Pertinent Fangraphs Articles
by clark on Nov 20, 2009 12:36 PM CST
36 comments
These may not be fanpost worthy, but I figured that they might help distract from the Hicks imbroglio and help start or continue a few conversations we are having elsewhere regarding our offseason targets. Please forgive me if these have already been posted in old fanshots.
The first article is a comparison of the values and perceived values of Jason Bay and Mike Cameron. The second is a take on Dan Uggla's trade value, which may be lower than I initially realized. The last is a look at Adrian Beltre's potential away from Safeco, which habitually drives down RH power numbers. Given our need for a RH bat and that our only real defensive liability is at 3B, I figured I'd post it, even though the chances of us actually going after Beltre and shifting Young elsewhere are slim.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bay-vs-cameron
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ugglas-value
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/adrian-beltres-bat-away-from-safeco
For whatever reason, hyperlinks aren't working for me today, so I'll have to just post them like this...
3 recs |
36 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Awesome!
I like this idea and hope it gets rec’d up so that we can use it to discuss interesting fangraphs stuff over here for the next few months. On that note, here’s another interesting article from today that discusses what we all inherently do when looking for options that the Rangers could target in the offseason.:
The traditional replace-with-a-better-player method would lead a team to look for a guy who is closer to a +3 or +4 win player, pushing the entire curve to the right. However, +3 to +4 win players are expensive, and if you already have a +1.8 win guy on the roster, the marginal cost is probably going to outweigh the marginal benefit.
I’m curious how a team with league average players at every position would do. I’ve seen that teams with replacement level players would win around 48 games, so adding 1.8 WAR*(9 position players + 5 Pitchers + 1 Reliever)=27, which would be a 65 win season. I don’t know if that’s accurate.
Interestingly, the Rangers had 5 position players, 3 starters and 1 reliever at or above 1.8 WAR. Borbon had 0.6 WAR in roughly 1/3 of a season, so theoretically that could replace the loss of Marlon Byrd’s 2.4 WAR without the need for a huge jump in performance. Which brings me to:
Rather than replacing the average player with a superior option, this new graph represents the result of simply having more options. This is a strategy to pursue depth rather than premium talent. It is the baseball version of diversification.
He is discussing this in relation to free agents, but I think there is a corollary here with minor league prospects. In theory, it seems like having prospects ready to step in in AAA should be able to do a similar job as having very good 4th and 5th OFs. Now, in practice it’s more complicated because the Rangers having Smoak and MaxRam doesn’t help if Young gets hurt, but as an overall principle, it should hold to some degree.
I guess this is a long way of saying, given the Rangers current roster construction at the major league and AAA levels, I’d rather see them pursue high-risk, high-reward players this offseason. The risk can be offset not by signing or trading for expensive backups like Boston does, but by relying on the farm system.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Nov 20, 2009 1:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm floored
People at fangraphs actually have looked at the nonlinear valuation of a distribution of outcomes as opposed to assuming player valuations are linear? Huh…. And here I thought they just determined a guy’s value by their average expected value above replacement level and called it a day
My argument has long been that middle-tier teams like the Rangers who can’t simply buy their way to the top of the pile have to work with the variance of that curve. If you need X amount of WAR to win, but X WAR costs more than you can afford, then the only solution is to get some very unpredictable WAR and hope some of it works out.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 20, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"here I thought they just determined a guy’s value by their average expected value above replacement level and called it a day"
That’s just simple stuff that is quick and easy to put together and represent. It’s far from the end of the day.
by philkid3 on Nov 20, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I get really annoyed at the $ valuation analysis
Probably more annoyed than I should. But it is just ludicrous to me to say that player X is worth Y dollars because he is Z wins above a AAA replacement player. And it seems like too much of their analysis is in that vein.
Go Rice Owls!
by JBImaknee on Nov 20, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
I don’t think they treat it as gospel. They’ve talked in other places about the team makeup (where it’s holes are and it’s total salary, but also how close the team is to making the playoffs, etc) affecting how much they value a win at.
It’s not perfect, but I think it works to give a general sense of the what a player’s skill level and valuation are. And since they use WAR instead of actual dollars, you can adjust their $/WAR amount to suit your needs.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Nov 20, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
It does annoy me when they pass off their values as gospel when talking about how much a player was worth. Not everyone there does it and they don’t do it all the time, but I do see them frequently using their values and that alone to talk about a player’s worth.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 20, 2009 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This makes sense, though.
The dollar values are based on that season’s FA values for WAR.
If teams are paying $5MM per WAR, then a player worth 4.5 WAR is worth $22.5MM. Most teams won’t project a repeat of a 4.5 WAR player, but that doesn’t change the rather sound theory behind the valuation.
Furthermore, stating these values in monetary terms makes it easier for some people to understand. If you see that Evan Longoria was worth $25MM this year or 5 WAR, which one makes more sense to you intrinsically?
by NoNameOnCard on Nov 23, 2009 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Granderson
Overall numbers dragged down by an uncharacteristically low .276 BABIP last season. Defense has been uneven, but in 06 and 07 (7.4 WAR!) he was among the best defensive CFers in baseball. 29 years old next season and reportedly on the trading block.
What would it take to get him? If it took Borbon and Smoak, wouldja?
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 20, 2009 1:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No!
Why trade Smoak for a positional player?
by tyd3311 on Nov 20, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
how confident are you that Smoak is going to post >120 OPS+ ?
If you can get a 120 OPS+ from a very good CF defender, isn’t that a ton more valuable than similar production from a 1b?
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 20, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
stated another way...
do you think Smoak can be a 7 WAR player? Granderson has been and should still be in his peak years.
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 20, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's pretty unfair.
Granderson was that good just once in his career, while being around 3.5-4 WAR the other years. Given his complete inability to hit LHP and the recent defensive decline he’s been on, it’s not very likely that he’ll ever approach that again. Meanwhile, the only 1B to top 7 WAR last year was Pujols.
You and I both know the Rangers say no because of money. Granderson’s signed until 2013 (2014 if you include the club option). While that contract technically doesn’t overprice him, it does lock in the Rangers into a long-term commitment (which they probably can’t afford at this point) with a guy whose OPS, OPS+, wRAA, wOBA, etc. etc. have been on the decline for the last couple of years and who should be riding the bench against LHP. You can’t give up your best hitting prospect for a guy like that when you have no money.
by LiamP on Nov 20, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well, you're points are valid
In the Rangers situation, where every dollar seems to be tantamount, that type deal probably wouldn’t work. But I think you overstate Granderson’s “decline”, he’s had an MVP caliber season and a couple of very good seasons, and his 28 year old season didn’t live up to those standards. I think his “decline” was more a product of a freaky low BABIP than a decline in his skill. He has proven that he has the talent to be an elite producer, and at 29 years old I think during his next few seasons he could return to that level of productivity. He seems to me to be a perfect example of a guy that you might could buy low on, and score a big hit on.
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 21, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Granderson's BABIP
It’s funny, I was speaking to friends in Detroit about what was going on with Granderson earlier this year, and their complaints about his approach are the same as ours about Kinsler’s. The dude hit an inordinate amount of FBs (lazy ones at that) and IFFBs in comparison with his career numbers. It seems to me like Granderson’s BABIP drop is a mini-version of Kinsler’s plummet, where it’s really indicative of a shitty approach at the plate.
by LiamP on Nov 21, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I learn something every time i read you, Liam
Comment more often, please, you rock.
Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...
Hi, Keith. Is this the year Edinson Volquez finally wins RoY?
by Brian Thomas on Nov 21, 2009 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Borbon + pitching prospects would make more sense to me. Theoretically, he’s on the market because they are looking for savings and not as much maximizing their return prospect wise. Here’s his contract (Cot’s)
2010: $5.5 million
2011: $8.25 million
2012: $10 million
2013: $13 million ($2 million dollar buyout)
$5.5 million should be affordable for next year (though that looks to be close to the max budget addition) and he would have $25.75 million guaranteed, or ~$8.5 million/yr over 3 years, ~$9 million/yr for 4 years.
So, yes, he’s very valuable as he is in the middle of his prime seasons and I would consider dealing prime prospects for him. It just doesn’t make sense to include Smoak in that trade (or Feliz or Holland).
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Nov 20, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't see that happening until ownership is resolved.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 20, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nolasco
Would Hunter, Salty, Murphy, and a couple of 10-20 prospects tempt the Marlins? That would give them 3 cheap ML players worthy of being in there ML lineup or rotation and a couple lottery tickets. Could we potentially land him without giving up Holland, Feliz, Perez?
Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"
by tricer on Nov 20, 2009 1:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I've been wondering this myself. Basically...
How valuable is Hunter? How valuable is a young, cheap, average to slightly above average starter? The Marlins had a 4.2 WAR (Nolasco) and 5.5 WAR (Johnson) pitcher, but then no other starter over 1 WAR. Does this mean that they would value a Hunter type more than some teams? Or with young pitchers like (in order of 2009 IP) Chris Volstad (23), Sean West (23), Anibal Sanchez (25), and Andrew Miller (24) mean that they want the younger, high ceiling prospects?
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Nov 20, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young's got a good arm
but he doesn’t have much range, and that ultimately hurts us. I could be mistaken, but I think most defensive metrics reflect it.
What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.
by clark on Nov 20, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of Young slotting into DH eventually.
While he’s playing there now, it buys the Rangers time to find a winning deal for a 3B. They can play it off like they won’t need one for a while as leverage, but that may end up being one of the most cost-efficient ways to upgrade the team in the near future.
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 20, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Young I just bet doesn't have the bat to hold DH long term
Last year’s numbers if they are real would play there, but his other recent years leave us still with a weak DH.
What do voluntary mean?
by JKolar on Nov 20, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bigtime
-17 plus/minus, -8.1 UZR and -10.7 UZR/150.
But we’ve got nowhere else to put him and we can’t move his contract. Plus Jamey and EG would lead a fan revolt if we tried.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 20, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He isn't great
But lets give it another half season at least before we start quoting UZR and the like when he just switched to 3B last winter. As has been said before defensive stats should be used more as a guideline rather than gospel.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 20, 2009 9:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To expand on that
when Young first moved to SS he was terrible initially but got better. Just going off the eyeball test he improved as last year went on.
Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.
by bigsteve on Nov 20, 2009 9:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My belief is that Young
Is simply not a good defensive player no matter where he plays. You can try and downplay his numbers this year all you want, they’re still fucking terrible.
I suspect he might improve to the point of where he’s passable 3B (as some might argue he was in the second half last year), and if we’re lucky maybe he’ll put up some positive UZR or plus/minus numbers as a fluke one of these years. But I don’t think he’s never going to be an overall asset in the field.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 20, 2009 9:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
While I don't think Young's going to be a deserving GG winner at 3B
But Young is supposed to have the specific tools required to be a good defensive 3B and has only played there for a year now. We’ll see next season how he does.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 22, 2009 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He has the arm
however, I don’t think he is going to be particularly rangy at any position you put him at.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
by DJCahill on Nov 25, 2009 6:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WAR?
"Nothing we do here has a point" - Czar Morris
by Chase Irwin on Nov 20, 2009 4:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
what is it good for?
"He will not coddle them. Nolan Ryan doesn’t coddle." - Jeff Passan
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 20, 2009 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely nothin.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
by rentz on Nov 20, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
the chances of us actually going after Beltre and shifting Young elsewhere are slim.
More like non-existent.
"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS
"...he wasn’t a good hitter, just a good middle of the order bat that hit a lot of homers." - NYTXFAN on Mark McGwire
by lonestarJon on Nov 20, 2009 8:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stuff on the Rex Sox offense.
While doing some recent fiddling with data, I ran across something mildly interesting: the Red Sox’s offense is highly consistent. To be honest this collection was for a Rays-related piece on teams with similar wOBA and how they performed when factoring in other variables like stolen base attempts, strikeouts, and ISO. The Red Sox entries had mostly one thing in common as you can see here:
2009 .352
2008 .352
2007 .352
2006 .340
2005 .352
by tyd3311 on Nov 23, 2009 8:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thats surprising
its not surprising that they are good every year though. Consistently there IsoPower and OBP-BA are high, so they take walks and hit for power. Too bad Texas only does one of those 2 things. Hopefully the hitting coach change helps the other, but the “we need energy not patience” idiocy that comes from team leadership seems to be pretty entrenched.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
by DJCahill on Nov 25, 2009 6:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
Carson: Are there anytimes when ZiPS spits out a projection and you’re just like, "Aw man, people are gonna jump all over that"? Can you think of any, in particular?
Dan: All the time! I’m always rooting for it not to underestimate Mark Buehrle. Kevin Gryboski used to screw me over every year. I always feel kind of guilty because there are a few players that I root for and root against every season to prevent me from looking dumb. Nelson Cruz is my best friend this year. I had also projected Tim Lincecum to be awesome as soon as he hit the majors and he never let me down. Rich Harden, on the other hand, has earned my ire for being both healthy (for him) and rather ordinary.
Carson: Do you ever looks at some other projections and think, Woah. Like, you mentioned Nelson Cruz. I know Bill James had Cruz’s teammate Chris Davis batting like .300 in 2009.
Dan: The Bill James-branded projections seem to have everybody hitting .300 with power. I actually tend to worry a bit when a projection of mine is as positive as the James projections.
by tyd3311 on Nov 25, 2009 9:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
