Greinke is Better (for the Rangers) Than Lee
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:46 AM CST
Email
PrintLet's take a step back, here. Cliff Lee is nails in the playoffs -- no one disputes that. However, in the long-term, signing Lee for anything more than about 5 years and $110-115 million is a net-negative for the Rangers. Even that type of contract may prove less-than-optimal in the long run. For my money (and, yes, I know it's not my money), Zack Greinke is a far better option. Over the last four seasons (2007-2010), Greinke has never posted an ERA above 4.17, or a WHIP above 1.28. He has somehow managed to go 46-39 with a genuinely awful Royals team, and even added a Cy Young in 2009, for good measure. He has also been very durable, putting in 200+ innings for the last 3 of those seasons.
Meanwhile, Lee has been a really good pitcher during that time-frame, but he hasn't been substantially better than Greinke in almost any respect. His ERA during the 2007-2010 seasons has fluctuated from 6.29 in 2007, to a low of 2.54 in 2008. His WHIP has solid outside of that weird 2007 season as well, but not much -- if any -- better than Greinke's.
I guess my whole point in this is that, for the right package of prospects, you can have a 27-year-old Greinke, for 2 years and $27 million, with the option of giving him an extension at some point, depending upon performance. With Lee, you're getting a pitcher who is 5 years older, costs a LOT more, and will take a MUCH longer-term commitment to land. While it's looking optimistic that the Rangers may actually re-sign Lee, I will not be overly disappointed if we don't, as long as we make a serious run at Greinke.
217 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cliff Lee
I’m okay with the Rangers giving him a 6 year contract. If he can be an ace for 3-4 more years and then be an Andy Pettite type pitcher for the remainder of it then its a good deal.
I want both to tell you the truth
that way all you have to figure out who is your #5 starter
1. Cliff Lee!!!
2. Zach Grenike
3. CJ Wilson
4. Colby Lewis
5. Feldman/Hunter/Random Long Reliever
Knowledge and Skill overcome Superstition and Luck- Dawn Patrol Motto-Spartan College of Aeronautics and Technology
by I draft the Cowboys!!!! on Dec 12, 2010 6:37 AM CST reply actions
I am with you.. I want both.
Lee helps Greinke handle social situations and Greinke eats innings and makes this a great rotation on paper.
You can only be young once but can be immature forever!
"The Right package of prospects"
Considering it is going to cost you at least Holland and Perez, is the rotation really better with Greinke or Lee/Perez/Holland in 3-4 years?
Also, this thought that you can extend him just because you have his rights, well, look at Lee to see how that works out.
When you add in that Lee has done it in the playoffs, and Greinke has never really pitched under pressure, I can’t possibly see how the team is better off with Greinke than Lee.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
Greinke hasn't pitched under pressure because he's been playing for the Royals.
And Lee wasn’t a clutch/nails-type of post-season pitcher until he was. The hardest part of building a team is getting to the playoffs consistently. Based on a side-by-side comparison of their regular season results, I just think that Greinke gives as good a chance as Lee to do that — and for a LOT less investment.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 10:51 AM CST up reply actions
How do you know its a lot less investment?
In two years when Greinke hits FA his price could be more than Lees. If Sabathia opts out next winter like he most likely will and gets a deal worth 25-27 mil per then Greinke most likely gets a similar deal after 2012 when both he and Josh Johnson will be young FA pitchers.
And its not just that Greinke hasn’t pitched under pressure before its that he has a serious mental issue that has already led him to step away from the game once and theres no telling how he would react to pitching under such intense scrutiny as the playoffs bring.
I think folks
make freaking ridiculous assumptions
1) Somehow the Royals will give him up for less than a fortune in prospects
2) That Greinke is a lock to re-sign with us.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
Not ridiculous
1) The Royals would DESERVE a “fortune in prospects” for a pitcher of Greinke’s caliber.
2) While not a lock, I think the Rangers offer the right balance between a true opportunity to win, a laid-back environment, and of course, a REALLY advantageous tax situation.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
So for number 2
the same advantages they currently have with Cliff Lee.
As for number 1, I’ve seen folks say that you wouldn’t have to give up both Holland and Perez because somehow the Royals will just bend over and give him to us for a lesser package.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
I think Lee is FAR more money-driven than people want to believe.
Also, when you’d be negotiating with Greinke, you’d be negotiating with a 29-year-old pitcher, not a 32-year-old pitcher, in which case making 6-, 7-, or even 8-year offers makes more sense.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:17 PM CST up reply actions
Regardless
he will probably want to go on the open market.
If we get Greinke, I doubt we are much more than 30-40 percent chance to re-sign. The most likely outcome is we trade for Greinke, give up lots of talent, and in 3 years the only personnel we have to show for it are the 2 draft picks we get for Greinke.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
Or we win a ring, and start signing people to deals
by oc on Dec 12, 2010 4:26 PM CST up reply actions
It will be worth trading for him
if it helps us get a ring.
I doubt getting a ring makes us much more likely to sign folks though. Signing folks is all about money. I didn’t see the White Sox or the Cardinals develop a huge edge for signing folks after they got their rings.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
agreed
"The flatulence continues" by RangersSD on Dec 9, 2010 6:39 PM PST on
by TheDutchOven on Dec 13, 2010 2:31 AM CST up reply actions
Then
you probably won’t see a trade. Trades pending extensions rarely happen.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
They are?
We only saw it happen with Roy Halladay last offseason and now Adrian Gonzalez this one
Trade-and-signs are the wave of the future
by oc on Dec 13, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
Did Gonzalez
ever finalize a contract with the Red Sox?
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
I don't think those trades depended on signing a extension
The only one I can think of where a team asked for a window to do a extension was the Mets with Johan
Well
I don’t see them signing him to an extension if they also sign Lee.
That would put them at about $60 million for three players in 2013.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 13, 2010 8:23 AM CST up reply actions
Greinke has 1 year that is an outlier
from the rest of his seasons. He’s good, but he’s not as good as what we’d give up in prospects with the Royals asking price. How will Greinke react when he’s put in a pennant race in pressure situations or pitching in the playoffs? I’ve come around on the idea that signing Lee would be a better investment.
A baseball game is simply a nervous breakdown divided into nine innings.
If unable to sign Lee...
and the Royals refuse to lower their asking price, this is who I want.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I don't understand why we wouldn't just GIVE them a great package of players.
Not very often does a 27-year-old pitcher of this quality, who is under team control for two more full seasons come available. What’s worth more, a young KNOWN commodity, or 4-5 young UNKNOWN commodities. Greinke is a beast right now.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:20 PM CST up reply actions
Greinke is more problematic in carrying out sustained success.
Emptying the farm for Greinke while having him for two years makes it very difficult to see long-term success as a realistic future for the Rangers.
If the owners are allowing Lee’s contract to be heavily subsidized so as to not hinder the payroll, it’s a lot easier to envision the Rangers having a window of 3-5 years or longer (depending on the amateur talent they obtain).
Godspeed Mike Olt.
I think the hold up is the players being negotiated
I am actually fine with giving up Holland, Perez and Beltre. But if they also want Profar, then switch out Hunter with Holland
What do you think of this???
Holland and Scheppers OR Hunter and Perez
Plus Profar OR Beltre
Plus a lower level prospect.
1) Does that get it done?
2) Is that too much for the Rangers?
I think it would get it done but have been wrong before.
You can only be young once but can be immature forever!
Ouch...Holland, Perez and Beltre is too much imho.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I can't imagine
Royals will go for much less this year.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
Okay...
but I’m not giving up both Holland and Perez for Greinke.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Why?
Greinke is an effing MONSTER right now. I don’t get how in love we fall with some of our prospects.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
Because I'm in love with the Rangers prospects!
I tell KC this is the best offer they will get.
A) One of Holland or Perez
B) One of Scheppers, Beltre, or Profar
C) One of Hunter, Erlin, Ross, or another prospect not mentioned above.
If they don’t take that deal then forget it. You don’t just give away all your top prospects just because they’re only ‘prospects’ and Greinke is a ‘monster’. Sorry.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
When you want to win NOW, you do.
And if you gave a sheet like that to the Royals, I’m pretty sure they’d tell you to go eff yourself. No offense, just sayin’…
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:48 PM CST up reply actions
Then I'd happily go eff myself.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
That's actually a pretty strong offer
KC might say “go eff yourself,” but I doubt they get a better offer for Greinke.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions
I just think it will take 3 of the first 5 he listed, that's all.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
You do if it puts you over the top
And a rotation fronted by Lee and Greinke, with almost all of the position players returning…puts you over the top
by oc on Dec 12, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions
I agree.
And I’m with you in that I think they should pursue Greinke even if they do manage to sign Lee.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:06 PM CST up reply actions
Anything but a World Series title next year is considered a step back for this organization
And it runs a year off everybody’s clock/contract
Push your chips in NOW
by oc on Dec 12, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
I don't agree with "World Series or bust" at all.
The playoffs are a crap shoot. I think that the Rangers need to aim for making the playoffs every year, and the WS title will take care of itself, eventually.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
I see Colby as a 3/4, who pitched a bit like a 2 last year,
and a LOT like a 2 in the playoffs.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think that my assuming that Greinke will have about a 5 or 6 WAR is outside the pale.
And that has nothing to do with my opinion that Colby is probably more like a solid 3 than a 2. Over the course of his career, Colby hasn’t even been a solid 3. I’m just assuming that he’ll revert to the mean a bit next year, and become a solid 3 or 4. What’s your problem with THAT take on things.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Yes, you're right,
it’s completely illogical to assume that a pitcher who has never before had a season like last year might actually revert to the mean a bit.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
Why don't you actually look at those "other seasons"
You’re either talking about seasons that occurred over 3 years ago,
or you’re talking about the seasons in Japan where Colby pitched even better than he has here (but with the same trend in his peripherals)
Do you think he’s going to start walking 7 per game again like the last time he was a Ranger 6 years ago?
No.
I just think he won’t be quite as good as he was last year. I don’t think he’s going to fall off a cliff or something.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
Based on the fact that no one is ever as good as they are at their best,
or as bad as they are at their worst. That’s why it’s called the “mean”, and why athletes always revert to it eventually.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:14 PM CST up reply actions
it's called the law of averages
and in reality, it doesn’t exist. it’s also called extrapolating. Hell, Colby could be better next season than he was this past season. We just don’t know yet.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
Why would you describe his one season in the past at the MLB level in the past 3 years
His best? Especially when none of his peripherals stand out as spectacularly (un)lucky
BECAUSE THE OUR PROSPECTS GOT US HERE!
Like Lance Armstrong, that ball is gone!
by JimCrankshaft on Dec 12, 2010 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Huh???
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
Damn it, double fail.
Our prospects got us to where we are today and we already gave up a boatload for Lee. Why would you want to give up more when you could just resign Lee?
Like Lance Armstrong, that ball is gone!
by JimCrankshaft on Dec 12, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
But, we DIDN'T give up a "boatload" for Lee.
We gave up — basically — Smoak and some other guys.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
that includes Edinson Volquez, Blake Beavan and Michael Main among others
that’s three first round picks
by oc on Dec 12, 2010 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
I believe he's including Smoak,
3 first rounders have helped comprise the current team.
Que sera, sera.
by scoop16 on Dec 12, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
okay, a kayak load.
regardless, there’s no reason to continue shelling out elite prospects all willy nilly when you can just sign on the dotted line and have a sure-fire, battle tested ace for the next half decade or so. I just don’t see the plus side of having a team with Greinke instead of Lee. Sure he’d be a little cheaper but that advantage disappears in 2013. I’m also not sure Greinkes youth is a huge advantage when comparing the two. Lee doesn’t rely on velocity, he relies on command and deception, qualities that will stay with him in to his late 30’s early 40’s, whereas Greinkes style is much more apt to suffer a sharp decline as he ages.
Like Lance Armstrong, that ball is gone!
by JimCrankshaft on Dec 12, 2010 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
keep perez
MARTEEEEEEN!!!!
if i burst out in a cheer when people are praying it's ok, GOD is a ranger fan too!
Russo or Silva one was saying that the Yankees should give him an ultimatum.
In other words, “Make you damn decision, Cliff, or we’re going to pull our offers off the table.”
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 12:13 PM CST reply actions
Interesting negotiating tactic IF true.
You can only be young once but can be immature forever!
If we can make that deal and keep Martin Perez, then I do it
The problem is, I dont think we will be able to do it…
But lets think about this… If we dont sign Cliff, the rotation looks like this…
Cliff
CJ
Colby
Tommy
Feldman
You will have Martin as a September call up, I could see Scheppars coming out of the bullpen as early as June. Engel would be here either Sept 2011 or 2012, and Profar is only going up in value and could be part of a big mid year deal to get a key bat/arm next season.
I just dont think Grienke gives us a whole lot more… But like I said, if I can keep Perez, then trade him… Feldman is our #5 starter, that is his destiny. Shitty contract, but hey, what are you going to do?
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 12:40 PM CST reply actions
Ya sorry, messed that up... It should say if we sigh Cliff but dont trade for Greinke
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
Holland is probalby in the rotation to start the year.
Feldman is a real wildcard. So is Hunter honestly. I think Hunter is one of those guys who’s good enough while cheap but that you are always looking to upgrade.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
Meh...
it all depends on cost.
Lee in term of $ and Greinke in terms of prospects. I tend to think Greinke will cost 3 of the top 5 prospects to which I feel is too much. However Lee will probably take 7/154 so….
I guess if I had to pick I’d say Lee because I value prospects more and we’d have him for more than 2 years.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I think the correct answer is pretty obvious here..
Greinke.
Mainly because it isn’t going to end up costing what most of you seem to think.
Well...
since it’s so obvious, what exactly will Greinke cost?
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Holland, Perez, Hunter and a 5 year extension for $100 million.
Overall, 7 years for $127 million.
Que sera, sera.
Because Lee is a hotter commodity, and has the Yanks bidding on him.
Game 1, Game 5 in the ALDS and Game 3 in the ALCS added a couple million to his yearly take.
Plus, it gives Greinke security in case something falters in the next 2 years.
Que sera, sera.
I think Greinke would go for a 7/~115
It’s good money, not great. And he’ll likely be worth more
he’ll sign up with a team that’s set to contend for championships year in-year out and he’ll settle in an area that’s not New York and not Kansas City but tries to pretend it’s both – Dallas TX
by oc on Dec 12, 2010 8:50 PM CST up reply actions
6/115, maybe, but no way he settles for less than 20 per.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 11:24 PM CST up reply actions
6/$130 is more like it
the market for TORP is just too thin, he has the leverage.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 12, 2010 11:57 PM CST up reply actions
has signed an extension before....
and now its becoming pretty apparent that he’s a big fan of the money
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Dec 13, 2010 12:56 AM CST up reply actions
bingo
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 13, 2010 12:56 AM CST up reply actions
Lee hasn't signed an extension, he's been traded three times
by oc on Dec 13, 2010 1:15 AM CST up reply actions
Lee's last extension
took a year of Free Agency as a club option, Greinke’s took 2 years of free Agency. Both signed contracts that. Greinke got 4/38 to give up his 2 years, Lee got 5/23 (with options) but only gave up the one year.
Both guys gave up at least one FA year to be set for life, now the next contract will be for the big cheddar.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
It is hard to gauge what these guys will cost
Evan said that Oswalt was going to cost both Perez and Scheppers, and he ended up going to the Phillies for a group of guys that, combined, isn’t worth Perez or Scheppers.
The Rangers basically gave up Smoak and a couple of organizational depth guys to get Lee (if we omit Beavan as being the cost of the M’s taking the salary).
The Phillies gave Lee away for very little.
The D-Backs didn’t get much for Haren.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions
And the thing about Greinke is,
he’s MUCH more than a short-term rental, even if we don’t end up extending him. You get 2 years of STUD pitcher for $27million — or only slightly more than what ONE year of Lee is going to end up costing. Plus, I think it’s better than 50/50 that we’d be able to extend him for something like 5/110 or 6/130. Call me crazy, but I’d rather have Greinke at 7/137 or 8/157 than Lee for 6/130.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
x
I’d rather have Greinke at 7/137 or 8/157 than Lee for 6/130.
Except that’s not the question.
It is would you rather have Lee at, say, 6/130, plus Martin Perez, Tanner Scheppers, and Engel Beltre, or Greinke at 7/137 or 8/157?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions
If it cost only those three, then DEFINITELY Greinke.
He’s VERY young for such an outstanding pitcher.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions
How many times has he...
…finished in the top 8 in the A.L. in ERA?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
From 2007 on, Greinke has been super-solid.
Year / ERA / WHIP / SO/9 / SO/W
2007 / 3.69 / 1.295 / 7.8 / 2.94
2008 / 3.47 / 1.275 / 8.1 / 3.27
2009 / 2.16 / 1.073 / 9.5 / 4.75
2010 / 4.17 / 1.245 / 7.4 / 3.29
Who cares how many times he’s finished in the top 8 in ERA? He’s been solid every year, displayed good control, and an ability to pitch 200+ innings consistently.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
I guess my point is that...
…he’s had one “elite” year, and otherwise, has been very good, but not elite.
Let me ask this.
From 2011-16, how many wins per year better than Lee would you expect Greinke to be?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions
I would say about even,
at least for the first 3 years. That’s assuming Cliff’s back holds up, of course. I could see Greinke winning 15 to 18 games per year in Texas over the entire life of that contract. I don’t see Lee doing the same over the back end of those same years.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:30 PM CST up reply actions
Okay
So from 2011-13, they are about even.
You think Greinke has the edge the last 3 years. I don’t disagree.
But again…how much better? I’m not talking asking how many wins each of them will end up with. I’m asking, in 2014, and in 2015, and 2016, how many wins better do you think the Rangers would be with Greinke rather than with Lee?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions
Well, let's look at it this way.
If Greinke’s still getting 15-18 “counted” wins per year, that means the team is most likely winning about 60-70% of his 32-33 starts. That means he’s “accounting” for about 21-24 wins per year.
Let’s say that Lee has “declined” to about a 12-15 wins per year, which would mean the team is winning maybe 55-60% of his 32-33 starts. (This assumes, of course, that he’s healthy enough to make that many starts, which is not a given, but I’ll go with it.) That means that he’s “accounting” for about 17-19 wins per year.
Based on these rough guesses, I’ll say that Greinke is about +4.5 wins-wise over each of those last three years.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
Using B-R's version of WAR...
…Greinke has only had a season with at least a 4.5 WAR once in his career, which means that you are basically saying that Lee will be a replacement level pitcher at that point. I think your anticipated spread is too high.
That being said, the question then, of course, becomes, would Perez and Scheppers (both of whom one would expect to be in the majors from 2014-16) combine to give you 4.5 wins above replacement. I think that’s a reasonable expectation. And if that’s the case, you’d be better off not trading for Greinke, and signing Lee, instead.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 4:22 PM CST up reply actions
I'm assuming that, given a team that doesn't suck,
Greinke’s numbers will be FAR closer to the high year than the low year. Also, it presumes a bit to assume that prospects are just going to automatically develop to major league-level, doesn’t it? Diamond comes to mind as a “can’t miss” that seems to have missed now, for one.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 4:27 PM CST up reply actions
Well
I don’t think anyone suggested that Thomas Diamond was a “can’t miss” prospect.
But sure, it is possible that Perez and Scheppers could flop, just like it was possible that Elvis Andrus, or Neftali Feliz, or Ian Kinsler could have flopped.
That being said, I’m not sure why you would expect Greinke’s WAR to be far closer to his best year than the rest of his career with a team that doesn’t suck.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 12, 2010 6:22 PM CST up reply actions
i'd expect around a 5.5 to 6 WAR over the next 5 years from Greinke
very good, but not worth losing out on Lee, giving up 3 or 4 of Beltre, Perez, Schep, Holland, Profar. Could be giving up 10 to 15 WAR to get 5.5. Not worth it IMO. If you retain Lee, that’s a different story…
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 13, 2010 12:01 AM CST up reply actions
*average 5.5 to 6 WAR per year that is.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 13, 2010 12:01 AM CST up reply actions
I agree he is better for you guys and if you believe the off the field stuff he is really not an option for the Yanks. KC has been dying to get the Yanks into the bidding war to up the price, from reports it seems the Yanks are not high on Greinke. Not saying you guys will steal him but I imagine the cost woud be less then if the Yanks were willing to offer jesus montero (for those of you who don’t follow the Yanks prospects, he is their best prospect in the system). I see the Rangers landing Greinke if they don’t get Lee.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching.
Ok, imagine this...
Royals figure the only way they get rid of Zach and get max value is to trade him right now…
Rangers also need a 1b/DH guy…
Rangers Get: Zach Greinke, Billy Butler
Royals Get: Derek Holland, Engel Beltre, Tanner Scheppars, Tommy Hunter, Chris Davis, Carlos Melo
Billy is primary DH, can also spell 1B. Rangers get Greinke and a solid $3-4 million dollar DH guy. Dont have to commit to Vlad, and Butler and Greinke are also both under control for a number of years.
I know its a big package, but I like both these guys. Both very solid players… Holland and Scheppars have major injury issues, Beltre has makeup and patience issues, Hunter is a 4-5 guy rotation spot guy, Davis has some hope but very little. Melo is a high ceiling but is 4 years away minimum.
Still a solid hall for a team that is YEARS away from contending. I think the Royals would have to at least consider it… They might want a Robbie Erlin type thrown in also… IDK, seems like a lot to give up for both sides though.
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 1:20 PM CST reply actions
What if we threw in Erlin/guy at that level they want.
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 1:23 PM CST up reply actions
There's no way they do that deal without Perez.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
So how about Rangers
do Perez, Beltre, Holland, Hunter, Davis, Melo?
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions
Or threw in Profar and take out Scheppars...
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 12, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
so, if it was between
6 years of Cliff Lee at 22-23MM, Martin Perez, Derek Holland, Jurickson Profar, Robbie Erlin or 2 yeras of Zach Grienke at 13MM…
you would choose Zach Grienke?
"what I have learned in 11 years in the sports business is that the dumbest guys in the room are always the media guys." - mark cuban
ERA and WHIP.
This post brought the goods.
Ever been in a boardroom, or a gang fight? Ever save a life? Ever won a court case against the odds? Ever held a dying buddy in your arms?.- jackanape on "perspective," 11/8/2010.
I had been thinking about this for awhile,
but I just kind of slapped it together using those two readily-available measures. ERA and WHIP aren’t perfect, but they give a rough outline of why I think that Lee isn’t head-and-shoulders above Greinke, given all the money and contract variables.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions
Novice stats, outside of a slash line
it’s okay, i don’t quite understand BABIP, wOBA, ERA+, and a bunch of others.
by rockin_rangers on Dec 12, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions
ERA and WHIP are easily accessible for everyone, which is why (along with the reasons I gave above) that I used them.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 2:32 PM CST up reply actions
Look, I was just pointing out that Greinke has somehow been good enough to go 46-39 with a TERRIBLE team over that timeframe.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 4:15 PM CST up reply actions
I know why you did it, I just don't think it illustrated much.
The other numbers demonstrated that he is a great pitcher. Win-loss just demonstrated that his team is awful. It isn’t particularly enlightening when we’re referring to what value here would be; The reference doesn’t fit the rest of the piece.
You don't think comparing a pitcher's winpct to his teams (in a + or - fashion) is instructive at all?
I think it shows that he can win, even when not surrounded by much talent.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 4:28 PM CST up reply actions
I think it's less instructive
than the stats saying he is a great pitcher.
Colby Lewis went 12-13 this year. Tommy Hunter went 13-4. Do you find that instructive?
It's not perfect, no.
However, I think it’s more instructive when you’re dealing with a great pitcher on a terrible team, like Greinke or Hernandez (SEA), and that pitcher has a much higher winpct than his team. And when you combine a pitcher of Greinke’s quality with that type of won-loss record on an awful team, it becomes even moreso. But, yes, it’s not perfect in any way.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
Once again, it just makes the point that his team is awful,
which is irrelevant in terms of acquiring him. It tells you nothing about the pitcher.
So, you're saying that if a guy wins his decisions at a .541 clip for a .400, that's a completely worthless stat?
Okay. That seems like nonsense to me, but okay.
And my only point is that when combined with his other measurables, it’s telling that he won his decisions at an astronomically higher rate than his team won its games overall.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
What does it tell us, though?
That he’s a good pitcher? All the other stats do that, and do it in a far more clear manner.
I’m not continuing an argument about the worth of win-loss records.
Win-Loss records, BY THEMSELVES, are definitely worthless.
But I just contend that, on a losing team, comparing a pitcher’s win percentage might be instructive as to how he responds to low run support, how he battles in tough situations, etc.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 11:23 PM CST up reply actions
Listen, I get that we're stat snobs here.
But to say that a guy, who over FOUR YEARS, wins his decisions at a significantly higher rate than the rate at which his crappy team wins is completely meaningless seems a bit absurd.
BTW, great, insightful post. “It’s not. Stop it.” Brilliant analysis, that.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 9:01 AM CST up reply actions
Your point is very stupid.
Brilliant analysis is certainly not necessary to refute it.
There’s nothing W/L tells you that other stats can’t tell you much better, so yeah, it’s pointless to look at. It has nothing to do with snobbery; it has to do with trying to get useful information from stats.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 9:05 AM CST up reply actions
I have made the point over and over,
that looking at win percent BY ITSELF is not useful. You guys just seem so hidebound against using it for ANYTHING (even only in conjunction with other stats, as a way of gauging how well the pitcher overcomes the adversity of being on a team that is terrible) that you just refuse to even consider that win percent differential between the pitcher’s and the team’s might be useful in conjunction with other stats.
Tell me this, who would you rather have, a guy with good peripherals, who went 35-50 over four years with a bad team, or a guy with good peripherals, who went 46-39 over four years with a bad team?
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
Jesus.
No, it doesn’t tell you anything.
Nobody should have any preference for one player or the other based just on the information you provided in that hypothetical. You’re assuming its relevance to tell me how relevant it is. That’s not how it works.
First of all, I’m not sure why “how well the pitcher overcomes the adversity of being on a team that is terrible” is relevant at all. If he’s a good pitcher, then other, much better, stats will bear that out.
If your point is that we need to see how he mentally handles it or something, that’s just stupid and pointless.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
So are you really saying a pitcher's mental makeup matters not at all?
Because that seems a bit ludicrous.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions
Everything that doesn't fit into your theory seems ludicrous to you, it seems.
First of all, it’s nothing that can be quantified.
And even if it could, it’s certainly not quantified by looking at wins and losses.
Another whiff.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:02 PM CST up reply actions
Your having declared something a "whiff" seems to be enough for you.
It’s not for me. There can be many explanations for win percent, sure. That’s why simple comparison of Pitcher X to Pitcher Y with regards to only win percent is worthless.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
If they have approximately equal peripherals
and ERA and a different W/L you chalk it up to run support differences mostly. IE something the pitcher has nothing to do with.
You’re trying to prescribe some predictive power to W/L record, even if it is through the back door. And you just aren’t going to get anyone to buy into that one.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
I'll say (write) it again.
WIN PERCENT IS WORTHLESS BY ITSELF!
I just think it has a BIT (not a LOT, but a BIT) of relevance, when looked at in concert with a pitcher’s peripherals, and compared to his team’s win percent.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:02 PM CST up reply actions
And you're wrong.
That’s all anybody is saying. It happens.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
And you've in no way demonstrated WHY I'm wrong.
You just keep asserting it over and over and over and over.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
Because you're the one asserting something.
The burden is on you.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:17 PM CST up reply actions
Nope.
You are actively asserting that win percent is completely worthless, no matter the context, and no matter the peripherals brought in when using it. Attempting lame legal dodges to avoid having to support your opinion is, well, lame.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:23 PM CST up reply actions
Legal dodges?
What the fuck are you talking about?
You’re saying it’s relevant, and your case for it is lacking. Are you seriously asking me to prove something is worthless before it’s been proved relevant at all? That’s pretty hard to do.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
I've shown you why I believe it's relevant,
in certain, quite limited circumstances. You’ve just kept asserting that it’s utterly worthless, calling me “stupid” amongst other witty repartee.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:29 PM CST up reply actions
I said your point is stupid.
And it is. Just because you’ve attempted to prove something doesn’t mean you’ve succeeded.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
I'll accept your surrender, then.
I’ve presented rationale supporting my viewpoint that win percent can be useful in certain, limited situations. I’ve shown WHY I believe that. You’ve said it’s “stupid” to believe that. That sounds an awful lot like those who mindlessly attack Sabermetrics, which is ironic.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
Huh?
What rationale are you referring to? You’re just making guesses and inferences.
Stop pretending to make good points. It’s irritating.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
I don't give a flying fuck WHAT you find "irritating."
The fact is, I’ve provided rationale (you may not like it, or agree with it, but it’s there nonetheless) to support my view. You’ve simply engaged in pointless mud-flinging.
Have fun with that.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not going to go through a complete explanation of how I think it gains its minimal usefulness.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
Because I did it above, and you ignored it.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
No.
You’ve clicked “reply” on several of the posts I’ve made where I defended a very limited use of win percentage. Find it yourself.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
Pathetic.
But I just contend that, on a losing team, comparing a pitcher’s win percentage might be instructive as to how he responds to low run support, how he battles in tough situations, etc.
Whoa! I was so wrong: your unsupported contention has totally swayed me!
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
I was much more extensive than that,
but feel free to revel in your assholery.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:32 PM CST up reply actions
Where is it?
Seriously.
And my only point is that when combined with his other measurables, it’s telling that he won his decisions at an astronomically higher rate than his team won its games overall.
Tell me this, who would you rather have, a guy with good peripherals, who went 35-50 over four years with a bad team, or a guy with good peripherals, who went 46-39 over four years with a bad team?
I just want to see it, cause I’m obviously missing the extensive explanation.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions
The problem is W/L percent or ratio or what ever
Say mostly information about the team in reference to the pitcher, but is so heavily biased toward the team that any predictive power it would have would likely be almost anecdotal.
I mean there was an argument for Padilla before we cut him a few years ago that some people were making that he was our best pitcher because the team managed to win games when he was the starter. Those people ignored something like 6-7 runs of support a game.
By the same reference, one would expect a good pitcher to have a better mark then the team would generate otherwise, hince why they are a good pitcher. You find some random anomolies in W/L also, like Colby last year, he pitched pretty equal to CJ but had worse W/L results. So by your argument CJ is just a better pitcher because he won more games on the same team. OR more accurately that Colby is flawed because he couldn’t hit the teams winning %.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
Thanks for a sane reply! :)
All of your concerns are ones I share, which is why I think the usefulness of win percentage is limited, but not useless. It has to be taken as both a comparison to the team’s overall percentage and — by far, most importantly — in conjunction with the pitcher’s other, far more important, statistics.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:53 PM CST up reply actions
Honestly
I’m not sure you’re really reading. Its basically garbage. You’re saying that the team performed better for pitcher A then Pitcher B assuming even statistics. So if you ask me who I would want my answer would be which ever pitcher cost less because they are basically even players.
If you think we are all being unreasonable why not see if anyone has done a sabr style study on what you are talking about. There’s a reasonable chance someone has done one, and that it basically showed zero or nearly zero effect.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
Question
Are you saying that a pitcher’s won/loss record is solely based upon how his team performs for him? That seems to be what the following quote means:
You’re saying that the team performed better for pitcher A then Pitcher B assuming even statistics.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions
If their stats are even
then yes the majority of difference in W/L between two pitchers pretty much comes down to how well the team behind them played.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
Run production accounts for some of the difference, for sure.
However, I would contend that at least SOME of the difference would be found in that one pitcher might pitch into the 7th with a slim lead, based on crappy run support (say, 2-1 or 3-2), and manage to escape with that win, while the other “gives in” so-to-speak, and allows that tying and/or go-ahead run that leads to the “L.” It’s very difficult to quantify a pitcher’s mental makeup. I just think this is one way that does so at least a little bit.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions
Why wouldn't you just use the stats
that actually tell you what you want to know, rather than win-loss record?
So your arugment is this
In its simplest form. Two pitchers both go 7 full innings, or pick what ever number you want here, with their team having the lead. One team loses the game after the pitcher leaves and the other pitcher has his team finish the game successfully. The pitcher who’s team didn’t blow it gets extra props from you because his team didn’t blow it.
That is the core of your argument there. That’s it. Anything else is window dressing. Final results, that may not be effected directly by the pitcher, help determine the quality of the pitcher.
What do voluntary mean?
The dude abides.....
Not exactly.
One team loses the game, because the pitcher with the lower W/L percent actually gives up the tying and/or go-ahead runs before he leaves, leading to an “L” in his ledger, and keeping his win percent closer to his terrible team’s. The other pitcher holds the 2-1 lead, and gets the “W.”
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
And why would you not simply
either use stats that get at this, such as leverage, or create new ones that do a better job of it, rather than relying on win-loss, which doesn’t actually tell you anything about it except in highly unlikely circumstances, and even then is probably more confounded than the alternatives?
This is why I used W/L pct only in comparison to the OA team percentage.
But I am not a statistician, which is why I chose to use a simpler metric, that is more easily accessible. I admit it’s not a breakthrough, and that it’s only minimally useful, but some have contended that it’s useless, which I disagree with.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
It is useless
for what you want to use it for.
You should feel free to disagree, of course, but you should probably have some reason why you disagree. Otherwise any exchange is sort of pointless.
I've tried to explain why I find it useful
in limited situations. I find it useful only in that it shows how often a starting pitcher is able to “hold onto” a win, even when given a terrible team in support of him. To BE useful in such limited cases, one must also look at the run support the given pitcher received, as well as the other team peripherals (fielding percentage, etc.) that can affect such things as well.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:20 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think they are really all that interested in him, from what I've heard.
Concerned that the “Bright Lights, Big City” might bring back the emotional issues from before.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
It would have to include Montero
and probably one of Banuelos, Betances and Brackman. Maybe Gary Sanchez.
"By MLB.TV, we can see J. Hamilton's homer, M. Young's clutch, and N. Feliz's explosive. All about Rangers things can be our interest"
--South Korean Rangers fan
I'm hoping the Rangers will be aggressive on the international front this season.
I was upset when they didn’t land Esteilon Peguero. Its a lot easier to make a trade for Greinke when you use that source to improve the farm.
by Monkey Brain on Dec 12, 2010 7:04 PM CST up reply actions
I talked to Jason Parks about this on Rangers Fan Radio
Peguero’s being paid more than he’d normally make because this year’s crop of INTL prospects was weak. The Rangers were interested in him, but at a normal price. They’ll likely get right back into the swing of things next year… Parks said the 14 and 15 year old international fields are both looking quite strong.
"By MLB.TV, we can see J. Hamilton's homer, M. Young's clutch, and N. Feliz's explosive. All about Rangers things can be our interest"
--South Korean Rangers fan
lee
for the reason that greinke would cost just as much as him + a lot of our top prospects.
It's Time.
by Jason Brynsvold on Dec 12, 2010 5:40 PM CST reply actions
$13.5mil<$20mil+
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 11:26 PM CST up reply actions
what would the extension be though?
not the cost for each of the next two seasons, but the contract after that.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 12, 2010 11:56 PM CST up reply actions
The reason why I voted Lee
is that Greinke costs you prospects, and top of the line, nearly ready prospects. Lee doesn’t.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
and in 2 years
Greinke costs as much, if not more, than Lee if he pitches well.
"I wanted to go out there and punch Julio" - Ron Washington
it'd be more
and that’s if he averages about 5.5 WAR, which I think is a reasonable expectation. It’s hard to expect him to repeat on his 09 campaign. Now, if we could get both Lee and Greinke, keep CJ and Colby, and fill in at the number 5 starter, and somehow keep our offense together, that I’d like to see.
But if it’s one or the other, Lee it is.
This team do what it do ~ Ron Washington
I didn't see a reason to go out there 'n ack-a-fool ~ Ron Washington on the Ben and Skin show
by Eric Prince on Dec 12, 2010 11:05 PM CST up reply actions
For BG, from above
You don’t think comparing a pitcher’s winpct to his teams (in a + or – fashion) is instructive at all?
I think it shows that he can win, even when not surrounded by much talent.
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not perfect, no.
However, I think it’s more instructive when you’re dealing with a great pitcher on a terrible team, like Greinke or Hernandez (SEA), and that pitcher has a much higher winpct than his team. And when you combine a pitcher of Greinke’s quality with that type of won-loss record on an awful team, it becomes even moreso. But, yes, it’s not perfect in any way.
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 12, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
Win-Loss records, BY THEMSELVES, are definitely worthless.
But I just contend that, on a losing team, comparing a pitcher’s win percentage might be instructive as to how he responds to low run support, how he battles in tough situations, etc.
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
Response by BG:
It’s not.
Stop it.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 3:02 AM EST up reply actions
I have made the point over and over,
that looking at win percent BY ITSELF is not useful. You guys just seem so hidebound against using it for ANYTHING (even only in conjunction with other stats, as a way of gauging how well the pitcher overcomes the adversity of being on a team that is terrible) that you just refuse to even consider that win percent differential between the pitcher’s and the team’s might be useful in conjunction with other stats.
Tell me this, who would you rather have, a guy with good peripherals, who went 35-50 over four years with a bad team, or a guy with good peripherals, who went 46-39 over four years with a bad team?
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:45 PM CST reply actions
So, that's nothing but your unfounded belief.
Just as I already mentioned. Got it.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
You know what, go to hell.
I appreciate a good discussion as much as anyone, and will engage with people who want to actually discuss things.
You don’t.
That’s fine.
Just quit replying to me, if you find my arguments, and the way I support them, worthless and unfounded.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 1:55 PM CST up reply actions
I'm discussing it.
Just admit that you’re basing this on absolutely nothing and we can continue. Instead, you want to take your toys and go home because someone challenged your completely unfounded assertions.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions
You didn't "challenge" it.
You basically said, “You’re wrong! You’re wrong! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!”
And I won’t “admit” that my analysis is based on “absolutely nothing”, because it’s NOT based upon “absolutely nothing.”
You really ARE one arrogant sunuvabitch.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
I just cut-and-pasted a series of posts,
where I outline why I find win percentage not entirely useless. I’ve asked you several times to defend your position that it IS entirely useless. You refuse to do so.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 2:40 PM CST up reply actions
That's not how argumentation works.
You’re making a claim and I’m asking what you’re basing it on. You’ve said nothing but what you “contend.” I’m asking what you’re basing that contention on, and it’s crickets.
More to the point, though, I’ve already said that any information W/L has can be had from more accurate and complete stats that actually tell you something about the pitcher rather than his team. You seemingly have no answer for that, either.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions
I've supported my argument.
You’ve made a counter-assertion that win percentage has absolutely no value, no matter how it’s used. I’ve asked YOU numerous times why you think it’s completely useless, “and it’s crickets.” You’ve made a positive assertion. Defend it, or shut the hell up.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
Well, I'm not Brett, obviously.
But it seems that he has defended it.
Any information W/L has can be had from more accurate and complete stats that actually tell you something about the pitcher rather than his team.
Seems pretty clear to me.
How do other stats even attempt to quantify a pitcher's mental makeup?
While I’m not claiming that win percentage is perfect in that regard, my contention is that it DOES begin to do that, for reasons I outline above, in a post to a much less confrontational person who disagreed with my contention.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
Your contention is baseless.
Stats such as leverage would be much better proxies for “clutch” or “mental makeup” or whatever you’d like to call it, should such a latent factor exist.
Do you have a link that explains "leverage"
in a manner that a non-expert could understand? I have a familiarity with some of the basic deeper stats, but I don’t know that one.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
Thanks for the link.
Leverage is very interesting to me, especially if it is able to be narrowed down to VERY specific situations. For instance, “6th inning on, with a 1-run lead” and things like that.
"Coaching a football team is the most engrossing thing in the world. It is playing chess with human pawns." --Walter Camp
by K. Scott Bailey on Dec 13, 2010 3:22 PM CST up reply actions
Also Josh
I know we’re all big boys and can handle it, but I did want to apologize for my childish behavior the other day. Finals time always makes me grumpy, but let it be known that I support the Garoon.
by brettgardner on Dec 14, 2010 12:57 AM CST up reply actions
You can't just say you supported your argument.
With what? On what are you basing your contentions? And see Garoon for the response to your question. I’ve been pretty clear on why I think you’re wrong.
by brettgardner on Dec 13, 2010 3:03 PM CST up reply actions
RFRL Tonight
Come check in with us, call and scream about waiting for Cliffy… Listen to us ponder about getting rid of Face!
Go to the RFRL threa… 7pm CT tonight.
"Hey Sanka, you can pee now... uuummm, too late...."
This used to be links to my websites... But the man got in the way, shut them all down... Damn the man...
Rangers Fan Radio
Rangers Game Streams ~ Password: LSB123
by FormerLSBUser on Dec 13, 2010 6:38 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lone Star Ball
Related FanShots on Lone Star Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
