protect seven or eight guys, holding open two or three slots for free agents, our own rule V pick, or other promotions to the 40-man roster of players not at risk of rule V selection, like Wallace or Descalso or Henley.
15 recs |
272 comments
Comments
Awesome post.
Great info. I’ll have to think about this a bit but I mostly agree with your analysis and conclusions.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 13, 2009 2:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd...
this is some good info to have handy as we delve deeper into trade season. Fortunately there’s only about a half a dozen players on that second list that are really worth protecting. Of all of the guys that can be removed from the 40 man do they all have to be added back to avoid rule V? Looking at the names I’m thinking yeah…but I don’t know.
Thanks tom!!!
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 13, 2009 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Answer:
Of all of the guys that can be removed from the 40 man do they all have to be added back to avoid rule V
Yes
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post
Lots of good info here tom! I’ve been working on a similar post but just haven’t had time to do all the research that is necessary to make it a worthy FanPost.
Some notes:
- I’m ok with Pags being the backup guy — as long as that is what he is. He’s a cheap backup catcher for the next 6 seasons on the big club so that we don’t have to keep going out and finding replacement level backup catchers, and spend that money elsewhere. He’s a solid backup, plays good defense, and handles a staff well — maybe he’ll make the leap with the bat like his pop did at the MLB level. Why he would need to be protected, I have no f***ing idea. Who is taking Matt Pagnozzi in the Rule V?
- I would move Derosa above Piniero simply because of salary considerations. Derosa will likely make less than Piniero, and there are more good arms to bid on than utility defensive players with an above average bat.
- These guys have to be protected: Jones, Jay, Craig, Mather, Samuel, Anderson. I could see a lot of teams rolling the dice on those guys in the Rule V draft, and the AAA guys could all be productive players on a major league roster next year in some capacity.
- Hamilton, Samuel, and Norrick should all be at AAA at the end of the year.
- Lastly, considering the amount of good talent in the bullpens and rotations at Springfield and Memphis, I think the Cardinals would be nuts not to be shopping some of that talent on the open market so they don’t risk losing it in the Rule V next year.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 4:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i meant, not that he needed protection, but that we would have to count him on the 40-man
so that he could join the september callups. right now, we have no 3d catcher. sorry, i should have made that clearer — he’s not in danger of being taken. he’s likely to be on the 40-man by Sept. 1.
my bad.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just clarifying to make sure I read you correctly
I think he will probably be in the September call ups as well.
You may just want to edit that so there’s no confusion by removing him from the “Prospects that Need Protection” and put him in an addendum to the “Players on the 40-Man Roster”. That is what confused me…
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
done. and i added a pineiro v. derosa note.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and i only put pineiro ahead of derosa because of the wrist injury.
if derosa comes back hitting, he’s a more likely pickup than pineiro.
mather is already on the 40-man. hamilton got promoted to AAA a couple weeks ago.
you bring up a good point about 2010 — what we are fielding now is mostly the rebound from the 2006 draft. the 2007 draft was a little more fruitful, and will present even more of a challenge. but we can also anticipate that, just as this year, the natural occurrence injuries, ineffectiveness, off-field problems, etc. will winnow those REALLY in need of protection down to a number we might manage. let’s hope the injuries are less prone to afflict our most needed prospects in 2010.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 13, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
you bring up a good point about 2010 — what we are fielding now is mostly the rebound from the 2006 draft.
Here’s what I don’t understand about some of the people here at VEB: The reason you have a great farm system is to deal the depth in the system to get your hands on good players and to develop potential players for the MLB club. To me, if you have a lot of players in your farm system that aren’t going to make an impact on your major league club (due to lack of talent, talent in front of them, superstar players at the big league level) within a 3 year period, they should get dealt for a guy who can help you right now. We’re dealing with the rebound from the 2006 draft right now, so when the contracts for Lohse, Wainwright, and Carpenter are up, the 2009 and 2010 draft classes will be hitting the AAA level or will be ready to help at the big league level. It makes no sense not to deal some of that talent for someone like Derosa or Halladay, who can help you win immediately.
In the Cardinals case, we have far too many players at the top end of the system that really don’t look to help the club in the next three years, so they really should be dealt for a player that can put the club over the top right now, since we are in a position to contend. We’re not even counting guys like Jaime Garcia, Derek Hooker, Adam Reifer, or any of the 2009 draftees in this analysis, only the guys that you mentioned above. Would we have to trade a Brett Wallace in some of those deals? Probably. But if you’re willing to trade Wallace, throwing in 3-4 more players at the AA and AAA levels that aren’t top 5 prospects shouldn’t be the reason that you negate that deal. That’s why those players are there — to be the backup in case of injury, or to be the bait that reels in a big fish.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i totally agree
what good is a deep and talented farm system if it cant help the team win? I have no problem with getting rid of wallace either, esp if that means getting a holliday or halladay
by KyleW on Jul 13, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not as sold on Holliday as I am Halladay
Partly because it’s a rental situation and partly because I’m not sure he’s a huge upgrade for this team, even considering our offensive struggles this season. Don’t look now, but Ludwick (who most of us have felt has really struggled this season) is outhitting Holliday at the ASB, and nobody would trade Brett Wallace for Ryan Ludwick, would they? I don’t care what Holliday has done in the past, considering his entire career has a bit of the Coors effect on it, and I’m just not sure that he’s going to be a significant upgrade to our offense, and that’s not a reason to trade away our best prospect.
Halladay is the best pitcher in the majors over the last half decade, and we’d have him for this year and next year. Yes, we’d take on his salary, but he’ll be worth far more than what he makes in WAR.
I still think that the best upgrade the team could make is to trade from someone like Austin Kearns, who kills lefthanded pitching, and platoon him with Chris Duncan in LF. Kearns would essentially be free in terms of player compensation and the Cards would owe him around $3M if the trade were made at the deadline.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm...
nobody would trade Brett Wallace for Ryan Ludwick, would they?
I’d have to at least think about it. Another bat like Ludwick in the OF would go a long ways to making the Cards favorites. Would I trade Ludwick for Holliday? No, and hell no. I think Luddy’s the better hitter, he makes WAY less money this season, and will next season as well.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 14, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
im all for halladay also
i would much rather have halladay for a year and a half instead of a pure rental in holliday. I just do not think that Holliday is that great and i am really scared of his output so far away from coors..
by KyleW on Jul 14, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Olney on Holliday
His stint in Oakland up to the break has confirmed the fears that many other than TLR had about acquiring Holliday. Olney has a bit on this today:
There were questions about how Matt Holliday would fare outside of Coors Field, given his acute home/road splits, but a lot talent evaluators — a lot — thought he would still be fine after he left Colorado because he seemed to hit the ball hard so consistently. Well, so far, in his first season outside of Colorado, he is a bust: He’s on pace right now to finish the year at .276, 15 homers and 81 RBI. I thought he would be much better.
Another way of looking at it…
Holliday Projections for 2009 Overall: .276/15 HR
Ludwick Numbers for 2009 So Far: .264/15 HR
Will Matt Holliday hit more than 15 HR? I’d probably bet that he would. Will he hit as many HR as Ryan Ludwick? I’d probably bet that he would not.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 14, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember all those people
who thought trading Ludwick + prospects for Holliday was a good idea? Not necessarily here, but in the media in general. Looking at the numbers now, that would have been a really silly trade to make, especially considering Ludwick’s numbers at Coors Field (SSS alert!), lol.
I still think there’s better value out there on the trade market right now than Matt Holliday.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland seems to have a pretty bad park for hitters, at least from my glancing at rankings the last few years
Busch hasn’t been much better, so it’s not like he’d get a huge boost or something. Anyway, I was never for getting Holliday but it looks like Oakland’s park might be hurting him a lot.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 14, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you look at park factors though
it’s not much worse for hitters than Busch III, and you have to figure that the pitching he’s seeing isn’t a lot better than it was last year, when he played in the NL West with Lincecum, Cain, Billingsley, Lowe, Haren, Webb, etc.
The scary thing is that his line drive % is way down, from around 19%-21% in his years on Colorado to around 15% this year, and his IFFB% is way up from 9.1% last year to 13.3% this year. Considering that all his other numbers have remained the same (GB%, FB%), he’s essentially popping up 5% of balls that he would have hit line drives on last year. If you’re not hitting as many line drives and your popping up to the infield more, it doesn’t matter what ballpark you’re playing in, you’re going to struggle. His ISO is also down nearly 70 points this season, which park factors could obviously influence. However, if you couple that with the other data in my sample here, you could make the case that he just isn’t hitting the ball as hard as he has in the past and that’s leading to less production at the plate. (Data via Fangraphs)
Could all of this be a fluke? Of course it could, and he could have a monster second half. But considering how players normally fare in a contract year, especially one prior to their first Free Agency filing, it seems a little out of sorts that this would just be a year where he was randomly struggling after consistently putting up great numbers the past 4 seasons.
This could also be awesome news if he were truly a “buy low” candidate, since he could start raking in the second half again. But he isn’t, because he’s going to be a Type A player no matter how he finishes the season and will net the A’s a first rounder and a supplemental pick wherever he signs. There’s no reason to trade him for middling talent when you’re going to get that type of compensation for him and your AA and AAA affiliates are loaded with better than middling talent as it stands right now.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hadn't really looked into his LD% and other rates like that; good to know.
I agree that there are just too many reasons not to go after Holliday. Obviously parks aren’t the only explanatory factor, I just thought it was interesting he went from such a hitter’s park to a fairly strong pitcher’s park.
Also, Ryan Ludwick is awesome.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 14, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
solid argument
seriously
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 18, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would have to think that
ludwick + prospects > Holliday and I am so happy they didnt make that trade in the offseason
by KyleW on Jul 18, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I agree with that
Mainly because of the contract situations. I just think it is ridiculous to say that Ludwick better than Holliday
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 19, 2009 2:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is ridiculous
for anyone to say with any certainty that they KNOW how good Holliday is away from Coors.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 19, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's ridiculous
for anyone to completely throw out Holliday’s park adjusted numbers in Coors.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 19, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it's ridiculous
for someone to completely throw out holliday’s ’09 numbers
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have not
From 06-08, Holliday was worth an average of 6.2 WAR in 668 plate appearances. Holliday in 09 has been worth 2.3 WAR in 379 plate appearances. Prorate that to 668 plate appearances and he is on pace to be worth 4 WAR.
Let’s assume that he will be exactly between his previously established levels and his current level of performance (even though that isn’t the proper Bayesian standard) and he is a 5.1 WAR player going forward. I highly doubt that Ludwick is capable of that going forward.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
but almost all of the value over ludwick comes from his defense at an easier positionthan ludwick plays. their offensive numbers are almost identical. holliday has ludwick on wOBA by .001 and luddy wins ops by .009.
the only difference is luddy has only been worth 1.5 runs on rf, while holliday has been worth 7.5
but ludwick is out of his funk. holliday still isn’t hitting very well. i wouldn’t trade the two straight up right now. too risky
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
7.5 in lf*
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldnt trade them straight up either
by KyleW on Jul 20, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because that would be moronic,
based on controlled years and salary.
Not on production.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 20, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think park adjustments
in general have a lot of value. Nevertheless, until at least one hitter who has played a significant amount of time at Coors can put up a line at a new home park that is at least somewhat similiar to a park-adjusted Coors number I will remain very skeptical that park adjustments accurately reflect the true performance level of Rox hitters. I am specifically addressing guys with decent ISO.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Jul 20, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well here is an attempt to look at the whole picture
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember, fangraphs treats
park factors in an interesting way.
Because of that, COL players are overrated significantly in fangraphs WAR, and players in pitchers parks like SD and OAK and STL are underated.
the end of every half inning IS a turning point. -Evilfrog
by SleepyCA on Jul 20, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is a September callup automatically added to 40 man roster?
Given the logjam, if a callup results in him being on 40 man roster, I say no. Also agree that the number of potential candidates will result in another trade with a few of these guys in the mix.
Can’t see Walters sticking nor Mather with the bad wrist.
Just win
by The Duke on Jul 13, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The roster expansion
basically just allows the 40 man roster to become the roster of active players, which is normally only 25 guys. You don’t have to have a full 40 players on September 1st, and players can be added to the 40 man roster after the 1st as well, but they have to be on the 40 man to be called up in September.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 13, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pags is Pags' Nephew not son
just wanted to clarify that http://stlcardinals.scout.com/a.z?s=321&p=8&c=1&nid=2348171
"Come test me every day if you want," says Pujols, "Everything I ever made in this game I would give back to the Cardinals if I got caught."
by StLHugo on Jul 14, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I, for one disagree
about the PTBNL. I hope his initials ARE JT. . .
Joe Thurston, that is!
"Baseball is like Church, many attend, few understand" - Wes Westrum
by scoot on Jul 13, 2009 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I know that no one will take this guy, his defense is horrible and he couldn’t hit his way out of a wet paper bag . We’re stuck with him unfortunately
by from First to Third on Jul 13, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't the team hold an option on Franklin? If so, he's signed unless Tony finds he is a friend of Michael Vick. . .
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
by akaitori on Jul 14, 2009 12:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
In the post under the Free Agent section he notes Franklin…and how it is a no brainer to pickup his option. This is the biggest no brainer of the offseason to me.
by JDizzidy on Jul 14, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets not jump and start counting chickens yet
He could easily regress into the hittable quandry he’s been his entire career in the second half — he could also get hurt. It’s nice to have the option there, and if he continues to perform it would be a no brainer to pick it up, but let’s wait and see how the season ends before we go crossing that bridge.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
franklin sucks
"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister
by VolsnCards5 on Jul 14, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
do you have any particular reason to make that comment?
by KyleW on Jul 14, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because
he’s terrible
dfa him
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 14, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's one of those meme things
Most sites have them, usually beaten well into the ground and not very funny anymore.
This wasn’t one to begin with.
Others include San Francisco needing a left handed 1b (ie, Duncan) and blaming Joe Thurston for everything that goes wrong during a game. Oh wait, people here actually seriously do that last one.
by DiscoJer on Jul 15, 2009 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if franklin sucks
isn’t a meme, i don’t know what is
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 15, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait
i think i know what you mean
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 15, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not everything
just his constant bad at bats, bad throws, bad base running on the off chance he actually gets on base. you know, the same things we rag on Dick & Dunk for.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
by gdm426 on Jul 16, 2009 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
basically, everyone here
is scared that if they say franklin is doing well, he’ll revert to his career mean, which is kind of sucky. so we just say he sucks to make him think he actually sucks to make him think he is pitching at his career mean already and does not in fact have to revert.
you may want to read that previous sentence more than once.
The first thing that a pitcher has to understand is that Albert is better than you.-- Jim Palmer
by ilrosso on Jul 15, 2009 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rule V
The next 2-3 years will be very interesting to see how the FO deals with the amount of MiLB talent that has MLB potential. I personally think you should see if you can deal some borderline guys for next years Rule V draft. Instead of risking losing these guys for virtually nothing why not flip them for something that will help us out? It could be someone as simple as a role player. Personally getting a Super Utility type guy would be ideal for the stretch run and playoffs. Thurston has failed at that role, T. Greene wasn’t the answer, DeRosa will be more of an everyday start once he gets back IMO, Mather got hurt, Ryan got a permanent job at SS and K. Greene is done IMO. We all know how TLR loves to have that veteran role player that he always seems to squeeze every bit of talent out of in that role. The Polanco’s, Bo Hart’s, Nunez, etc. This team is missing that guy. So deal a fringe MLB player to get one and dump Thurston…PLEASE! I gave him the benefit of the doubt for too long…it just isn’t working. A few guys that could be had for a reasonable price: Our old friend Felipe Lopez, another old friend in Polanco, Freddy Sanchez (cost would be fairly high in salary and prospects), Marco Scutaro (solid fit?), Adam Everett (rock solid D), the A’s Crosby or Cabrera or Chone Figgins (another guy that would cost more than most). Just a thought.
by JDizzidy on Jul 14, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Footnote
Polanco doesn’t count. He was a kid when he played here.
Also, Bo Hart was a AAAA player who was pressed into service in the wake of Vina’s injuries, started hot, earned the undying love of fandom, and predictably regressed. I’m not sure he’s the best example either.
VivaElBirdos...Scoring less, but more frequently since approximately 1903.
by redbirdnation8206 on Jul 14, 2009 2:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that...
Polanco, Bo Hart or Nunez counted as veterans at the time they were here. In that vein I’d like to say I think Barden could make a decent utility guy/fill in at third till Glaus or Derosa gets back. Unfortunately TLR insists on having Thurston in the lineup even when BB is better defensively, and probably at least a wash offensively.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 14, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
scutaro is quietly having a remarkable year
riccardi has already said he wants to extend him…be tough to pry him away
"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister
by VolsnCards5 on Jul 14, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post, Tom
Very informative. It helps give insight on what we are looking at moving forward. I would have to think that guys like Stavinoha and Robinson could be removed from the 40-man and not be taken in the Rule V. Furthermore, even if guys like this are left unprotected and wind up being drafted, who cares? Stavinoha has little-to-no value, in my mind. Neither does Robinson. I would also suspect that PJ Walters could be left unprotected and we’d find him starting in Memphis next year.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 14, 2009 10:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree on Stav and Robinson,
but you’ve got to assume someone would take PJ if he’s available.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
As much as I love the screwbally changeup of doom, he hasn’t really shown much this season. He’s a AAA pitcher with a 4.92 ERA in 12 starts at Memphis this season. Sure, his FIP at Memphis is 3.58, but I’m just not certain where he fits on a MLB team. His fastball tops out at 88 mph. I just don’t know that he has a future on the St. Louis Cardinals, or on another big-league club. Maybe someone would take him, but where would they stash him for an entire year? Surely not in the rotation or the bullpen (unless you have a 13-pitcher bullpen, that is…).
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 14, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
someone would take him…padres probably
"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister
by VolsnCards5 on Jul 14, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may just be...
the second best starter for the Nats right now. Though they’ve got talent in the system.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 14, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
third best, maybe
I’d put both Lannan and Zimmerman ahead of Walters.
He’d also be the oldest guy on their staff by about two years I think.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 14, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Z's...
definitely got more upside, but PJ might be able to put up just as good of numbers. The point is that he would be worth a look to a handful of teams if left unprotected. If it doesn’t workout they just lose $25K in the end.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 14, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pj walters > kip wells.
end of discussion.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 14, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
a stack of old tires > kip wells
"Baseball has been good to me since I quit trying to play it." - Whitey Herzog
by Bring Back Tommy Herr! on Jul 16, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please do not talk ERA and fastball MPH to me.
His FIP is very good, his control has been good. He gets a lot of crap for being a comp to Tyler Clippard, but Clippard never had much control. People like Miguel Gonzalez get taken in the Rule V. PJ would be a goner.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pj could be a useful trade chip to the nats or the padres.
out of our mass of middling pitching talent (boggs/garcia/mort/walters/hawk) we’ll probably get a starter, a swingman, and a middle reliever. the other two will get dealt to a club like the nats or padres for a piece (right now, i wouldn’t mind josh willingham, though i doubt our pitching discards will fetch him).
and i’m not yet ready to rule out PJ. he’s had a lot of success so far. i think he gets a spot at ST to challenge for a starting role. probably an underdog.
and i see a lot of people on the boards – not you bgh – who seem to judge him on his 8-9 ML innings this year. which is irritating.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 14, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was willing to look beyond FB speed, too.
At least before he got called up and it seemed that even with his great change, his fastball didn’t seem to have the velocity necessary to be successful in the bigs. Then again, it was only, what, like 15 innings? 20 at the most? Nowhere near enough to make a final judgment. I hope that my impression is wrong. I’d much rather hold on to Blake Hawksworth, Mitchell Boggs, Jaime Garcia, Clayton Mortsen, and quite a few of the position players eligible for seizure. That is, if we are making decisions on who to protect. I also believe that he’d be returned to us, because I don’t think he could stick in MLB. About what share of Rule V draft picks are usually returned? I tend not to follow the draftees that aren’t associated with the Cards.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 14, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
During the Major League phase of the 2008 Rule 5 draft,
21 players were drafted. 9 were returned outright, some were traded, and a few were DFA’d and not accepted back.
2007: 18 players drafted, 7 returned outright, 2 put on waivers and eventually returned.
Often, teams will draft a guy for the rule 5 and then trade for him at reduced cost so that they can keep him in the minors. Seems like 80% or more of the players in the rule 5 end up back in the minors one way or another in the season after their drafting. More than half of the 2008 rule 5 class has already gone back to the minors, gotten injured, or been released this season.
Joel Pineiro’s fastball averages a slower speed than Walter’s. Same with Andy Pettitte, Jarrod Washburn, and Jered Weaver. If we ditched every pitcher who was bad for their first 14 innings, well I’ll save you another list, suffice to say it doesn’t mean much to point it out.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 14, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it doesn't
Although, I think you would agree that soft-throwing lefties have a longer shelf life than soft-throwing righties, perhaps because clubs are willing to hang onto the southpaws a bit longer (I don’t know; this is merely an impression). Additionally, there is a difference between pitchers who break into the big-leagues throwing harder and lose velocity as their careers progression (Pineiro, Petitte, whose FB has dropped 1.5 mph since 2007, and Weaver, whose FB averaged 90 and 90.4 in ‘07 and ’08 respectively) as opposed to those that throw soft from the get-go (Washburn). No, a pitcher doesn’t need life on his fastball to be successful, but it doesn’t hurt, especially when they are young.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Jul 14, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really keen on Walters having a turn in the pen
to me, it doesn’t seem that his fastball (as a starter) belongs at the MLB level (always the knock on him when he was pitching solidly in AAA last year) and I don’t think he’s going to gain the extra 2 or 3 mph he needs at this stage. However, he has one very good pitch (the change) and a decent slider (that impressed me a lot in his one start vs the Cubs, I hadn’t heard it was a pitch he had in his locker in the scouting reports, and it looked like a MLB-average slider to me, sample size notwithstanding…). Put him in relief, and he can (presumably) work on dialling his FB up to 91, 92, with the change a threat vs lefties and righties, a decent slider to mix in, and good control. A lot of relievers have made a career out of one above-average pitch – I reckon he could use that change as almost his primary pitch (30%+ of the time), using the occasional FB to keep the hitters honest, and, because he’s less exposed as a one-inning reliever, be fairly effective with it.
I realise he’s supposedly not very quick at warming up (hence why he’s not been used much in the pen this year) but I really think he has all the makings of a useful reliever, and may not make it as a starter. I’m surprised the org hasn’t looked into this. Maybe they’ll do it if he fails to catch on this year.
And yeah, PJ’s definitely gone in rule V I think.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not in love w/ PJ
but agree that he probably would be chosen and could probably stick in a bullpen for a year, so we would lose him outright. I don’t think it’s a tragedy, but I’d rather have him than lose him b/c I think he can be a useful part. I think he’d be better than Thompson right now. His ability to throw strikes and get people out w/ that changeup could keep him on a major league roster for an entire season. I’m not sure he’ll ever be a starter in the majors but we’d lose him if not on the 40 man roster.
by chuckb on Jul 14, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
really
i don’t know where else to put this
but mulder is 95% ready i could see a signing for league minimum with incentives that bring it up to arouns $3MM being good. this fucker owes us anyway. though, i really don’t see this as Mo’s style. pretty low risk, high reward, though
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 15, 2009 7:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ll tell you where you can put it.
"I usually don’t read other peoples sigs." -Cuttah
by Alxfritz on Jul 15, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
cardinal's trade value?
i don’t think it really fits there, either
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 15, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
mulder is 95% ready to throw 81 MPH fastballs again and give up 6 runs in an inning and a third?
to a AA club?
hooray!
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 15, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for some reason
i had a feeling this might not go over so well
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 15, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
marky mark is a very sore subject, it's one best never broached
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
by gdm426 on Jul 16, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The latest rumor--Yunel Escobar?
Hasn’t this guy worn out his welcome in Atlanta? Is he a total head case and therefore can’t play for anybody? Or is he worth the cost—DJ or JJ + a pitcher?
Proud sponsor of the Official 2009 StL Cardinal theme song: Reason to Believe
by gocards62 on Jul 16, 2009 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If it's John Jay + a pitcher
I don’t even care who the pitcher is — do that deal right now.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 16, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed! Escobar would be awesome to have.
Does anybody actually know, specifically, what the problem is for him in Atlanta?
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bobby Cox
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
by spants on Jul 16, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I've heard
I meant more specific than that. Is it just a general “get off my lawn” kind of thing?
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure it is, but I don't know details.
"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter
by spants on Jul 16, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure if he can't get along with B. Cox...
he’ll have no problems with TLR.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 16, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braves/Cubs fan checking in...
First of all, Yunel has learned very little English — all of Bobby’s directives have to be translated by a Spanish-speaking coach.
Second, hustle is always optional with Yunel — and the quickest (maybe the only) ticket to Bobby’s doghouse is to not hustle. When Bobby gets on him for not hustling, he sometimes claims that he’s injured and often sits out the next game or two. I don’t think the trainers think he’s hurt, but again, there is a language barrier. He seemingly doesn’t play with the kind of minor injuries that most guys play with, though I don’t think that is a huge issue with Bobby.
Third, he has had a few brain cramps this year. Generally, Bobby won’t throw a guy (especially a young guy) into the doghouse for that unless he’s a repeat offender. Yuni is a repeat offender.
Yuni had a bunch of problems with Jeff Blauser in AA (which I think was his second year in this country), but the farm director didn’t put too much stock in that because a lot of guys had problems with Blauser. (He no longer manages for them.) However, after that season he had a sit-down with the farm director about an attitude check.
In 2007, his attitude/hustle was 1000% better at AAA, and he got called up in June. However, since Renteria was traded and he was handed the job, he has regressed attitude-wise. Not only does he not always hustle, he doesn’t seem to understand that Bobby has the right to demand that he hustle. (He does seem to follow other directives like bunting when asked, hitting at different spots in the order, etc.)
I guess the question for you Cards fans is: Can TLR handle someone like that? His talent is undeniable, and there are enough interested teams that he will definitely cost a couple of good young players or prospects.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
by DeRoMyHero on Jul 16, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to answer your question,
no
he’d get along with cox better than tlr
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 16, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Tony speak Spanish?
I feel like he does but I could be making that up.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 16, 2009 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
he’s fluent.
"I usually don’t read other peoples sigs." -Cuttah
by Alxfritz on Jul 16, 2009 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I remembered that
See, there’s one problem gone already! Surely the loving and nurturing “best baseball town in America” environment will take care of the rest!
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
by mattybobo on Jul 17, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
TLR is a completely different person in Spanish
He would nurture Escobar, take him out to dinner, whisper sweet nothings each time he got on base. I’m sure it will all go swimmingly
Just win
by The Duke on Jul 18, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
interesting...
do we know of any examples of TLR having spats with a lating/spanish speaking player?
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 18, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see the Pujols/Yadi combo
straightening out Yunel Escobar in a hurry.
by stlfan on Jul 17, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
braves & flubs? you poor soul
my condolences.
like fritz says, TLR speaks fluent Spanish. so communication will not be a problem. if you are right about the kids, it sounds like he’s scarred, stubborn or both.
interesting side note, jeff blauser’s 1st cousin was my high school english teacher. the early 90’s where an interesting time in class when October came around.
It kind of sounds like he’s [Duncan] just running around like a puppy out there – full speed ahead in random directions. – BTown Birds Fan
by gdm426 on Jul 17, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it will make you feel better...
My mom was a die-hard Cubs fan. Her mother-in-law was from SW Missouri and was a die-hard Cards fan. Needless to say, the conversations at Thanksgiving were fairly interesting…
I’m mostly a Braves fan.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
by DeRoMyHero on Jul 17, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it depends...
Tony speaks fluent Spanish, and has no problems with certain players loafing, as long as they are his favorites.
by DiscoJer on Jul 17, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yunel Escobar seems a lot like BRyan to me.
I guess if you think Ryan isn’t legit then you might pursue Escobar but otherwise they seem like redundant parts.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yunel is 100 times more talented than Ryan...
…when he feels like putting forth his best effort.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
by DeRoMyHero on Jul 16, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what are hyperbole
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 16, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 16, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no question that Escobar is the superior offensive player
I think we’re seeing Brendan Ryan’s offensive ceiling this year, and his wOBA is .308. When you take into account how good he’s been defensively, you can live with that, but he’s 27 years old — how long will he be a superior defensive player?
Escobar isn’t nearly as talented on defense as Brendan Ry an, but I’d gather that he’s probably league average or a little better than that, and the Cardinals have a Spanish speaking infield coach and a Spanish speaking manager along with two Spanish speaking clubhouse leaders (Molina & Pujols), so getting him to hustle really shouldn’t be an issue in St. Louis, I’d gather that he’d be more comfortable there.
He and Brendan Ryan are NOT redundant parts. They are the same age, but Ryan’s bat will prevent him from having any value if he’s not at least a 1-2 win defender at SS. Escobar’s bat is good enough to make him an above average SS by WAR even with league average defense, and may be good enough that he could move to third and be a better than average player there, assuming a bump in defense due to his arm strength and range at third base.
Is Escobar 100X better? No, he’s not — but he certainly isn’t redundant with Brendan Ryan.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 17, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Escobar has been worth
3 wins, 2 wins and (so far this year) 1.5 wins. Sure he’s a better bat, but Ryan is a better defender. They’re the same age, play the same position and bat from the same side. They’re overall value is extremely close. I don’t understand why everyone thinks Escobar has some magical upside he hasnt’ tapped at age 27 in his 3rd year of the majors.
This idea that he just doesn’t hustle enough is the same garbage that we get when the Cardinals bring in a Kip Wells and tell us that Dave Duncan will fix him. Some players just are what they are.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 17, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, right, WAR
Escobar was worth the exact same amount last year in 136 games last year as Brendan Ryan has been worth his ENTIRE CAREER. I don’t see how you can plausibly state that they are redundant players. They have been worth roughly the same amount this season so far, but all of Ryan’s value comes from his defense. If Escobar is an league average defender, and I believe that he is, then he’s a much better player than Brendan Ryan.
I don’t understand why everyone thinks Escobar has some magical upside he hasnt’ tapped at age 27 in his 3rd year of the majors.
Where did I say anything about “magical upside”? I’m saying he’s a better player right now and provides a much better right handed bat than Ryan does, even if we sacrifice a little bit on defense. He’s sixth in OPS among all MLB SS right now, behind Hanley, Tulo, Jeter, Tejada, and Scutaro just edges him out. What’s more, Escobar has a career .371 OBP in 358 PA’s as a leadoff hitter and is also has good on-base numbers in the second spot in the lineup, so he would be a great add at the top of the Cardinal lineup. What we’re seeing from Ryan is probably his ceiling as a player (this is the same guy who couldn’t hit the ball out of the infield last season) and he’s walking even less this year. If he regresses to a .260 hitter he’s essentially a (for the time being) cheaper version of Cesar Izturis’ ’08 campaign here in the Cardinal country.
If the price is right, I think we can do far better than that with Escobar. I wouldn’t give up Wallace or Jones for him, but if we could trade a couple of pitching prospects or a couple of our other OF prospects (Craig, Jay) for him that would be a great deal for the Cardinals. It’s all about how much he will cost us, it has nothing to do with whether he’s a better player than Ryan, because he clearly is.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 17, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is he a better player right now?
They both project towards 3 win players this year. Unless you’re going to argue the reliability of UZR, I don’t really care if one’s value comes from offense and one’s comes from defense. (BTW, I have no desire to engage in another UZR debate.)
Escobar was worth the exact same amount last year in 136 games last year as Brendan Ryan has been worth his ENTIRE CAREER.
Really? Could that be because in Ryan’s career he’s had roughly the same number of PAs that Escobar got LAST YEAR? That’s such a lazy argument and one that’s so obviously flawed.
If Escobar is an league average defender, and I believe that he is, then he’s a much better player than Brendan Ryan.
I’m not sure why I should suddenly be swayed by your “beliefs” in Escobar or when either of us ever argued he was less than replacement level at defense. If he’s a replacement level defender (same as a league average defender) and Ryan is a replacement level bat, than we’re comparing Ryan’s defense against Escobar’s offense. And they play the same position. And they bat from the same side. Unless you’re arguing for a platoon at 2nd or some kind of weird offense/defense platoon at SS, these two are redundant values.
If he regresses to a .260 hitter
And what evidence do we have that he should regress? None of his stats this year indicate an oncoming regression. This is the same as me saying that if Escobar suddenly becomes a .330 OBP player, he’s less valuable. Sure, it’s an accurate statement, but I’ve offered no reason as to why we should expect that.
I think we can do far better than that with Escobar.
If we’re just pinning this on opinion, than we have a difference of one. The evidence doesn’t support you in the way you seem to think it does though.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 17, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahem
Could that be because in Ryan’s career he’s had roughly the same number of PAs that Escobar got LAST YEAR? That’s such a lazy argument and one that’s so obviously flawed.
I do wonder why it’s taken Brendan Ryan so long to get that many PA’s. Oh, that’s because he sucked like a Dyson Vacuum last year. Do you think Escobar is riding the pine and in AAA in favor of Izturis? Wait, you probably do think that, never mind.
than we’re comparing Ryan’s defense against Escobar’s offense.
Well shit, then we might as well start Tyler Greene at SS then. He’s as good or better than Ryan is defensively at SS and could hit some homers too. His bat sucks as well, why aren’t we starting him at SS and Ryan at 2B? We’d have the best fielding middle infield in the big leagues — who cares if they can hit a lick! We’re talking about a SS with a .360 wOBA, a .360 OBP, an career OPS+ of 110 and a team that is struggling to find any offense from the middle infield. How you can say that Escobar isn’t a significant improvement is beyond me.
same as a league average defender
So a league average hitter is the same as a replacement level hitter then? If that’s the case, then half our team are replacement level hitters and Ryan is below replacement, even if you adjust for position. You’re essentially saying that any putz of a SS can play as well as league average defense there, which is ridiculous. Tony Pena Jr. would represent “replacement” level defense at SS. I don’t see where you get off saying that a league average defender is the same as a replacement level defender, especially at SS.
And what evidence do we have that he should regress?
ZIPS has him regressing even in it’s UPDATED metric, and his BABIP is around .337. Considering his doesn’t take many walks at all, I’d bet on that dropping .20 to .30 points before the season is over — it was .307 in 2007, his last significant time in the majors. You’re also making the assumption, yes that’s what it is, that Ryan’s defense isn’t going to regress from where it is right now. His UZR/150 is currently at 20, which is where he’d have to finish to be worth more than Escobar, even if Yunel regresses offensively to where ZIPS projects him to finish.
Lastly, who says we have to replace Ryan? Why can’t we just move him to second base, where he’s just as good of a defender, and move Skippy back to LF, where’s he’s and excellent defender? Hell, if we added Escobar to lead off, we may not need Skip’s bat at all, and we’d be a better defensive team regardless.
Putting it simply, they are not redundant players. Tyler Greene, Brendan Ryan, Pete Kozma, and Ryan Jackson are redundant players — all field, no hit SS. Escobar’s bat sets him apart and if he can field at a league average level that makes him a much better fit at SS than any of the other 4.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 17, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with you
that escobar is a better overall player than ryan. but god, you argue like a cocky douche bag.
You’re also making the assumption, yes that’s what it is, that Ryan’s defense isn’t going to regress from where it is right now.
cringeworthy. get over yourself
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 17, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you read the whole conversation?
it’s been going back and forth like this the entire time.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 18, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 18, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do wonder why it’s taken Brendan Ryan so long to get that many PA’s. Oh, that’s because he sucked like a Dyson Vacuum last year.
Or because we had a veteran shortstop on the team and TLR had a well documented dislike for Ryan’s attitude.
than we’re comparing Ryan’s defense against Escobar’s offense.
The point that you missed was that if Ryan’s hitting = Escobar’s defense than we’re left comparing the other component of each to one another. And if Ryan’s defense = Escobar’s offense than they’re the same value.
So a league average hitter is the same as a replacement level hitter then?
No. Read my post again. A replacement level fielder = a league average defender but a replacement level hitter =/= league average hitter. I was just making a note that average defense is replacement level defense. I’m saying that’s the case because that’s the definition of defensive metrics as they stand today. The replacement level adjustment (that fangraphs uses for example) is to bring the offense relative to replacement level, not the defense.
There are a lot more high quality gloves in the minors with terrible bats that raise the replacement level bar for defense. So while not any “putz” can play SS, there are numerous AAA type players that can play league average defense the day you call them up. Hence, replacement level defense = league average defense.
ZIPS has him regressing even in it’s UPDATED metric, and his BABIP is around .337.
That “regression” is from a .308 wOBA right now to end the season with a .303 wOBA. You’re really going to argue that a projection system is accurate enough that .005 wOBA is enough of a drop that we need to pursue another SS? Sorry, that’s terrible unconvincing to me. And the .337 BABIP is predicated on 19% LD rate and a player whose fast. It’s not necessarily a fluke.
Lastly, who says we have to replace Ryan?
I don’t think anyone said that. The post that started this sub thread was a comparison between Ryan and Escobar, though.
Putting it simply, they are not redundant players.
I have two 3rd baseman worth 2 wins (WAR). I’m not going to tell you how they derive that value but they’re both that value. They both hit from the same side. Unless there’s an argument that the team is currently so flawed that it needs offense more than defense or vice versa, why would you want both of these players. What would make one better than the other? Nothing. They’re both 2 win players.
You’re also making the assumption, yes that’s what it is, that Ryan’s defense isn’t going to regress from where it is right now. His UZR/150 is currently at 20, which is where he’d have to finish to be worth more than Escobar, even if Yunel regresses offensively to where ZIPS projects him to finish.
Right. I don’t assume regression when I don’t have evidence to back up why we should regress that player’s statistics. For the sake of furthering this argument since you just keep flinging around numbers and “regression” without explaining any of your reasoning: you could argue that a +20 SS in the field is very rare (Tulowitzki in his heyday was only +15). That’s a discussion we could have. That doesn’t mean that Ryan would HAVE to regress (and we’ve seen him play an outstanding SS thus far) but it would be a reason why we shouldn’t bet on a +20 fielding season.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 17, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to do it this way...
have two 3rd baseman worth 2 wins (WAR). I’m not going to tell you how they derive that value but they’re both that value. They both hit from the same side. Unless there’s an argument that the team is currently so flawed that it needs offense more than defense or vice versa, why would you want both of these players. What would make one better than the other? Nothing. They’re both 2 win players.
I have a group of 20 middle infielders. 19 of these players are capable glove men who are just above replacement level with the bat, adjusting for position The other one is replacement level/league average with the glove but far above league average with the bat when adjusting for position (in fact, he’s in the top 5 offensively in the major leagues at his position). Who do you take?
You’d be insane NOT to take the guy with the bat right? You’ve said yourself that there are plenty of players who are all glove/no hit guys in the minor leagues, so just on the basis of scarcity you would take the guy with the bat and his league average (or replacement level, which I still disagree with) defense. This is even more clear when your current team could use a hitter of his caliber (high walk rate, high OBP) at the top of your lineup.
They are not redundant players simply based on the scarcity of league average hitters at the SS position.
We’ve also been shown statistically that players who have a better than average walk rate and better than average on-base skills tend to age better offensively than those who don’t, and that middle infielder’s defensive skills tend to start a downward trend around age 28 or 29, albeit slowly. Again, why would you say that the player who’s entire value is derived from his glove and has a putrid walk rate and low on base skills is redundant with the other one? Based on knowledge that you yourself have presented in this thread, that’s simply not true.
Your assumption that Escobar’s offense and Ryan’s defense cancel each other out is sloppy statistics, based on how those numbers generally trend with age and how those numbers are calculated. Making that assumption is based entirely on opinion, so you can’t say that the burden of proof resides with me — YOU’RE the one arguing that they are redundant players, based on a subjective fallacy that you’ve made.
Your entire point is that RIGHT NOW they are redundant players. What I’m saying is that Escobar profiles to be a much better bet at maintaining his current value than Ryan is over the course of the rest of the season and over the next three years of cost-control.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 18, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
This is the same as me saying that if Escobar suddenly becomes a .330 OBP player, he’s less valuable
is ridiculous. If you truly believe that there’s as good a likelihood of that happening as Ryan’s BA dropping to .260, well, I don’t know why I’m arguing with you.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 17, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to fill in your leaps of logic for you. It’s your job to back up your arguments with sound reasoning, not mine.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 17, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to sound condescending...
But whenever we have one of these classic VEB debates, it always ends with evasive arguments and name calling. I have absolutely been guilty of it myself too. However, in this case, it is a simple debate: how do Ryan and Escobar compare to eachother? Let’s just get all of the facts on the table:
Age
Ryan: 27
Escobar: 27
I think it is okay to assume that both of these players have similar upside given that they are basically in there prime.
Offense
Ryan ZIPS: .296 wOBA
Escobar ZIPS: .336 wOBA
So Escobar projects to be about 20 runs better on offense than Ryan over a full season
Defense
Ryan career UZR/150: 17.1 (782.0 innings)
Escobar career UZR/150: -1.7 (2090.1 innings)
So using their career defensive numbers, they project to be basically even. However, we all know the small sample size limitations that UZR has. Given that Ryan hasn’t yet had a full season, it seems disingenuous to use career numbers.
MGL suggests at least 2,000 innings to get a proper read on someones defensive abliity. So with Escobar we are fine; however, with Ryan, let’s regress 60% to the mean ( 1- 782/2000 ). Obviously, this isn’t the perfect way to do so, but it should work fine for these purposes.
Ryan comes out looking like a +7 defensive short stop, in which case Escobar would be about a full win better than Ryan. Is their any problem you guys have with this assessment?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 18, 2009 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't understand that THT article about UZR.
It didn’t really conclude that UZR stabilizes at a specific point, but instead just threw out percentages to regress by. When are those useful and when do they become unnecessary? 2k innings is from different authors (MGL, Tango maybe, others), right?
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 18, 2009 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colin replied to me in a fanshot that after 2 years, you should use 75% UZR and 25% average
Given the accepted stabilization rate for stats is about .70, it would appear that UZR does in fact stabilize after 2 years.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 18, 2009 6:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have a problem with your regression
but I’m going to wager a guess that if we used the Fans Scouting Report, Ryan comes out as better than a +7 defender.
Again, though, 1 win difference between Ryan and Escobar over the course of the entire season strikes me as two very similar players.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 18, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does someone have the FSR pre-translated to runs?
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 18, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno. If it's 1 win difference, it's 1 win.
that’s a fairly significant amount. $5m in free agent value. I realise it’s just semantics, and you could argue that a 3 win SS and a 2 win SS are “similar” players, but if you can upgrade from the 2 win guy, you absolutely do it, and the two players are not at all “redundant”.
There aren’t many relievers who can add as much as 1 WAR over a full season; those who can are most definitely not interchangeable with, say, Brad Thompson, and should not be treated as such….
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this analysis
Here’s the thing though: Which one of those players is more difficult to find? The SS with the .336 wOBA or the SS with the +7 defense?
Sure, overall Escobar might be worth one more win, but based on the scarcity of players who can play league average SS and have a wOBA of .336, I would guess he’s worth more than that. I know that the WAR calculation derives a metric for “position”, but I’m not sure this entirely captures how scarce Escobar’s offense really is at that position.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 18, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, overall Escobar might be worth one more win, but based on the scarcity of players who can play league average SS and have a wOBA of .336
Why? Why does it matter how he gets his value?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 18, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
Why? Why does it matter how he gets his value?
You asked a question of which the answer is in the quote you used. I could submit to circular reasoning, but I won’t. Asked and answered.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 19, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A player being valuable in the field or with the bat,
is the same as having a dollar in quarters or dimes. It’s the same value. There is such a thing as positional scarcity, but they play the same position.
If Escobar helps us win one more game with the bat, and his defense makes us lose one, how is that affected by scarcity?
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 19, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
I forgot to quote the entirity of the statement that I was questioning. However, it’s pretty clear what I was trying to ask.
Way to be an asshole about it though.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 19, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not being an asshole
I’m tired of having this stupid debate though. Really tired of it. We act like these are equal values, but they’re not, and debating it is stupid. So this is it, then I’m done.
Facts:
- Defensive metrics aren’t as precise or accurate as offensive metrics over a period of a season.
- Players who are capable of hitting .340 wOBA and playing league average defense at the SS position are harder to find than players who have a .296 wOBA and play better than league average defense.
- Players who derive all of their value from defense generally have much shorter careers and lose their value quicker than players who have a solid offensive skill set an perform with league average defense.
The Cardinals have three, count them THREE, SS that are very similar to Ryan on the farm system. They all have great gloves and struggle with the bat. The club hasn’t had a player like Escobar in the farm system in maybe the last half century.
IT DOES MATTER WHERE HE GETS HIS VALUE, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS!!! If you have an entire team of awesome defenders with subpar offensive skill, you’re not going to win many ballgames because you’re not going to be able to score runs, and depending on how horrible your pitching is, you might get your ass kicked a lot too — home runs and piss rods off the wall aren’t getting caught regardless of how fucking awesome your defense is. Treating defensive ability with the same weight as offensive ability without taking into account pitching talent is ridiculous. Which is exactly what you’re doing when you say that Escobar and Ryan are mutually exclusive players. They aren’t. One has a better than league average right handed bat and can function as a leadoff or two hole hitter. The other has a good glove but gets groans from everyone here when put in the lead off or second slot in the lineup because his offensive skill is putrid. If Ryan is only a bit better on defense, which looks to be the case overall, I’ll take the guy with the bat every day of the week and twice on Sunday because this team is offensively challenged and needs a good OBP person at the top of the lineup. You’re not going to get much better than a cost-controlled guy who plays a position that the Cardinals currently don’t have a long term plan of action at.
Ask yourself this question: Would any team in the major leagues pick Ryan if they had a choice between the two? No, they wouldn’t. They’d take the guy with the stick every time because he plays a premium defensive position well and can be a far-better-than-league-average hitter there. I think that pretty much sums it up doesn’t it? Now I know you’re going to say that major league GM’s don’t value defense and blah blah fucking blah, but even Billy Beane (who values defense) would take Escobar over Ryan if given the choice because he’s be crazy not to. I think this is solid evidence that they are not redundant players.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not saying that Ryan is better than Escobar
Everyone agrees that the latter is the superior player. I am question your reasoning as to why a player who derives his value from offense is more valuable than a player who derives his value from defense. Please give me a succinct, ordered response, instead of that rambling bullshit.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lists? You like lists right?
Offensive SS Better than Escobar (2009)
- Hanley Ramirez
- Derek Jeter
Running just a tad behind Yunel:
- Miguel Tejada
- Marco Scutaro
- Troy Tulowitzki
Defensive SS who provide similar value to Ryan (2009)
- Tyler Greene
- Nick Green
- Jack Wilson
- Robert Andino
- Ronny Cedeno
- Adam Everett
- Alex Gonzalez
One list reads like the “Who’s Who of All-Star SS for the last 10 years” (minus Scutaro), the other list reads like the “Players I Could Acquire in a Waiver Wire Pickup in 2007”.
Please give me a succinct, ordered response, instead of that rambling bullshit.
Now who’s being the asshole? Seriously, there’s a ton of good points there if you just read it. But you’ve already made up your mind on this topic, and you’re obviously much smarter than the rest of us here, so why are we even having this debate?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are still not adressing the question
Why does it matter how a player gets his value? Why does it matter if a player saves 10 runs or gains 10 runs? You have yet to answer that question with any kind of reasoning besides “they are more players who can save 10 runs”.
And I was calling you an asshole because you were being snarky to me on my initial and innocuous comment.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have addressed this
multiple times.
There’s a pitching element to defense. If a team has horrible pitching and awesome defense, they’re still going to give up a ton of runs. Offensive value is the true value of the player, separate (as much as possible) from all other factors on the field). Did you ever step back and think that a lot of Ryan’s value may be coming from an inordinate amount of chances out of zone because the Cardinals have so many ground ball pitchers? How do you separate that value from someone like Escobar, who would get more chances on out of zone plays if he played for the Cardinals? You simply can’t factor that in.
Sure, 10 runs saved is 10 runs scored, but how many of the “runs saved” are due to pitching and not the player? It’s still a funky metric with huge error bars on it, so it’s difficult to comprehend how pitching is completely factored out of the equation, when you can’t hardly factor defense out of the pitching equation.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR may be flunky
But the concept of separating Pitching and Defense is not. We know that defense plays a huge role. Concepts like FIP and BABIP are pretty well grounded.
Just look at it this way. If you have a team that scores 700 runs a year and allows that same total, they would be expected to win 81 games by Pythag. If you add 10 runs scored to that team, their Pythag goes up to 82 wins. If you subtract 10 runs allowed, their Pythag goes up to 82 wins.
So how is a run saved less valuable than a run scored?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well,
pitching giving up more runs than the defense saves is the same as pitching giving up more runs than the offense gains
and sure, uzr is a faulty stat. i thought the debate was about 1 run of offense being more valuable than 1 run of defense. if you’re arguing that we’re not sure because it’s harder to evaluate defense, then i completely agree with you
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
is a more sophisticated argument, and one that should be getting more attention. The defense of a player saving 10 runs is more likely to be inaccurately evaluated compared to the offense of a player who adds 10 runs.
There is another discrepancy here as well- tons of people (okay, maybe not tons) break +50 on offense every season while it’s never happened on defense (and probably can’t).
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 20, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand why you believe #2.
There’s no evidence to suggest that players with those combination of skillsets aren’t equally difficult to find.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear
it’s not that defense is less difficult than offense, it’s that plus defense (or whatever you want to describe Ryan as) AND a .296 wOBA is as difficult to find as average defense and a .340 wOBA.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See above list
Those are all players who are worth at least +5 runs by UZR/150 this season. That’s a whole lot more names than are on the +.340 wOBA list that I put above it.
FWIW, all those defensive guys are as good or better than Ryan is at the plate. He’s pretty much a replacement level player unless his defense is +20 runs good, and even Jack Wilson hasn’t been that good for the last 3 years in a row, so how can you say that Ryan will be?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're basically arguing that Adam Everett was a myth.
Players with good defense can be lesser hitters and still be as valuable. There’s still no evidence that if player A derives his value from defense and player B from offense, one is more scarce than the other.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that Everett is a myth
but that he simply isn’t as valuable a player with above average offensive ability (which there are few) and average defense, especially for a team that is struggling offensively at the middle infield positions like the Cardinals are.
There are so few good offensive SS that can field their position that players like Everett have value to teams who don’t have one of those good offensive SS.
Ryan has value, but Escobar has much more considering how much better he is offensively. No team in their right mind would take Ryan of Escobar in an expansion draft if one were to happen today.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he isn't
At his projected level of offensive production (.295 wOBA), he only needs to be a +10 defender to be worth 2 WAR. I think everyone agrees that he is +10 at short.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How's that?
You don’t even agree that he’s a +10 defender! Your very own analysis pegged him at around +7 by the end of 2009.
See, this is where the debate gets hairy, because you have a performance metric that isn’t accurate unless you have multiple years of data. If you think that Mo would take Ryan over Escobar if he had a choice between the two you need mental help. Which brings us back to the question: How much will he cost us in prospects? That’s really the only question on the table here. It has nothing to do with Ryan’s value. If we can acquire Escobar for two prospects that are redundant parts in the Cardinal farm system (John Jay, Allen Craig, Pete Kozma, etc.) then you make that deal.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My "analysis" wasn't complete in anyway
By my eyes, he looks like a +10 defender… that’s all I’ve got.
Nobody has ever said that we would take Ryan over Escobar. We have gone past that debate.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, they aren't
There are plenty of SS who could be worth around 5 to 10 runs on defense but never get a chance at the big leagues because they can’t hit. A player like Escobar will probably get the majors even if he can’t field a lick at SS because his bat will move him somewhere on the field where he will be a decent defensive player. It’s just a bonus that he can hold his own at SS.
You’re still assuming that Ryan is a +20 SS, and that’s simply not true. You have no statistical backup for saying so.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we’re not talking about players that make it to the majors with a .340 wOBA and then get moved off of SS. We’re talking about SS.
I’m not assuming that Ryan is a +20. I’m not even arguing about Ryan at this point.
You’re assertion that a player with good defense and a .296 wOBA is less difficult to find than a player average defense and a .340 wOBA seems to be based on something that a) I’m not aware of or b) doesn’t exist. Myself and VEP just want you to prove why a SS with those characteristics is, according to you, more scarce than a SS with plus defense and a lower wOBA.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude
I made a list of guys with +5 UZR/150 this year and a list of guys with a +.340 wOBA this year. One list is one HELL of a lot longer than the other one and includes only one player who is making any sort of cash this season (Jack Wilson).
Past 3 Calendar Years:
wOBA > .340 at SS
- Hanley Ramirez
- Derek Jeter
- Jimmy Rollins
- Jose Reyes
- Miguel Tejada
- Troy Tulowitzki
32. Brendan Ryan
UZR/150 > 5:
- Omar Vizquel = 18.5
- Tony Pena = 13.7
- J.J. Hardy = 11.9
- Marco Scutaro = 10.9
- Jack Wilson = 9.4
- Jimmy Rollins = 8.9
- Cesar Izturis = 7.1
- Troy Tulowitzki = 6.0
- Orlando Cabrera = 5.5
- Jason Bartlett = 4.8
16. Yunel Escobar = -1.7
The lowest innings total among those guys is 1632 by Scutaro — everyone else is over 2000 innings played. This draws a couple of conclusions:
- Expecting Ryan to be a +10 defender or better is an awfully big assumption, considering that a couple of “all glove” guys don’t even make that cut (Jack Wilson, Cesar Izturis).
- Rollins and Tulo are on both lists, which is why they’re superstar level players.
- Ryan is the 32nd best hitter, while Escobar is the 16th best fielder. Looks like one of those is harder to find.
Need any more?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're taking offense and defense in isolation in those lists
which is not what we’re arguing. If Ryan was “just” a +5 defender at short, that’s one thing. But he’s a +5 defender (you’re threshold not mine) with a .296 wOBA (or whatever). It’s the COMBINATION of those thresholds that are as valuable as your example of an offense first SS who is average as a defender.
You’re missing the second constraint on both lists.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To use specific examples
you’re saying Jeter is more valuable than Scutaro because Jeter’s value is primarily an offensive derivative and Scutaro’s is primarily a defensive derivative. There’s not evidence that you’ve presented that we should give Jeter an extra bonus because he’s an offense first SS. I’ve never seen a player evaluation done that way and you’ve offered no evidence as to why we should do it that way.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fourstick...
I happen to agree with you in this case, and feel you have made the better arguement. The one thing that you are missing is to show that the +10 defensive players (B’s) are at least neutral offensively (which is what we are projecting Ryan to be). If these players are +2 def, and +0 off then it proves that players of Ryan’s ilk are more readilly available.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
offense being more scarce
doesn’t make it more vaulable than defense. we’re not collecting stamps here. a win is a win and i’f we’re getting it from offense or defense or pulling it out of scott spezio’s ass, it’s still a damn win
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, actually it does
offense being more scarce doesn’t make it more vaulable than defense.
More scarce = harder to find
Harder to find = more valuable
Scarcity is the definition of value. My ’89 Topps complete set of baseball cards is worth next to nothing right now because if was one of the more popular sets out there that were sold as a full set. A ’66 Topps full set, however, has more value because there are fewer of them out there, so they are harder to find.
If I can find a guy who can play plus defense and hit at a replacement level on the waiver wire on a consistent basis, why does he have any “value” at all? Would a team pay for Tyler Greene? No, because chances are they have a Tyler Greene in their farm system. A team would pay for Yunel Escobar, because chances are they don’t have a player like him in their system.
It’s really that simple. You can metric me to death with your runs and wins and RAR and all that stuff, but it simply boils down to whether a player is replaceable easily, and a guy like Yunel is not.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yuni has more trade value than ryan. i didn’t think we were talking about that. if we’re not, your baseball card analogy is pointless.
i am (and i assume az and viva are) referring to a player’s value to the team as an every day player. and in that scenario, i fail to see how 0 wins offense + 2 wins defense is more valuable than 0 wins defense + 2 wins offense
is a 5 win defender (very rare) more valuable than a 5 win hitter (tough to find, but not as tough to find as a +50 defender)?
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is a 5 win defender (very rare) more valuable than a 5 win hitter (tough to find, but not as tough to find as a +50 defender)?
Depends on position, available talent, and whether you believe that a player can actually be a +50 run defensive player without playing two positions at once.
Generally, if you have a +10 defensive player he will have to add more than 0 runs on offense to be worth having on your team. Most of the +10 defensive players over the last three years have provided 1-2 wins worth of position adjusted offensive value as well. Ryan isn’t going to play over someone who gives the Cardinals 1-2 wins more on offense no matter how good his defense is.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, he will
If his defense is equally as good as the other players offense.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course there are no 5 win defenders
it’s a hypothetical to try and show you the error of your logic
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hypothetical fail
Why even do that? How does that help at all?
There’s no error in my logic. It’s your “players in a vacuum” logic that is all out of whack, sir. Sure, if there were an equal amount of 5 win defenders and 5 win offensive players (actually, let’s call them “lemmings”) who have replacement level talent on the other side of the baseball, then yes, those players, excuse me, LEMMINGS are equal.
Do you see the error in YOUR logic? There aren’t an equal number of those type of players in baseball at any one time. My whole entire point is that over the history of the game, including the last decade, it’s much harder to find a SS who has above average offensive ability and average defense than it is to find a great defensive player who has replacement level offensive value.
It’s not that they don’t equal out the same, it’s that if I’m picking from a pool of 15 players, those guys each have more value than if I’m picking from a pool of 40 players. Get it? If not, then leave me alone, because you obviously don’t understand what “scarcity” means.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as i said
i did it and it helps in pointing out the flaws in your constantly changing logic
i’m not making the assumption or putting any value in the abundance of a certain skill because i realize that 1=1 and win=win, so therefore 1 win = 1 win.
and yes, i get what you are saying. i don’t buy into your argument because i see the flaws in your logic. let’s take our hypothetical draft of lemmings. 10 players have albert pujols bat upside and they are the 10 best position players in the draft. 5 are pitchers and have adam wainwright upside and they are the five best pitchers in the draft. these are both cardinal players, so i know that you know which one is worth more wins over a season. are that wainos worth more simply because of their lack of abundance?
if not how should we adjust for scarcity? better yet, how does scarcity of a skillset make a team better? that’s all anyone is trying to figure out.
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now we're getting somewhere
are that wainos worth more simply because of their lack of abundance?
Making the assumption that both players will fail out at the same rate (which isn’t actually true), and that both are worth the same amount in wins each year, the pitchers would be worth more “value” because there simply aren’t as many of them available. In a real life version of your example, you’d be better off taking the Pujols-like player, because they have a lower flame out rate and will be worth nearly 3 times was a WW type player will be worth if they pan out.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
this hypothetical includes the assumption that then 10 hitters will absolutely pan out like pujols’ bat and the 5 pitchers will absolutely pan out like waino’s arm.
if you still think that WW’s are more valuable than the pujols, then we just fundamentally disagree. i’m taking the guy that’s worth more overall wins even if 9 other teams have the exact same hitter
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surely Escobar is more valuable than Ryan
not due to the scarcity of the individual defensive and offensive components of his skillset but because, combined, they’re better than the defensive and offensive components of Ryan’s? I really don’t see Ryan as better than average (even if his glove holds up to +10 run value, which I’m not certain of), but Yuni’s looking like a true talent 3 win guy to me.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i like this analysis.
Without running the numbers I thought escobar a better player but that the margin would be small. The closer question I think is what we’d be willing to give up for that one win. Which is probably nowhere near what the braves would want.
The mystery factor is whether we’d be better off having both on the team. Having both in the middle infield could be an upgrade – though trying to project skip’s value at 2b for next year would be nice. I also like the idea of having two legit SSs on the roster especially when our current candidate has a persistent wrist problem. Probably these benefits still don’t make a trade make sense, but I think they are worth considering.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
by tom s. on Jul 18, 2009 3:03 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon Az -- you're not this oblivious are you?
Brendan Ryan’s career batting average is around .270 — that’s if you use his MLE from his numbers in AAA as well. His career BABIP is .310. Given that he’s currently hitting .290 with a BABIP of .333, doesn’t it seem likely that he could regress to his career average or worse? If you also consider that he’s walking less this season than ever before, it makes it even more likely since his BA will fall almost in line with his BABIP.
Escobar’s career OBP is .370. His current OBP is .361. His OBP has been in decline from his rookie year, but it’s never been below .350 at any point in any season he’s been in the big leagues after 200 AB’s.
You can’t say that the likelihood of Ryan hitting .270 at the end of the season and Escobar OBPing .330 at the end of the season are in any way similar. They aren’t.
Consider the fact that you may be wrong on this one. I hate to be wrong too, but the evidence here is really in my favor, and has been well researched and represented. If you simply fall back on attacking me, you’ve lost the debate.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 18, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I’m not oblivious. And if you read back through the conversation, you’re the one slinging personal invectives not me.
All I was asking was for you to espouse the reasoning behind what you were saying. It’s the vogue thing to say that player X is going to regress. Not enough people say (or understand) WHY a player is going to or should be expected to regress.
Do I believe that Escobar is as likely to have a .330 OBP as Ryan is to be a .270 hitter? No. But relying on the person representing the opposing view point or a “general reading audience” to follow the same logic path as you have in your head is poor debating. You continually miss the point of what I was saying, which was less often that you were “wrong” and more often that you were making assertions without the underlying reasoning.
I still feel like Ryan is a 2-3 WAR player and Escobar is a 3-4 WAR player moving foward. You’re arguments about scarcity because of offense rather than defense are completely unconvincing (and there’s no evidence to back up that claim at all).
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still feel like Ryan is a 2-3 WAR player and Escobar is a 3-4 WAR player moving foward.
This sentence alone pretty well proves they aren’t “redundant players” doesn’t it?
I completely disagree that Ryan is going to be a 2-3 WAR player going forward. To assume that is to assume that his glove is going to be worth 15-20 runs because his bat will never be worth more than 5 runs in a season. You’re seeing his best possible offensive performance this year, I’m pretty sure of that, and he needs to hit around .300 in order to provide anywhere near the value that Escobar’s bat provides, not to mention Escobar can lead off for the Cardinals and we haven’t had a decent leadoff guy since the Whitey era. I don’t think Ryan’s glove will be worth 15-20 runs by the end of this season, so to assume that going forward is a big stretch.
You’re arguments about scarcity because of offense rather than defense are completely unconvincing (and there’s no evidence to back up that claim at all).
I’ve actually provided plenty of evidence on this topic. Tyler Greene, Pete Kozma, Ryan Jackson, and Brendan Ryan are all-field, no-hit SS in the Cardinal minor league system. There are currently 2 players, in all of baseball, who play SS and have better offensive production than Escobar this season, and both are probably future HOF players (one certainly is already in). You said yourself that “league average defense is replacement level defense” which basically says that it’s more difficult to be a league average hitter than a league average defender, because anyone at or below league average defensively can be replaced by a replacement level player. So, I can replace Ryan’s defense (let’s call it +10 runs) by calling up Tyler Greene, or signing a replacement level player (Nick Greene, Robert Andino, Ronny Cedeno, Adam Everett, Alex Gonzalez, Cesar Izturis), but I can only replace Escobar’s offense by trading for a HOF caliber player. Now, how is that not sufficient evidence to back up my claim?
You need to stop treating offensive value and defensive value as “interchangable” — they clearly aren’t when you look at the analysis this way. You can always find another glove man somewhere in the big leagues, but corralling a .356 wOBA player (currently that’s what he’s hitting) who can play league average defense is much, much tougher to do.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: Ryan v. Escobar — we disagree on the difference between these players. That discussion is over for me. I haven’t convinced you; you haven’t convinced me. It’s a dead end.
The larger issue is in the abstract. I’m not talking about just corralling any gloveman. This is so frustrating because you continue to cite players that don’t fit the situation.
Your stance is that:
Player A (2 win offense, +0 win defense) would be more valuable than Player B (0 win offense, +2 win defense)
WHY? As hazel says above, that’s like arguing that my dollar in quarters is worth more than your dollar in dimes.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point here...
Your stance is that:
Player A (2 win offense, +0 win defense) would be more valuable than Player B (0 win offense, +2 win defense)
- Player A is harder to come by. I’ve proven this above.
- Nearly every team in the MLB has a Player B in their farm system somewhere. The Cardinals have around 3 guys who are potential Player B’s.
- Player B simply doesn’t exist but once in a generation, making him nearly impossible to find, (Ozzie, Vizquel) and even then, he’s probably better than 0 wins on offense, because he wouldn’t make it to the big leagues otherwise.
- Defensive metrics are poorly correlated unless you have a giant sample size, and it’s very difficult to separate defensive value intrinsically from pitching value.
it’s not a matter of wins, it’s a matter of available talent. It’s harder to find a great hitting SS than it is to find a great fielding SS, and the great hitting SS will have value even if he can’t stay at SS, the great fielding SS has little value at all if his defense regresses slightly.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1). No. As mentioned above, you miss the secondary constraint for both lists.
2). No they don’t. The Cardinals have a few plus gloves but none that are simultaneously 0 wins on offense.
3). So now my defense first player is MORE scarce? I don’t understand the point of what you’re saying.
4). If you want to argue that we should pick Player A because we’re more sure of the value of offense and therefore can have greater confidence in our valuation comparison, fine; I’ll concede that offensive metrics are less noisy and there may be circumstances where you want reliability over estimation. But you haven’t made that argument previously.
Available talent is corrected by position not skillsets within a position’s population of players. I’m still trying to understand why you think we should value one skill more than another within a given population (SS).
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
3). So now my defense first player is MORE scarce? I don’t understand the point of what you’re saying.
No, I’m simply saying that it doesn’t exist at the level you have presented The only players who have consistently been 2 win players on defense are Vizquel and Ozzie, and they were worth 1 to 2 wins offensively for most of their careers.
Available talent is corrected by position not skillsets within a position’s population of players. I’m still trying to understand why you think we should value one skill more than another within a given population (SS).
Again, you miss the point. It’s not valuing one talent over the other, it’s valuing the AMOUNT of available talent over the other. Your defensive SS example doesn’t exist over the last three seasons because every guy with +10 defense also has better than replacement level offensive value except one: Tony Pena Jr., and you’ll find him at the top of every Royal’s fans “Players You Hate the Most” list. I’d like to have the guy that actually exists and can help the offensive over the guy who literally doesn’t exist at all. Does that mean there are no players with +20 run defensive talent at SS? No, it doesn’t — it means that those guys very rarely are good enough offensively to make it with a major league club, and those that do are above average offensive players at their position. There are more Tony Pena’s than there are Yunel Escobar’s, that’s what I’m saying.
Furthermore, you’ve made two assumptions in this thread that I fundamentally disagree with:
- Ryan is a .300 wOBA offensive player
- Ryan is a +10 or better defensive UZR/150 player.
Both are assumptions that I’ve refuted by looking at his offensive statistics for this season comparitively to his career and looking at the likelihood of him being a +10 or better defender in the future given that only 4 guys in all of baseball have been able to be that good over the past 3 years. There’s nothing predictive about UZR at all. It’s not a predictive statistic. wOBA is predictive, but Ryan hasn’t had enough at bats yet to get a very good correlation to the data set. Escobar’s data, both defensively and offensively give us a pretty good idea of his talent level, and thus makes him a surer bet.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ryan is projected to be a .296 wOBA player
Are you really arguing about .4 points? Also, Ryan has been a +17 defensive player, in a small sample size. It’s entirely possible that he is +10 .
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not arguing at all
Are you really arguing about .4 points? Also, Ryan has been a +17 defensive player, in a small sample size. It’s entirely possible that he is +10 .
Simply saying that there’s just as good a likelihood that he’s as good as you’re saying and just as good a likelihood that he’s as bad as I think he could be.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he is a +10 defender
So do most people on this board.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Player A is harder to come by. I’ve proven this above.
there’s only one guy on that list even close to +2 wins on defense
Nearly every team in the MLB has a Player B in their farm system somewhere. The Cardinals have around 3 guys who are potential Player B’s
where’s the evidence that every team has a +20 run defender in their system?
Player B simply doesn’t exist but once in a generation, making him nearly impossible to find, (Ozzie, Vizquel) and even then, he’s probably better than 0 wins on offense, because he wouldn’t make it to the big leagues otherwise.
rofl, this is in complete contradiction of you last two points and your entire argument. i agree
Defensive metrics are poorly correlated unless you have a giant sample size, and it’s very difficult to separate defensive value intrinsically from pitching value.
right. but that’s not the point. we’re valuing defense v offense, not the validity of the metrics that value them
it’s not a matter of wins, it’s a matter of available talent. It’s harder to find a great hitting SS than it is to find a great fielding SS
that’s such convoluted logic, and it’s been repeatedly refuted. a win is a win is a win. the scarcity of the area that win is coming from is irrelevant. can’t believe you’re now resorting to the argument that the amount of wins doesn’t matter. it’s a sport. that’s the whole point
and the great hitting SS will have value even if he can’t stay at SS, the great fielding SS has little value at all if his defense regresses slightly.
this is true. and part of the reason why yuni is a more valuable player than ryan. it’s not an argument that 2 wins offense from a SS this year is more valuable than 2 wins defense from a SS this year
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTF?
rofl, this is in complete contradiction of you last two points and your entire argument. i agree
This isn’t a contridiction, idiot. It actually furthers my point. Don’t you think it’s strange that a team like San Diego couldn’t wait to get rid of Ozzie Smith because they didn’t think he could hit? He’s the best defensive SS that ever has played the game, but if he hadn’t developed into a switch hitter who could provide 1-2 wins of offensive value, he never makes it past age 27 as a starter in the big leagues. Period. You have to bring some offensive value to your team, you can’t just be a black hole hitting in the lineup.
Also, to say that you would choose a +20 defensive player over a +20 offensive player based on the metrics we have today is utterly fucking ridiculous!!! You can’t even be sure that the guy who’s +20 on defense won’t be a replacement level defensive player the next season! Look at the season by season UZR/150 and then compare it to the list of guys that are on the 3 year average — there’s players who are +10 defensively one year and then drop off the face of the earth the next season for no particular reason whatsoever. UZR is so bad at predicting future performance it’s insane to think that anyone would use it as the basis for selecting a player with no offensive value at all over a player with good offensive value.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
first of all
you’re being an utter fucking tool. it’s not my fault that you are using intellectually inconsistent arguments and are too fucking dense to realize it. name-calling is the last flailing resort of one who knows they are fighting a losing battle
now, how many times does it need to be explained to you that no one is arguing the validity of uzr? the assumption is that the player is undoubtedly worth 20 runs defensively. and where did i say that i’m taking the +20 defense over the +20 offense? the entire fucking argument is that are exactly the same value. something to tune of, oh i don’t know, maybe +20 runs or so. seems like a ridiculous assessment, i know, but i’m sticking to the notion that 20=20.
and yes your argument is a contradiction if you understand the english language and the term “contradiction.” you said that 2 offensive wins are more valuable than 2 defensive wins because they are harder to find (which is still based on retarded logic). then you turned right around and said that it’s almost impossible to find a +20 defender at SS. how is that not a contradiction?
let’s back track to your tony pena argument, because i know you’re going to bring it up. the year that he derived two wins from his defense, his overall value was -1.4 war! that’s why he’s in the minor leagues. not because he’s a 0 win hitter, but because he’s a fucking -3.1 win hitter! any gm that has any fucking sense isn’t sending a 2 war player to play at AAA. why? probably because he’s worth 2 goddamned wins above replacement
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again with the insults to my intelligence
any gm that has any fucking sense isn’t sending a 2 war player to play at AAA. why? probably because he’s worth 2 goddamned wins above replacement
Az has found one guy in the last 10 years who’s been this good and had less than replacement value at SS.
You’re also assuming that because there are no +20 defensive players with replacement level offense at the SS position that those guys don’t exist. They do, they just don’t make it to the major leagues very often. A lot of times they peter out in AA or AAA ball, because teams value your bat a lot more than your glove. If you can’t hit in the minors, you’re getting no shot at playing defense in the majors no matter how good you are at it.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it maye be true
your point about GMs valuing offense more than defense. it still doesn’t mean that 1 win offense > 1 win defense. also, a lot of these type of guys that i think you’re referring to (tyler greene) may be great defenders, but they are <0 wins offense, thereby negating some or even all of or more of their defensive value
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Everett has
NEVER, in his entire career, been a positive with the bat. Somehow he’s managed to stay in the majors.
Stop perpetuating this idea that good defenders never stick if they don’t hit. It’s not true.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good example
would you take Adam Everett over Yunel Escobar though?
Right, didn’t think so.
Everett is also 31 years old this season, and his current UZR/150 is 5.0. Now, how long do you think he’ll be a starting SS with his negative offensive value and defense at 5.0? He should be out of baseball right now, but he’s getting by on reputation, assuming that UZR is correct. He’s on a one year contract with the Tigers, who had no SS when he was signed.
Do you want to make a wager that he will be a starting SS for someone next year barring an injury to their regular SS?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your point was that they’d NEVER MAKE THE MAJORS!!!!!!! He’s been in the majors for like 7 years.
And yes, I’d take Everett of Escobar if they were comparable overall values because in a normal run environment, it doesn’t matter how they derive their value.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This hurts my brain.
Your position is so inconsistent, I don’t even know what it is anymore.
I give.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but everett
is only averaging about 1 WAR per year the last three years. yuni is averaging around 2.5 WAR the last three years. of course anyone would choose yuni over everett
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
exactly. Why do people keep bringing this shit up? It doesn’t further the discussion at all.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ryan's fielding just about evens the gap in hitting
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 18, 2009 3:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is somewhat related to the Ryan/Escobar thread
but I’m posting it separately, so it doesn’t get squeezed into that increasingly small subthread.
Here’s a link to some defensive aging curves based on UZR data. Does anyone have a link to purely offensive analysis. I’ve seen studies done on PECOTA data but I wonder if that’s strictly offense since there seems to be a lot of external components in PECOTA projection rather than one based just on, say, wOBA for example.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 10:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We should restart the discussion here
I can’t tell who I am replying to anymore :)
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see Fourstick answer this question
Why does scarcer equal more valuable? If a player saves 10 runs, how does he contribute to winning games any less than a player who gains 10 runs?
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn't contribute to winning games any more or any less
But the player who gains 10 runs is harder to find (i.e. scarce) than the player who saves 10 runs. It’s simple economics: A good is more valuable if the demand is higher than the supply. It’s price will go up as the demand exceeds the supply so the good has more “value” to the seller because there are fewer like goods available.
It’s similar with the players in question here: You can’t make the case that there are more .340 wOBA/0 UZR/150 SS than there are .296 wOBA/+5 UZR/150 defensive SS because it simply isn’t true. Not only that, if the better hitting SS regresses defensively, you could move him to second base or third base because his bat will still have value. You can’t do that with the defensive plus SS, because his entire value is being derived from being a “great defensive short stop”, because of the positional scarcity that is factored into the WAR calculation. If you move that guy to 3B, he’s nearly worthless to you because his offense won’t stack up with other 3B even if his defense is better.
Also, there are exactly 4 players who have been worth 10 runs on defense at SS over the last three years: Vizquel, Hardy, Pena, and Scutaro. Pena isn’t in the big leagues because he can’t hit his weight, Vizquel is the best defensive SS in baseball the last 15 years (and still better than average offensively for most of that time), and Hardy and Scutaro are good all-around players. Only Pena got as many innings as he did simply because of his defense. This should tell you a couple of things:
- Teams don’t value great defense at SS unless that player can provide some offensive value as well.
- Assuming Ryan is going to be a +10 SS for the next three years running is an extremely favorable assumption. Especially since Tango’s analysis indicates that he will begin to decline at age 28 (next season). If he’s not at least a +10 defender, it’s going to be very difficult for him to be anywhere near a 2 win player because his bat provides him little to no value at all. Will Escobar begin to decline too? Yes, but his bat will continue to provide value for at least 2-3 more years, which makes it extremely likely he will be worth 5-6 more wins over that time frame than Ryan will be*.
*I’m basing this on the analysis of batting age curves for players born in the 1960’s which shows the peak age at around 28.5 with a slight regression by age 30 on average for those players)
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A good is more valuable if the demand is higher than the supply. It’s price will go up as the demand exceeds the supply so the good has more "value" to the seller because there are fewer like goods available.
Why would a team pay more for an offensive minded shortstop than a defensive minded one? That’s just bad business. Like AZ said, it doesn’t matter how a player derives his value if they are in the same population.
The aging curves are interesting, but as far as I can tell, offense and defense have a very similar pattern (with defense declining .5 years earlier). I don’t know how you pull 5-6 wins out of your ass.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...that's easy
I don’t know how you pull 5-6 wins out of your ass.
Escobar > Ryan = 1 win this year. Over three years, that’s three wins.
Let’s now assume that Ryan regresses offensively to a .290 wOBA with +5 defense, which is entirely possible, while Escobar’s defense remains around league average while his bat maintains a .340 wOBA. That equals an extra .70 wins per season, which over three seasons is around 2.10 wins total. Add that number to the 3 we’ve already determined and that’s 5.10 wins over the next three seasons.
The assumptions above are huge. Considering you yourself think that UZR requires around 2000 innings to be in any way predictive, assuming Ryan stays a +5 or better defender is a much bigger assumption than Escobar staying an average defender. Also, I’ve assumed Escobar’s offensive talent to be about .15 worse than he’s been over the last 18 months, so I’m being very conservative. If he’s a true .355 to .360 wOBA player, he’ll be one of the top SS in the game over that three year period.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The aging curves are interesting, but as far as I can tell, offense and defense have a very similar pattern (with defense declining .5 years earlier). I don’t know how you pull 5-6 wins out of your ass.
Defense also declines twice as fast as offense does, meaning someone like Ryan loses his value twice as fast as someone like Escobar.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your arguments
that escobar is a better and more valuable player are completely accurate. no one is arguing those two. you’re arguing the specific and everyone else is trying to argue the abstract that 1 defensive win = 1 offensive win. the offensive win contributes exactly as much as the defensive win. the two are exactly as valuable in the short term as an every day player (ie, not trade bait)
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miss. The. Point.
the two are exactly as valuable in the short term as an every day player
Sure, they are as valuable right now, and tomorrow, and next week. But I’d much rather have the offensively gifted player in the long run than the defensively gifted player. I can’t think of too many defensive wizards with no offensive value at all playing much after age 30 in the MLB. The exception would be Ozzie, who was a fan favorite for some really bad Cardinal ballclubs in the early 90’s.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then i agree
but i was under the impression that were arguing that 1 offensive win > 1 defensive win based on the arguments you were presenting. like you said, defense declines twice as fast as offense, so of course escobar would be more valuable 5 years from now than someone of equal value who derives such value from defense. maybe i missed the point, but only from lack of clarity on your part. and it sure seems i’m not the only one having difficulty picking your overlying point out of your ever changing argument
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was arguing that...
1 offensive win is more valuable than 1 defensive win TO THIS TEAM. Not sure if that’s correct, but the logic that a guy with at .360+ OBP at the top of the lineup would do more for this team than his defense would cost us makes sense to me.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think that' his argument, also
i think that 1 win is 1 win and is worth 1 win to any team in MLB
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that's true as well...
but then we got off on the tangent that 10 wins on offense is inequal to 10 wins on defense, which I never actually said. I simply said that good bats at the SS position are harder to find and are more valuable than glove men when you find them. I think that position is pretty clear and, looking at history, pretty viable.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's az and viva that keep changing the subject
This started as a “Who’s more valuable, Escobar or Ryan” topic. I said Escobar, and Az claimed that they were “redundant players”, which they are clearly not, by every possible test of ability.
Viva broke it down by statistical means, putting Escobar about 1 win more valuable than Ryan, which is more than enough to make me want to trade from him. I then simply said that because Escobar’s bat is harder to find and will more than likely be more valuable over the course of the next three cost controlled seasons, he is clearly a better player for the Cardinals.
I don’t know where all that got lost, but that’s essentially my point.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No you didn't
After I broke down the two players, you said this:
Sure, overall Escobar might be worth one more win, but based on the scarcity of players who can play league average SS and have a wOBA of .336, I would guess he’s worth more than that.
That was the statement that we had a problem with. You were essentially saying that an offense first shortstop was worth more than a defense first shortstop given the same overall value. We asked you to defend that, and you simply listed anecdotes about scarcity. I asked you several times to clarify your position, and you never gave me a straight answer.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with all of that
and i remember az saying they are redundant players. having both of them seems like some wasted talent and maybe that’s his point, but they are not redundant as i understand the term
still pretty sure somewhere along the lines you were arguing that 1 win offense > 1 win defense because 1 win offense is harder to find. that’s not true. BUT. a 27-year-old 1 win offense, 0 win defense player is more valuable when accounting for the current year and the future than a 27-year-old 0 win offense, 1 win defense player including the current season and the future. is that your argument?
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
woooooooooo
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hence
When we’re talking about a players value, we aren’t just talking about his current value, we’re talking about his future value to the team as well, unless that player isn’t going to be around in the future (i.e. leaving as a FA, retiring, etc.).
I thought that you guys would understand this, considering that’s been the backbone of my argument for most of the post, that Escobar has more “value” to a team than Ryan does.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure but it evolved
i’m not the only one who understood your eventual argument to mean that 1 win offense > 1 win defense. is it possible that you were being unclear? or is it just certain that all three of us are imbeciles?
also, funny that you feel like perpetuating the argument when i went out of my way to try and clarify your argument and present it in clear, concise language
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh.
i’m not the only one who understood your eventual argument to mean that 1 win offense > 1 win defense.
That’s not what I’m saying. Again, you’re missing the point. We’re not talking about one moment in time.
is it possible that you were being unclear? or is it just certain that all three of us are imbeciles?
Is it also possible that the three of you made a clear inference about offensive and defensive runs being un-equal from another debate entirely and applied it to this one? Look back at the post dude, I never said that, ever. I was simply making it clear that Escobar has more “value” than Ryan does because of an assortment of factors which I clearly spelled out. None of those included anything about whether 10 runs equals 10 runs or any of that shit. It’s you that kept bringing that up, not me.
When you start arguing something that I don’t disagree with, and then tell me that I disagree with it, it remains hard remain on point.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might want to re-read this whole thread then
your arguments that escobar is a better and more valuable player are completely accurate.
Because that’s how this whole thing got started in the first place.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i did read it
the argument evolved. if you remember when the argument started, i told you that i agreed with you that escobar > ryan, but you argue like a fucking tool with a chip on your shoulder. the argument has since changed when you started making the claims that 1 offensive win > 1 defensive win. if you don’t realize that the argument has evolved, you’re the only one. i’m not even the first to point out the this is no longer about comparing ryan and escobar
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See
the argument has since changed when you started making the claims that 1 offensive win > 1 defensive win.
I never argued this. Ever. You are all arguing that I think this way, when that hasn’t been my point. Um, ever.
My entire point was that the offensive player is more valuable to the organization than the defensive player. It’s you guys who started getting all pissed off about defense and offense and “what does it matter where he derives his value” and shit. Not me. I’ve simply backed up my argument that the offensively talented SS has greater “value” than the defensive talented SS. If you agree with this, then the problem is that you let viva and az get you all out of sorts with their offensive runs vs. defensive runs argument, which I’ve never refuted.
Here’s the problem I have with az, and have in many debates: There are a ton of times where he argues with what he thinks you’re saying and not with what you’re actual point is. I’ve been here before — I didn’t say anything, even around 10 offensive runs being in-equal to 10 defensive runs. Look back — I’ve never said that. But because people like to challenge that notion all the time, even though I’m not one of those people, that’s where the debate goes. It doesn’t stay on topic.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is utter crap:
You need to stop treating offensive value and defensive value as "interchangable" — they clearly aren’t when you look at the analysis this way.
Sure, overall Escobar might be worth one more win, but based on the scarcity of players who can play league average SS and have a wOBA of .336, I would guess he’s worth more than that.
You couldn’t clearly articulate your argument. The quotes above very clearly indicate that we shouldn’t be treating offensive and defensive value the same. You’re arguing for some kind of a coefficient or modifier because offense at SS is “more scarce”.
You changed the argument because you’ve done a horrendous job of explaining whatever it is you are saying.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Context please:
This is from July 18th:
Here’s the paragraph above the one you quoted:
You said yourself that "league average defense is replacement level defense" which basically says that it’s more difficult to be a league average hitter than a league average defender, because anyone at or below league average defensively can be replaced by a replacement level player. So, I can replace Ryan’s defense (let’s call it +10 runs) by calling up Tyler Greene, or signing a replacement level player (Nick Greene, Robert Andino, Ronny Cedeno, Adam Everett, Alex Gonzalez, Cesar Izturis), but I can only replace Escobar’s offense by trading for a HOF caliber player. Now, how is that not sufficient evidence to back up my claim?
Basically, az, this is you saying the defensive replacement level is higher in run value than offensive replacement level. That’s what you said. The only reason for that to be the case is because defensive runs are more easily replaceable than offensive runs. So based on the scarcity of offensive runs, wouldn’t the offensive run generating player be more valuable? So like I said, when you look at the analysis this way, they aren’t interchangable, because the replacement level in terms of runs is different. Not that 10 offensive runs doesn’t equal 10 defensive runs, but that a defensive replacement will be worth more defensive runs than an offensive replacement. Clear? It’s not that we don’t treat offensive and defensive runs the same it’s that our expected runs for offensive and defensive replacement level players aren’t the same, as you said in your post.
Also, this was in one of my first posts clear back on Saturday when we started this debate:
Your entire point is that RIGHT NOW they are redundant players. What I’m saying is that Escobar profiles to be a much better bet at maintaining his current value than Ryan is over the course of the rest of the season and over the next three years of cost-control.
That certainly seems to state my position pretty well doesn’t it?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you did make that argument
maybe not in such clear terms, but you said that the offensive wins are more valuable than the defensive wins because they are more difficult to find. you went on to validate this argument by comparing collector’s items (your baseball cards) to value producing business expensive (employees, ie: baseball players)
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
business expenses*
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See above reply to Az's post
I’ve spelled it out pretty clear. If I’ve misunderstood what he was trying to insinuate then we really have a problem with replacement level player value, which leads to my scarcity argument.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uncle.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This has been one fucked up post, so I'll try to summarize here
Fourstick- we all agree with most of your points. We agree that Escobar is better than Ryan. We agree that an offense first shortstop has more value because they decline less.
Your arguments have also been fluctuating. The first statement that I had a problem with was this:
Sure, overall Escobar might be worth one more win, but based on the scarcity of players who can play league average SS and have a wOBA of .336, I would guess he’s worth more than that.
That was the statement that we all had a problem with. Your position throughout most of this post was that an offense first shortstop was better than a defense first shortstop. Somehow, you changed that argument into age regressions, scarcity and trade value.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
this sums up my understanding of it pretty well
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worth more in reality...
and worth more in perception can be two different things. If you compare the longevity and salary of type A players with type B players I think you will find that the league values the former much more so than the latter. Perhaps this is one of those oversights in the market like OBP was in the days of moneyball, but that does not change the fact that in THIS market a offense first shortstop has more value than a defense first SS provided that the other parts of their game are approximately league average.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
You don’t see a lot of 20 defensive players who have replacement level offensive value earning $10M per year. Also, if what they’re claiming is true, then you should be able to build a juggernaut team based on just defense for cheap by exploiting market inefficiencies.
I’d like to see the Pythag on a team of +20 defenders with average pitching and replacement level hitting, and compare that to a team with all +20 offensive players with the same pitching and replacement level (or league average so I’ve been told) defense. Then I’d like to regress that with aging curves and see how the defensive team would fare over time, not changing the pitching constant at all. I’m pretty sure you’re going to see the team with the offensive players win more games as a whole.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the difference there being
replacement level defense is >0 wins and replacement level offense is <0 wins
if you have two teams, both with the exact same pitching staff, but one is full of +20 defense, 0 offense and the other is filled with +20 offense, 0 defense, they are going to win the same amount of games. the pythag would be the same (or at least damn close)
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
replacement level defense is >0 wins and replacement level offense is <0 wins
Which fundamentally doesn’t make any sense to me, but I’m not getting into a debate with two baseball geniuses about it either.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well,
it should make sense to you. it plays right into your scarcity argument
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I've been told, again and again, in this thread
that my scarcity argument is wrong. So, which is it? If the above statement is correct than my scarcity argument has even more merit than I was giving it.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
league average defenders are more readily available than league average hitters. i don’t know exactly how many runs each are worth per their league average skill. regardless, if we assume that league average hitters and defenders are worth 1 win per their respective league average skills, one is still not more valuable than the other based on scarcity. they are worth 1 win per their respective league average skill
and yes, it validates your argument that defenders are easier to find than hitters. it doesn’t validate your argument that such scarcity makes one more valuable than the other
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can that be the case?
and yes, it validates your argument that defenders are easier to find than hitters. it doesn’t validate your argument that such scarcity makes one more valuable than the other
You keep defining value in “runs”. I’m talking about value to the team. There’s a difference. A player I can easily replace isn’t worth any value to my team — if he suffers a career ending injury I can find someone to replace him fairly easily, meaning don’t have any “value” to my team as an asset.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe
you can’t replace him with a player with the exact same skillset, but you can replace him with a player with the same overall value
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You actually changed the argument
I stand by my quoted statement. I do believe he has more value currently and in the future than someone like Ryan does.
It’s you guys who started the whole “so defensive runs are less important than offensive runs” crap. I’ve never denied that.
Here’s my position, whether you agree with it or not:
Since there are few players that can hit at a .340 wOBA level and play league average SS, those players are worth more in value to their team than a defensive wizard at +20 runs. This is due to the large regression in defensive skills that happens at twice the rate of regressing offensive skills, the value of a offensive players ability to change position and still retain value, and the lack of players with that offensive ability at the SS position. When you consider that only a handful of players were able to retain a +20 run or better defensive prowess for more than a few seasons, it seems unlikely that you will be able to accurately predict how those players will age, whereas you can generally predict a regression in offensive skill with a fairly decent amount of accuracy, given the proper amount of data.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus Christ dude
You never mentioned the age regression bit, until well down in the comments section and only after AZ brought it up. Your initial point was that a +5 defense shortstop was worth less than a +5 offensive shortstop, simply because there were more of the latter.
And yes, I agree with your eventual position. So do prophet and AZ, I assume. However, you hadn’t made that clear until we were well into the argument. AZ can verify that this is a stigma of a lot of debates that happen with you.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So
because you guys can’t pick up what I’m putting down early on and I have to spell it out like I work for Sesame Street, that means I’m wrong, when I was right all along?
Go take a long leap off a short bridge then.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
sweet, sweet victory. your sarcastic, veiled concession is a concession nonetheless
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, because you don't make clear what you are initially arguing
and then suddenly change arguments midway, and expect us to keep up.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fourstick
There’s three separate people who were trying to interpret what you were saying and NONE of us could figure it out. You asked me earlier to admit when I may have been wrong; it might be a good time to take your own advice.
Your position may have been right once it was fully fleshed out. You seem unable to do that until I started introducing age and decline and multiyear projsections. What I asked for from the very beginning was for you to flesh out the reasoning for your arguments because we couldn’t follow it.
Instead of being snide about it, maybe you could take something away from the fact that it took us about 75 comments to elucidate your position.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the problem here
is that all three of you kept attributing things to me that I’ve never said, including this gem:
So you think that 10 offensive runs doesn’t equal 10 defensive runs
Where did I say that? Find it please, because I never made that case. But when you accuse me of making that case, and I tell you 3 different times that I agree they are equal, do you see how frustrating it is to get my point across? You’re constantly attributing something to me that I don’t agree with and never said. Period. Saying a player has more value than another player in no way states that defensive runs < offensive runs. You inferred that because you’ve all had arguments about that with other people before. You jumped to conclusions and made me defend a statement I never made to elucidate my point. That’s very difficult to do.
It’s hard not to be snide when people are quoting your posts and then applying their own logic to them without looking at what I was saying and not just hearing what they want to hear. It’s very difficult to elucidate your argument when you have three people constantly accusing you of saying things that you never said. If anything, I was right to begin with and my argument only got better when you decided to introduce age curves and multi-year projections into the middle of it.
I was clear from the beginning of the post.
Az,
You started arguing that they were redundant players. Even prophet and viva don’t agree with that. Then you said that 1 WAR isn’t a lot of difference and that they could be redundant players. So, who’s changing their argument? You are. They are not redundant players, they never were. I didn’t need 75 posts to illuminate that. Another poster on here (cardzfanbub) immediately understood what I was saying and got my point quickly, even after just reading little more than half the posts, considering the one that he commented on. The difference is that he didn’t decide to assume things about me, he simply looked at what I wrote and formulated my position from that.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Found them here: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2009/7/13/945402/update-on-the-40-man-roster#18414827
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You linked to your own post...
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which quoted you
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which I've replied to up above
Thanks for taking me completely out of context though.
When you look at the whole argument I put forth there, it makes a lot of sense, and it’s based on your own statement, so essentially you’re now shooting holes in your own foot.
If you simply only read what you want to read, I can see why you are so confused, you’re only seeing the parts you disagree with.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You need to read up on defensive metrics if you
don’t understand how replacement level defense and league average defense are the same thing. That’s all I can tell you. It’s part of the definition. You’re issues with that stem from you not understanding how the metrics are defined.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See
here we go insulting my intelligence again. You’ve now assumed that I haven’t read up on defensive metrics. I have, and I’m not the only one who has a problem with the way replacement value is determined, am I?
Here’s a link to Sean Smith’s article on it — seems to refute your argument about “replacement level” being equal to league average, but I digress. Good read nonetheless.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think
he was insulting your intelligence. just questioning your education on the topic
big difference, but maybe you’re just not smart enough to figure that out
just kidding!!
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may be
but insinuating that I haven’t “read up” on defensive metrics because my conclusions aren’t the same as his sure sounds like him wagging his finger at me, and that’s really not appreciated.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To answer the last point
I STILL feel they are redundant players. If I had Brendan Ryan and Yunel Escobar on a team right now, I’d try to trade one because I can’t get maximum value out of two capable SS when they’re both on the same team. It’s the same reason that I wouldn’t want Albert Pujols and Carlos Pena on the same team; having both doesn’t get me the max value that both are capable of with full playing time.
What you attributed to me that I NEVER ARGUED was that Ryan was better than Escobar. I never one said that. You may have thought I was saying that and that seems to be what you apparently thought you were railing against, but I never said that.
And you’ve been about as arrogant and downright nasty as possible this entire thread.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somehow I managed to not be snide or curse at you
when you misrepresented my argument.
Three people couldn’t understand what you were driving at until 75 comments later.
But it’s our fault.
Unreal.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you attributed to me that I NEVER ARGUED was that Ryan was better than Escobar.
Show me where please. That’s bullshit. I simply said they weren’t redundant players.
I STILL feel they are redundant players.
And you’re STILL wrong. But don’t let that get in the way of arguing for three days about it.
Three people couldn’t understand what you were driving at until 75 comments later.
But it’s our fault.
Unreal.
Three people didn’t read my post from Saturday where my argument was straightforward. Cardsfanbub read it and got my point immediately. You’re right, unreal.
And you’ve been about as arrogant and downright nasty as possible this entire thread.
Really? I’ve been called a liar, been told I’ve refuted my points when I haven’t, been labeled things I’m not, and been forced to defend a point of view I don’t agree with to avoid surrendering my point on the topic. One wonders if those in this thread would try and make me look like an idiot if I was standing in front of their face.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me where please.
How do I show you where I never argued something?
And you’re STILL wrong.
And you’re still incapable of proving why. But don’t let that stop you from being a complete jerk about it. And don’t bother addressing the point of having a 2-3 WAR SS and a 3-4 WAR SS isn’t redundant when neither one can max out their value.
Three people didn’t read my post from Saturday where my argument was straightforward.
We all read it. It didn’t make sense. Hazel read it and questioned it too.
Your writing and reading comprehension have been flat out absent in this thread. You’ve made contradictions about scarcity and you’ve been unable to figure out how to type what your actual argument is. Instead you blame it on everyone else misinterpreting you.
I have no doubt that you’re an intelligent person but after today you’ve shown you can’t engage in a civil conversation. You’re retort is something akin to “they did it first” as if that alleviates your of responsibility for your actions. Over and over and over I approached it not as if you were an idiot but ASKING for further explanation because what you were trying to say wasn’t clear. You respond with vitriol and invectives. It’s been an unfortunate showing on your part.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Jul 20, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
How do I show you where I never argued something?
Again, deep breath, READ. Show me where I attributed this to you. You can’t because I didn’t. I simply said they weren’t redundant players, because they aren’t.
You’ve made contradictions about scarcity and you’ve been unable to figure out how to type what your actual argument is.
This has been my argument the entire time:
Your entire point is that RIGHT NOW they are redundant players. What I’m saying is that Escobar profiles to be a much better bet at maintaining his current value than Ryan is over the course of the rest of the season and over the next three years of cost-control.
Nobody replied to the comment that was contained in. None. Perhaps it was because you were happy to keep arguing with me about offensive v. defensive runs and whatnot and so forth and all the other things I’ve never said. You keep saying “that sounds a lot like” implying that YOU’RE the one making the assumption and jumping to another bridge, not me.
I have no doubt that you’re an intelligent person but after today you’ve shown you can’t engage in a civil conversation. You’re retort is something akin to "they did it first" as if that alleviates your of responsibility for your actions. Over and over and over I approached it not as if you were an idiot but ASKING for further explanation because what you were trying to say wasn’t clear. You respond with vitriol and invectives. It’s been an unfortunate showing on your part.
Wow, talk about arrogance. You, sir, do not have the posterity here nor anywhere else, based on this conversation, to declare what is and isn’t civil conversation. Civil conversation would be you, asking me, in a positive manner to explain what I meant. Instead you quote posts, blast me on the board for not knowing what I’m talking about, and ask me to defend things I’ve never said. How is that civil conversation on your part? I should just apologize to you because you didn’t read my comment that stated my position clearly? Really? That’s fucking rich, it really is.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One wonders if those in this thread would try and make me look like an idiot if I was standing in front of their face.
hahahahaha
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with all of this
except the scarcity argument. whether it’s true or not that 2 offensive wins are more scarce than 2 defensive wins, i don’t see how one is more valuable than the other based on abundance. since they’re providing the same overall value, it doesn’t take the same dynamic as your traditional free market economics. the skillset that’s scarcely available has to be intrinsically more valuable than the skillset that is readily available. and by your argument, the two skillsets are equally valuable in terms of WAR, and the value is only affected by the scarcity of the skillsets from which those WAR are derived. it doesn’t make sense to me. offense is more valuable because it declines slower. not because it’s harder to accrue wins there than on defense
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I think the decline phase and unreliability of defensive metrics are good argument,
the whole scarcity argument is one that makes no fucking sense to me. Evidence cited for it includes All-star appearances by players with good offense, and number of players at one position during one year with positive offense being lower than the number of players at that position with positive defense. This is just a horribly simplistic argument that fails to account for sample size, run environment, and the fact that people that suck at a position but are good at offense usually get moved to a different position. This is especially true with positions high on the difficulty spectrum as almost every good baseball player was either a pitcher, shortstop, or center fielder early in their baseball career because those are where the best athletes go. As the talent became more condensed they were moved down to less difficult positions. This is also the part of the argument that starts to sound like 10 runs != 10 runs because of scarcity. There is no evidence that scarcity functions in this way and the economic theory quoted to support this point is useless in this context.
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 20, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The scarcity arguement...
IMO has more to do with how the league in general perceives it’s value. Like 4stick said 3+ win shortstops with approximately neutral defense are scarce, and the league values them more so than +3 win players with +2 win defense. As I said it could be a weakness in the market, or it could be the aging curve for defense vs. offense, or it could be the inaccuracy/unpredictability of defensive metrics. Either way there is not doubt that MLB teams assess more value to offensive minded SS’s than defensive.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Therefore, a player who is a 2 win offensive player/0 win defensive player has more “value” to his team than a player who has 2 wins of defensive value/0 wins offensive vale.
Am I going crazy or isn’t that what I’ve been saying the entire time?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since the scarcity isn't "real" i.e. doesn't actually confer value in its own right.
Doesn’t that mean by trading for Escobar we’d be trading for a commodity, whose price is higher than it should be relative to its value?
Ryan Theriot and Miguel Tejada play the same position and have similar values, but because of the (idiotic) over-valuing of offense by GM’s, Tejada is being paid 13M per season for his production. Just because offensive talent is scarce at one position doesn’t mean we should make the mistake of overpaying for it there. Because defensive talent is more common and more difficult to quantify, it’s cheaper, and we already have a valuable SS on our team. Would we not be better served by ignoring Escobar as “redundant” considering his natural position is spoken for and pursuing talent at spots where we do not have valuable players? Or if we do pursue Escobar, should we not ignore that he ever played SS and move him to a position where we don’t have an above-average starter and where his defense might be above replacement level?
Decrease runs scored?
Maybe.
Decrease winning? Never seen that proven.
-SFTU
by hazel on Jul 20, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don't totally disagree with this line of thinking
That’s essentially “Moneyball”: Exploit a part of the market that is undervalued.
Tejada didn’t sign that contract when his production was near Ryan Theriot’s though, he signed that contract when his production was over 5 WAR worth for three consecutive seasons afterward. If you take the total cost of the contract into account for the total WAR accumulated, the team most certainly comes out ahead on that one, just not in the span of one year at the tail end of the contract.
Even if Escobar was “redundant” with Ryan, which he isn’t, his bat certainly isn’t redundant with the other bats in our lineup at those positions. In terms of marginal WAR, our team would be better to acquire Escobar, move either he or Ryan to 2B or, and move Skip to the outfield. Or you could just move Escobar to third base for the rest of this season and put Derosa in LF when he comes back. Either way our ballclub is better off, and Escobar could always move to SS if Ryan get hurt (which he has throughout his professional career) or the team could move one of them to second base permanently.
It comes down to what it costs to get Escobar really, and we haven’t even gotten into that debate because it’s been difficult enough to prove that he’s of value to the Cardinals as a player.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s been difficult enough to prove that he’s of value to the Cardinals as a player
haha, jesus christ
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and this encouraged thought out...
conversation and debate in what way?
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this conversation/debate is dead. i could keep repeating myself or i can laugh at his melodrama and tough guyisms
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The conversation regarding whether or not...
Escobar and Ryan are redundant is over with somewhat of a draw or truce, but hazel’s question about value is on a different vein. One that I find interesting.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
meh
escobar’s cool. he’ll cost too much. other players would help more
Of course, hope means being cut down on some street corner, as you run like mad, by a random bullet.
by prophetjohn on Jul 20, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What players would help more?
And would cost relatively the same price?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 21, 2009 8:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Escobar is about a 1 WAR upgrade over Ryan
You agreed with that. Given that we are trotting out replacement level players in left and in the #5 spot in the rotation, a league average player in those spots would add just as many wins this year. Austin Kearns, Ian Snell, Odalis fucking Perez for all I care.
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 21, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This conversation has been over for a while
Derosa.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 20, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As 4stick said...
I see the logic in this comment, and wonder what kind of formula one would have to ponder up to find the breakeven between the two. We have to consider that 2 or 3 seasons from now (when Kozma/Vasquez/Jackson are ready) if Escobar is the same player he is today he will have SIGNIFICANTLY more value in trade than Ryan will. It comes down to what it would take to land Yunel, and I think it’s likely more talent than he’s worth to this team…even if he replaces Thirsty’s subpar offense and defense.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 20, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
It really depends on what the price is, and I think it will be too high as well. If we could get him for redundant prospects in our own farm system, guys like Jay or Allen Craig, then I think it would be worth looking at. Even dealing some a couple of AAA pitchers would be ok. Swapping Wallace or Jones + prospects for him is a bit much though, and I’m assuming that’s what will be asked for.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 20, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We agree that an offense first shortstop has more value because they decline less.
Just to butt in here, but I’m not sure I do.
That argument is based on the assumption that the defense-first shortstop’s main “value” (i.e. his defensive skills) start to deteriorate at a younger age than offense does. That’s fair enough – I haven’t seen the proof but it’s easily believable.
However, what we’re ignoring is that the OFFENSE-first SS also derives part of his value from his defense, and I’ve not seen any evidence (nor am I certain that it exists) that the defense of elite-defensive players declines at a faster that the defense of average-defending players.
What I mean is, say you have two players, both aged 27:
Player A: 2 win hitter, 0 win defender. = 2 WAR
Player B: 0 win hitter, 2 win defender. = 2 WAR
Now, in three years’ time, player B’s defense is going to decline. BUT, the same should surely happen to player A as well? Assuming the hypothetical players still hit the same, we could end up with:
Player A: 2 win hitter, -1 win defender = 1 WAR
Player B: 0 win hitter, 1 win defender = 1 WAR
i.e. they’ve both lost ten runs per season, defensively. I see no reason to assume that Ryan’s defense will deteriorate at a more precipitous rate than Escobar’s. The only difference between the two players has nothing to do with scarcity, or the rate at which their individual skillsets will decline (IMO), but in the fact that, right now, Yunel Escobar is a much, much better hitter than Ryan, and Ryan’s probably not quite as much better on defense. So there’s probably 1 win between them now, and there’ll probably be at least 1 win between them going forward.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To expand on the crux of the argument:
there ARE two reasons why an offense-first SS may be “more valuable”, in a real-world sense, even though he’s worth an identical amount in WAR:
1) GMs traditionally value offense more than defense. That’s why guys like Carlos Lee and Adam Dunn rake in big contracts despite being sucky in the field. I imagine it’s a lot easier to get a big haul for your 3-win offense-heavy shortstop in a trade.
2) As far as I’m aware, defense plays no part in assigning free agent status. So your offense-heavy guy is more likely to be a type-A or a type-B than your defense-heavy guy, which is worth genuine value.
I’m not really buying any of the “skillset scarcity” arguments, to be honest.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your second point is a good one...
and also important when comparing the “value” between these two. If these two were to continue their current performance levels into free agency I am quite certain that Yunel is easily a type A, while Ryan might be a type B at best.
"Don't do anything till I get back!" - Jesus to the Cubs
by cardzfanbub on Jul 21, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's where I quibble though
I believe that a player regressing from an elite level will regress quicker to an average level than a player who is regressing from an average level to a below average level. There’s a few reasons I think this to be true:
- Defensively, the biggest difference between an elite player and an average player is range. The elite player will turn more balls into outs due to being able to get to more balls hit out of his zone. One of the first things to go as a player ages is his speed and quickness, which is going to diminish his range, even if the rest of his skills stay the same. If a guy isn’t getting to very many balls to begin with, but still making all the routine plays and a few of the plays he shouldn’t, he isn’t going to regress to below average as quickly as the elite defender who now doesn’t have the range he once did. Obviously this differs for certain players (like Ozzie and Ichiro), but as a whole the aging curves I posted show this trend
- As the average player gains more experience, he will more than likely make fewer errors on routine plays, causing his value to remain the same even as other skills regress a bit. This may not always be true, but I tend to think that guys with more experience tend to be better defenders at a given position than someone who has fewer innings played at the position. There’s obviously exceptions, there always are, but I believe this to be true as a general rule.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 21, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensively, the biggest difference between an elite player and an average player is range. The elite player will turn more balls into outs due to being able to get to more balls hit out of his zone. One of the first things to go as a player ages is his speed and quickness, which is going to diminish his range, even if the rest of his skills stay the same. If a guy isn’t getting to very many balls to begin with, but still making all the routine plays and a few of the plays he shouldn’t, he isn’t going to regress to below average as quickly as the elite defender who now doesn’t have the range he once did. Obviously this differs for certain players (like Ozzie and Ichiro), but as a whole the aging curves I posted show this trend
I think I can sort of buy that. I’m not necessarily sure the effect is that significant, though (and don’t forget that it also has to be EARLIER and GREATER than the age-dependent hitting regression to make a real difference). What ageing curves did you post? Can you re-post them? Not sure I have the time to look for the link as it’s quite a long thread.
I can readily accept that it’s possible that a guy with excellent range will lose his range at a quicker rate than a guy with mediocre range, but I’d have to see some evidence to be convinced, I think. I’d assume that, as a player gets slower, his range will diminish regardless of its starting point. It’s possible, I think, that a large part of the “range” of the best defenders is actually quicker reflexes, thinking, and reaction time – I assume that probably “ages” slower than the actual physical capabilities of getting to the ball, so it’s possible that, on the flipside of the coin, they could actually see LESS of an ageing regression than the mediocre defenders, but I guess it’s probably a case-independent scenario.
As the average player gains more experience, he will more than likely make fewer errors on routine plays, causing his value to remain the same even as other skills regress a bit. This may not always be true, but I tend to think that guys with more experience tend to be better defenders at a given position than someone who has fewer innings played at the position. There’s obviously exceptions, there always are, but I believe this to be true as a general rule.
I am not convinced I understand your argument fully here. You seem to be saying that older/longer tenured guys, by virtue of repitition and experience, make fewer handling errors on relatively easy in-zone plays, right? Wouldn’t that be true for good defenders as well as bad ones? What makes a bad defender “age” better in this respect than a good defender? I don’t really see how this is an argument in favour of “good” defenders ageing more precipitously than “bad” defenders.
On a slight digression, I’m not even necessarily sure I’m totally convinced of the “fielders age worse than hitters” argument. It may be that this is a well-known fact, but (from a purely anecdotal point of view) I can think of lots of hitters who’ve fallen off precipitously in their early 30s (the Andruw Jones and Adam Kennedys of this world) and a lot of defence-first guys who’ve remained excellent defenders still putting up career-average numbers in difficult positions into their late 30s (Omar Vizquel, Craig Counsell).
Are there any objective studies you’re aware of to show:
a) fielding skills deteriorate earlier than hitting skills
and
b) fielding skills deteriorate more precipitously in good defenders than in bad defenders?
Both of those statements need to be valid to prove VEPs suggestion that:
We agree that an offense first shortstop has more value because they decline less.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 21, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here are the links from above
Fielding Aging Curve by Tango
Offensive Aging Curve by Jim Albert from Bowling Green University
I don’t put as much faith in the second one as the first because I was using the data points from players who were born a generation ago, but I think it’s going to be pretty close to that in the post-steroid era.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Jul 21, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"I usually don’t read other peoples sigs." -Cuttah
by Alxfritz on Jul 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs

by 


















