THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/09/29/bc.bbn.cardinals.lohse.ap/index.html

Cards ink Lohse to a 4/$41 extension. Thoughts?

Is it time for a “Sabermetric Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season” thread, yet?

It’s symmetry; the 2008 offseason started with the Cardinals signing Piniero to an ill-advised extension, and now there’s the Lohse deal. It’s probably money spent better than the Piniero signing, but I don’t think it’s a very good contract.

Yes, I think they paid almost twice what he is worth.  You could easily make a rule of thumb that you never sign a pitcher to long term deal because the pitcher, his agent, and some team is going to tremendously overvalue a contract like that because lots of people, including baseball insiders, do not understand the long-term prognosis for a pitcher, on the average.  Not to mention the fact that as long as every announcer you will ever hear on TV says that pitching wins championships, pitching, especially starting pitching, will be overvalued.

That being said, Lohse got “better” coming from the AL to the NL, as expected (I am not sure that the NL has worse hitting now, but they definitely have a low worse pitching, so a pitcher in the AL is “better,” as compared to his peers in the NL).  He also, however, had somewhat of a career or fluke (we never know about that of course - the rest of his career could have been a fluke and this year could have been real!) year this year.  Plus, his garbage (w/l) and semi-garbage (ERA) stats were good this year, giving lots of folks (not all of them of course) in the STL front office the impression that Lohse is/was better than he is.

None of his component stats changed all that much this year, especially considering the league move.  He is likely a little worse than an average pitcher.  That is not very good for a 30 year old pitcher!  In fact, you could also say, as a rule of thumb, and it would be a good rule, that you don’t give a 30 year old below average pitcher a 4 year deal, especially at 10 mil per!

I have him projected an 1.5 WAR next year, 1.2 after that, then .9, and then .6.

That comes out to a fair contract of about 4/22.  4/41 is ugly.

Here is the really interesting thing though.  At the beginning of the season, he was really undervalued (for some strange reason).  They basically picked him up for a song.  He also basically pitched this year about the way you would have expected him to pitch, maybe a little better.  So why wait until he is overvalued to sign him to a 4 yr deal?  Why didn’t you (STL) sign him to a 3, 4, or 5 year deal before the season started?  He is no less of a risk now than he was after last year. In fact, less so, as he is one year older.  They could have gotten him for half that at the beginning of the season, I assume.  If you are a team that is presumably smart, but you are going to occasionally sign FA pitchers to long term deals which you probably shouldn’t, then you should make those long-term deals when you find a pitcher who is underrated, not overrated!  You had and opportunity and blew it.

I don’t have my Marcels ready yet, but I’m going to guess that Lohse is going to come out ok at something like a 4/30 deal.

Seems like the 2008 thread just ended.

Regarding Lohse: Last year he turned down a 3/$21 offer from the Phils. This is probably what he’d have gotten as a free agent… he didn’t give the Cards and kind of discount.

I don’t think we can say whether it was fair value or not for sure just yet (it appears to be overpriced)--we don’t know how the rest of the market will play out.

Concerning Lohse, his ‘08 looks like an improvement mostly because of what he did against lefties. Some of that improvement is likely due to Dave Duncan. I suggest that because Lohse clearly changed his approach this season compared to ‘07 (overall more fastballs and against lefties specifically he threw more fastballs and curves at the expense of his slider).

Of course it also helps that he had a great year command-wise and showed ground ball tendencies as well (both of which could regress but also both could be in some part to Duncan).

I say all of this because some of his improvement might actually have been more real than random. In any event, I could see the Cardinals’ FO thinking Duncan may have had a positive impact. In their defense, I think with Lohse they believe they’re buying innings rather than ERA.

Lohse is still a mid-to-backend innings eater who doesn’t miss bats and relies upon his defense but there might be a better chance that he’s “closer to league average” than he’s “worse than league average” over the next few years, if that makes sense.

I think Tango’s estimate of 4/30 probably isn’t that far off. 

To me, the real sin is 4 years.

People who seriously analyze players do not benefit from the concept of an innings-eater.  A player’s value is his projected playing time times his rate value over replacement.  Period. 

Any above average player benefits, value-wise, in having a greater amount of projected playing time, more or less.  That applies to below average players as well as super stars.  I don’t know why a below-average (but above-replacement) pitcher is called an innings eater, but a star who has a high playing time projection is not.

As I said, a team and/or the player benefit, value-wise, and therefore, dollar-wise, from more playing time.  That should be obvious.  No player has any value while he is sitting on the bench or the DL.

Obviously if a player is marginal to start with, talent-wise, he needs to have more projected playing time in order to get a total value of X then a player who has more talent.  But again, since X value is , we already know that, and we don’t need to throw in meaningless words to muddle the issue and give people catch phrases to justify a position.  (Terry, I am not picking in you.  I am just using this opportunity to rail on the phrase “innings eater.")

You can say all you want about Duncan and Lohse, but the bottom line is that his profile really didn’t change much this year, and what did change may almost entirely be due to changing leagues.  Don’t also forget that we a beneficial effect to pitchers when they change leagues (familiarity factor).

BTW, I am looking an Fangraphs, and I see little if any fundamental differences between 08 and 05-07.

Fastball speed same as last year and down 1 mph from 05 and 06 (as we expect of all pitchers).

Fastball, change, and curveball percentages about the same, give or take a few point of fluctuation from year to year for whatever reasons.

His G/F ratio was 1.43 this year, up from last year, but in 05 it was 1.31, and it should be lower in the NL.

Literally the only thing that sticks out in 08 is his HR rate, which is quite a bit lower than in his career, and his FB rate which is a little lower than in his career. And of course HR rate and FB rate is going to get Marcelled just like everything else.

In fact, Lohse is quite easy to do a projection on.  Lots of data.  No major injuries I am aware of.  No changes in approach or pitches thrown.  Pretty consistent from year to year in all peripherals.  What more can you ask for to make a projection?

He is one of those pitchers who just begs to be overvalued.  Quiet, no controversy that I am aware of.  (Nice looking.) No injuries or complaints.  Decent stuff, good velocity, does not let up a lot of HR’s, and pitches a lot of innings, with no history of injury.  And a good ERA and w/l record this year to boot!  What a perfect storm to be overrated and overpaid.  We should all be overvalued like that! 

The only problem is he is just not that good.  Average at best.  Probably bad in 3 or 4 years.

Reminds me a little of Suppan, who was near average a few years ago and pretty bad now.  Reminds me a little also of Marquis, who was bad a few years ago and is terrible now.  But because of a lot of those reasons above, they were overvalued for a while, and maybe still are, at least Suppan is.

"No player has any value while he is sitting on the bench or the DL. “

Tony Pena does.

One more thing while I am on my soapbox.  Those kinds of pitchers tend to me mediocre at lots of things but not real bad at any one thing so no one notices the sum of their deficiencies.

They tend to have a below average K rate, around an average BB rate, and around an average, and sometimes a little below average, HR rate.  That does not make a bad pitcher of course.  But it does tend to make an overrated pitcher, especially if they have good stuff and don’t get hurt much.

The ones who get overrated a lot and are not very good pitchers, are the Suppans and the Marquis - low, but not terribly low K rates, average BB rates, and slightly worse than average HR rates.  What fools people are the fact that they strike out just enough people not to be known as extreme “contact type” pitchers and they often have decent velocity and stuff to go along with their passable K rates, and they don’t have really bad BB or HR rates, so no one notices anything unusually bad about them.

The problem of course, is that if you have a K rate 70 or 75% of the league average, unless you walk a lot less than your fair share of batters and give up few HR’s, you are a BAD pitcher.

I think it’s a bit of a tough sell to claim any change that Lohse might have seen in ‘08 was from a league change.

BTW, concerning the pitch tendencies, Josh Kalk has done a nice job of summarizing pitch f/x data in an accessible way. It’s pretty clear that there are some substantive differences in Lohse’s pitch tendencies between ‘08 and ‘07-especially against LHB.

I understand that innings eater is a pejorative but the point I was trying to make was that St Louis was likely willing to tolerate (or over reach for it) “league average” because Lohse can also likely give them 190-200 innings of it. I wasn’t arguing that pitching a lot of innings trumps pitching them well per se.

This past season, Lohse:

-threw fewer strikes than he did in 2007
-registered fewer swinging strikes than he did in 2007
-allowed more balls in play than he did in 2007
-gained groundballs at the expense of infield flies

If St. Louis wasn’t willing to go four years for him last March, they shouldn’t be willing to now. Nothing significant has changed, except for his age.

The basic rule if you need one is:

salary in millions = (win% - .400) * innings / 2

So, a .500 pitcher with 200 innings will make 10MM a year.

A .450 “innings eating” 200 innings is the same as a league average pitcher at 100 innings.

***

A great pitcher, your CC, Santana, Doc, etc, should be a .600 (or better) pitcher.  As you can see, that puts them into the 20MM range and beyond.

***

It’s a nice rule of thumb…

I think it’s a bit of a tough sell to claim any change that Lohse might have seen in ‘08 was from a league change.

That’s what I was thinking. Lohse changed leagues in mid-2006, right?

I think an innings eater might have some value, above and beyond the basic runs over replacement calculation.  They allow you to avoid overworking your bullpen. 

Take the Orioles.  Their starters, who are mostly terrible, can’t pitch deep into games.  The team winds up overworking the bullpen, and you wind up with a bunch of pitchers on the DL or pitchers who lose effectiveness as the year wears on.  I’m sure they’d love to have a Paul Byrd type who can pitch 180 innings of a 4.80 ERA, throw strikes, and keep the pitch count down.

I don’t know if this should be considered in determining a pitcher’s value, just something to consider.  Of course, with the rule of 10, it’s hard to project anyone to continue being an innings eater anyway.

"Literally the only thing that sticks out in 08 is his HR rate, which is quite a bit lower than in his career”

Lohse’s last 42 GS in 06 & 07 were playing for Cincinatti & Philadelphia. Before than in Minnesota. I would hope that his HR% would come down.

HR park factors
Min 0.98 Cin 1.23 PHI 1.24 STL 0.82

The hit, bb & so per 9 ip don’t look like they’ve changed one bit (within normal variations) compared to the previous two seasons.

My bad about the “league change.” For some reason, I thought he was on MIN last year.

Brian, I was referring to context-neutral HR rate. I should have made that clear.  After park and opponent adjusting.

Jeff Sullivan is right on the money.  Nothing has changed about the guy, from the standpoint of a sabermetrician doing a projection.  He is the same pitcher in April as he is now, other than he is older now with fewer good years left in him.

If they were unwilling to sign him to a 4 or 5 year deal then, and willing now (which they are), be definition, they must have made a mistake somewhere along the line (either now or then).

But, I still see him as a 4/25 guy at best.  My projection for him NOW is .3 runs worse than an average starter.  That is a .475 starter.  Using Tango’s formula, that is 6.75 mil for 180 innings.  I don’t think you can project any 30 year old pitcher for more than 180 innings.

If you think you can, give me a criteria for that and we’ll check the historical record and see if you are right.

Here are his context-adjusted DIPS component ERA’s for the last 5 years, normalized to 4.00:

04 4.50
05 4.12
06 3.50
07 4.11
08 3.68

So there appears to be a change when he went to the NL (those numbers are as compared to a league average pitcher in that league).

Re: “Bad” veteran starter types

I agree on the overall value of a guy like Marquis, Lohse, or Suppan. These guys aren’t that great, and probably overpaid. But I do think they have value to certain teams. It’s the value of “known commodity.”

Call me crazy, but if I’m the Cubs and I’m pretty sure my top 4 starters and offense are enough to get me to the playoffs, I’d rather fill that 5th spot with Jason Marquis - even at a higher cost, because afterall I’m the Cubs and I can afford it - than a young pitcher who might be just as good. See, Marquis isn’t going to kill you. He’s healthy, will give you the innings. He’s going to be league-average at best, but you can be pretty sure of it. The unknown player might turn out to be the next Zambrano, or he could pitch 10 games, have an ERA of 8, and cost your team a ton of games. For a team that is expected to win, and who can safely pencil in a certain number of wins, it’s more important to have a consistent (but average) player than somebody who might be so bad that you need to quickly find a replacement or your season could be jeopardized.

Now, if the Cubs use Marquis in the playoffs, somebody needs to call for an intervention for Uncle Lou.

If the argument is Marquis for 7 million or a young pitcher for 400K plus pocketing the difference for next year, and you need to win this year, then fine.  The 6.6MM$ you are overpaying for Marquis may have better benefit in 2008 than spending it a bit at a time in 2009-2011.

But, at the start of the season, with so much uncertainty in the records (remember, the top forecasters are off by 8 to 10 wins every year!), it’s foolish to presume that kind of setup.  You got for the known quantity with 2 or 3 months to go, and you are in contention.

MGL, what is your projection for AJ Burnett?

He is under contract for 2 more years at 12M/year, but can opt out.  Should he?  Is he worth more than that?

I’m not MGL, but a rough projection using tRA has Burnett as a ~4.5 WAR (.575-.600 W%) starter, so yeah, he’s absolutely worth more than that. The only question is whether teams will look past his >4 ERA and see his true value. His 2008 was sensational.

Admins,
How about freezing this thread and the postseason one at the top of the page? I recall that was done last year. Thanks.

Marquis is a bad example.  He is truly a bad pitcher.  I am not sure that you get much more of a “known quantity” with a pitcher like him as opposed to a young or rookie pitcher with the same or similar projection. And I am definitely not sure that it matters.  I am almost certain, however, that you don’t want to spend 7 mil more just for a “known quantity” since you can purchase almost 2 wins more for 7 mil.  Marquis got the contract he did because he was terribly overvalued by the Cubs.

AJ is a good pitcher.  Again, you will see a big jump from when he was in the NL to the AL, although some of that is from being older, oft injured, etc.

I have him projected around 2 tenths better than average or about a run better than replacement (in the AL).  That is around a .570 pitcher.  With his injury history, I don’t think you can project him for more than 180 IP.  That is around 3 WAR or something like that.  For next year. So 12 mil is “fair.” If he has the option, it’s up to him to decide if likes playing in TOR, what he can get from another team. The thing about an option like that, if it is one year, is that he probably has an opportunity to sign with another team for multiple years.  If he takes the option for one year and then gets hurt or tanks, he is screwed.  Someone will give him 3/35 or 4/40.

If he is not in the AL, but in a “neutral league”, you can add .5 win.  4.5 WAR?  No way.

A .570 pitcher compared to the .370 AL replacement level, with 180 IP (20 full games) is a 4 WAR pitcher (.200 times 20).

I think you’re being conservative saying someone will give him 3/35 or 4/40 MGL.  I could easily see someone giving him at least 4/60.

Burnett?  Maybe.  I am not very good at predicting contracts.  However, there are many things that are going to keep that number fairly low.  One, he is not on the short list of pitchers that are “household names,” partly because he pitched in FLO and TOR, partly because before this year he never won more than 12 games, and partly because he is not all that great.  Plus, as Jeff said, his 4+ ERA will scare some teams, and rightfully so.  Finally, his history of injuries will also scare teams, again, rightfully so.  Not to mention that he is 31 years old.

I don’t think that all of the above is recipe for “at least 4/60”.  But I could be wrong.

I don’t know why I said that Burnett was a .570 pitcher.  I said he was .2 runs per 9 better than average.  That is a .513 pitcher of course (assuming 6 IP per 9), which is 2.4 WAR per 180 IP.

I think our nomenclature is different.  When I say a .512 starting pitcher, I mean that is how many games he wins per start.  It is a combination of his rate talent and how many inning he pitches per start.  I guess I can’t use that “construct” to compare starters to relievers though.

How do you calculate a pitcher’s (starter and reliever) value again, in “wp” given that he is X runs per 9 better than an average pitcher?

MGL:

Calculate personal winning percentage.  In your case, .2 runs per 9 IP = .02 wins per 9 IP.  Add that to the league average of .500, and you have a .520 pitcher. 

Convert to WAR. In the AL, the baseline is .370 and in the NL it’s .390.

(.520-.370)*(180/9) = 3.0 WAR

***

You however have a higher replacement level than I do.  This also implies that you pay more per WAR than I do (since we are both paying out the same total amount).

You are right about dollar value of course. If my replacement level is much higher than yours, my WAR would have to have more value.  But it does change the relative value of players, of course.

There are so many “studies” that show that scrap heap pitchers are not that bad.  Why do you stick with such a low level of replacement?  Some people say that it is hard to believe that a replacement pitcher can be so “good.” Again, my answer is that if the spread of pitching talent is small (which I think it is), and people get fooled because of the spread we “see” in a year’s worth of samples - then it is not surprising that we should not see such a gap between replacement and average and star pitchers.  There are only so many spaces for pitchers in MLB.  If there are lots of pitchers between a true 3.50 and 5.50 ERA (with an average of 4.50) then so be it.  All of the pitchers in MLB will be in that range.

What I have said for many years is exactly that.  There are a few true 3.50 pitcher (the superstars), a few more, 4.00 pitchers (the stars), many average pitchers (4.00), a bunch of 4.50 pitchers, many of them in the bullpen as average relievers, and a ton of 5.50 pitchers.  A ton.  Who needs anyone worse than that when there are so many 5.50 pitchers?  What is so hard to believe about that?  There is no magic number that represents how far below average a replacement pitcher or other player has to be.  As I said, it all depends on the spread of talent in the population and this the number of players available between a certain range of talent.  I contend that at any one time, there are 6 or 700 pitchers available between a true 3.50 and 5.50.  Heck, that is a pretty big range anyway.

There is also the issue of the theoretical replacement level and the de facto replacement level.  If teams suck at evaluating pitchers (or just if they make more than an occasional mistake) then the de facto range will be larger, at the upper end mostly. IOW, let’s say that there are 100 replacement level 5.50 pitchers to fill out the back end of all pitching rosters, but that 10 of those are actually 6.00 pitchers that the teams think are 5.50 pitchers (the Backe’s, Hennesy’s Duckworth’s, etc.).

The better you are at evaluating talent, the lower replacement level is going to be, BTW.  Depends a little on the distribution of talent, but in general that is true by definition. 

So the effective or de facto replacement level in MLB is ALWAYS going to be lower than the optimal or theoretical one and different (higher or lower) than anyone else who does the evaluation (and is better or worse at that evaluation).

To tie this in to another thread, if Steve Phillips ran (evaluating players and signing contracts) all 30 teams and so did a good sabermetrician, who do you think is going to have a substantially lower replacement level, especially when it comes to pitchers?

I set the replacement level such that about 40% of the value goes to pitchers and 60% to nonpitchers.  If I make the replacement level too high for pitchers, and not for nonpitchers, then I’ll be out of balance from the 60/40 split.

Apparently TOR is planning to offer Burnett 2 more years at $15MM per year in addition to the 2 he has remaining at $11 per. So that’s 4 years, $52million. Of course, he didn’t sign anything yet.

I believe Burnett has 2/24 left, so if that 2/30 extension thing is true that would put him at 4/54.  Of course, I fully expect him to go into free agency and use that 4/54 line he almost has guaranteed to his advantage and raise up his price.

Apparently TOR is planning to offer Burnett 2 more years at $15MM per year in addition to the 2 he has remaining at $11 per. So that’s 4 years, $52million. Of course, he didn’t sign anything yet.

JP is not on my short list of intelligent GM’s.  In fact…

I’m wondering what anyone thinks Furcal will get this offseason. Good defender, but historically a slightly below average hitter.

Will he get paid *a lot* more for his 36 great games this season?

Furcal is a terrific (good) offensive player for a SS.  Where did you get the idea that he was slightly below average?

Lwts per 150 games (0= average for all players, -9 = average SS)

04 .1
05 10.3
06 11.6
07 -14.1
08 69.9 (154 PA)

Oh, I guess you looked at last year and “forgot” about the rest of his career.  They all count.  Some more than others, but they all count.

I didn’t mean for a SS. I meant for all hitters. He’s been about average (or a touch below).

I typically look at a hitter relative to all hitters, then defense, then add in a position adjustment. (This may not be optimal.)

For 2004-2007, Furcal is +2 per season.  The 2008 can’t lift him up too much since the sample is too small, but maybe he’s up to +5.  Then there’s age, he’s over 30 now, isn’t he?

An average hitter overall, who can play shortstop is a very valuable player.  I don’t know what offer I’d make to Furcal.  It would depend on his medical reports.  If I were a GM I’d need a full report and a doctor to advise me before I made an offer.

Nick, yes that is definitely the best way to do it, since the average hitting stats at any one position can change from year to year. If all of a sudden one year the average SS hits +10, it doesn’t make a SS who hits +10 an average player. It just means that all SS that year are way above average players.  So you are doing it the right way (hitting+defense+positional adjustment) - I just think you underestimated his hitting projection, even relative to all players.

Wes Helms just signed a $1.9 million/2 year extension with Florida. From Buster Olney’s report, it appears he’ll also get the $750,000 buyout for 2009, so it’s 2 years, $2.65 million.

I know that’s not very much money, but does Helms actually do anything well? He’s 33 next year, isn’t much of a hitter, and from the little I’ve seen doesn’t appear to be anything special defensively. For a franchise that likes to keep its payroll way way low, this seems like a pretty unnecessary extension, even if it’s relatively cheap.

MGL - What linear weights value do you have for Furcal in 2008?  The number you give in post #35 doesn’t seem remotely possible.

Do you know if anybody has run a study if players project better from their median values then their means?

MGL - What linear weights value do you have for Furcal in 2008?  The number you give in post #35 doesn’t seem remotely possible.

***

Peter, that number is per 150 games, in which case it seems completely reasonable.

Sorry, my mistake. I’ll sign up for reading lessons.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor?season=2008
ESPN park factors are out. The leader (Rangers) had the lowest runs adjustment of a leader for the 8 years they have listed at the site. Perhaps they have improved their calculations?

Peter, I don’t know of any studies like that.  And median what?  To compute a median, you need a series of numbers, right?  What series are you computing a median from?  And at what point?  IOW, when are you doing the regressing?

A projection is basically a weighted mean which is then regressed towards some number - how much to regress a function of the number of historical PA.

What and where are you proposing a median be computed?

Helms is pretty much worthless.  For some reason, he has a reputation as a good hitter. I guess he was good in 05 and 06 (and decent in 03), and then fell of the table in 07 and 08.

I have him projected hitting-wise at around the level of a 2B or SS without much defensive value (he plays 3B and 1B).  Pretty much replacement level.  Maybe a little more.  Who knows?

Well, Manny and Boras will want at the very least 5/$85. That’s crazy. Of course, I’m sure some team will want to give him that much, and more.

I have him as 2.8 WAR, and I wouldn’t give him more than 3/$34 if he plays LF. Not sure how much it’d be as a DH.

Click my name for the LA times snippet on this.

Ellis signs for $5Mil in ‘09, $6Mil in ‘10, and has a $6Mil club option for ‘11.  There is also about $2MM in possible incentives.

He’s a favorite of the fans’ scouting report.

Looks like a great deal for the A’s.

Mark Ellis is like Placido Polanco was: a league average hitter who is an excellent fielder.  Just doing it real quick, I’ll guess he is +0 as a hitter, +1.5 as a fielder, +0.25 for his position.  Add in the +2.5 the average AL player is over WAR, and he’s a +4.25 per 162G WAR player.  He misses his shares of games, so if we give him 75% of that, he’s still over a 3 WAR player.  He’s probably worth a 4/50 deal in the free agent market.  Again, just doing this as I’m typing without referencing anything yet.  I’ll look into it more tomorrow.

Also off the top of my head, I’d be surprised if any other FA deal nets as much surplus value (per year) as the Mark Ellis deal does for the A’s.

Your bang on Tango with Ellis, based on my numbers. Using the 5/3/2 weighting over past 3 years, he is a 3.5 WAR, heavy on the defence side. Take .5 win off for being over 30, and you get 3.0 WAR. Deal of the early preseason thus far, likely for the whole year

I know this is “Sabermetric Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season” rather than “Moronic Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season,” but I guess that, in a general sense, the Jacobs-for-Nunez deal should go under here. I am one of those in the Royals blogosphere who, um, aren’t particularly thrilled with Dayton Moore at this point.

I won’t go on and on about all the different levels on which this deal is stupid for the Royals (and please, correct me if I’m wrong in that evaluation), but I have to say that no matter how I look at the numbers, it seems to me that if Jacobs plays the field with regularity, there’s no way he comes out above replacement level. Am I being unfair? I mean, I guess if he somehow hits just as “well” in the AL as he did the NL (i.e., giving him the 2.5 WAR level for AL position players instead of the 2.0 WAR level for NL) he might do it, or if he has a career year with the glove and just goes -6 runs or something, he might… I just want to make sure I"m not overreacting. I guess he has a shot at being a 1.2 WAR player if he DHs and everything breaks right offensively, but I don’t really do my own projections.

I’ve seen the CHONE forecasts that have him at -8 runs (I think) next year. Billy Butler is at -4. Do others agree (as do I) that Butler would be a better fielder than Jacobs?

So much more to write, but I already have elsewhere. I always knew that Dayton Moore wasn’t exactly arguing with people over VORP vs. Super Linear Weights, but I guess what is frustrating is that he seems generally grasp the concept of picking up fungible talent for the bullpen and making good use of it, but when it comes to position players, trades for Mike Jacobs and signs Jose Guillen to a dumb-then-horrifying-now 3/$36M contract instead of picking up players of equal or greater value like Russell Branyan or Eric Hinske up in free agency (not that those guys are great, or anything, but they’d certainly come cheaper).

/rant

Hope this is not a dumb question, perhaps others that are reading this thread have the same question, but when you refer to a pitcher as a .570 win% pitcher in your WAR calcs, how are you calculating this win% number?  Thanks.
vr, Xei

Short version: Use Pythagorean win expectation, figure out his win percentage against a league-average opponent pitcher. Search for “WAR” in the search box in the upper right hand corner if you want the full formula; I can’t remember it off the top of my head right now.

The short answer is that if you have a 4.00 ERA in a league of 4.40 ERA, then your win% is .540.  The short-rule is:
(lgERA-ERA)/10 + .5
or
(5+lgERA-ERA)/10
Whatever is easier to remember.  Again, short-hand.

Am I being unfair?

Yes, I think you are.

I just want to make sure I"m not overreacting.

Again, I think you are.

I have him projected to be a very good hitter.  +18 runs per 630 PA.  That is around 7 runs better than an average first baseman.

Here are his everything adjusted lwts per 630 PA (150 games) for the last 3 years, including any AA and AAA MLE’s.

05 18
06 8.5
07 7.8
08 18

The reason that the projection (+18) is so high even though a quick Marcel might look lower is that he is only 28 or so, so that those past lwts get adjusted upward (for age) and he is now around at the peak of his expected offensive performance.

It appears that he is probably a very bad fielder, but at first base, the worst we can assign someone is -10 runs.

That puts him at 3 runs worse than an average 1B overall.  In the NL, an average player is 1.6 WAR (using my numbers - Tango uses 2.0 I think).  That makes him 1.4 WAR, not terrible.

I don’t know about the other issues, such as whether they need a 1B or DH (he is probably better as a DH), or who he might be “blocking,” but on its face it is not a bad deal.

He is still under control for a while I think and Nunez is a very generic (near replacement level) pitcher, not worth much of anything, regardless of salary.  His only value is that he is near replacement in the AL, which makes him slightly above replacement overall, maybe .5 win to .75 wins.

Your linear weights don’t match up with what I got, or what’s on Baseball Reference:

2006 +4
2007 -1
2008 +5

I’ve got a projection on Jacobs for +5 hitting, which combined with terrible defense puts him just above replacement level.  He has a rather large platoon differential though, and if used strictly as a lefty DH, I think he’s got some value.  In that role, he’d be the new Brad Fullmer.

MGL/#54. Thanks. My problem was less with trading away Nunez (I thought he was better than that, but in any case I’m still not really clear on how to evaluate relief pitchers), but rather bringing on Jacobs, who, while he is under club control, is supposedly going to get around $3M-$3.5M in arb this year. I guess that’s pretty good if he’s a league average player. I guess my own evaluation of him is closer to Rally/#55.

As an aside, although I’ve read the WAR post here a couple of times, I’m still a bit confused on how to exactly handle the league differences for position players re: league average, replacement level, and so on. I think perhaps the problem is that I’ve always assumed (for some reason) taht 2 WAR was league average, and that if league average is “0”, then replacement level is -2.5 WAR for AL nonpitchers and -2 WAR for NL nonpitchers.

Tango/53. Thanks for that short answer, as that’s something I’ve been wondering about as well, but was too embarrassed to ask. Could one do a similar thing (with satisfactory results) using FIP or tRA instead of ERA?

Right, the zero-level in WAR is -2.5 wins per 162 G in the AL (relative to the average player in the AL), and -2.0 wins per 162 G in the NL (relative to the average player in the NL).

tRA, FIP, BsRA, DIPS, ERC - any component ERA/RA can be used in place of ERA in “value” formulas, like baking with Splenda instead of sugar.

Note that tRA is a measure of runs allowed, not earned runs allowed, however - I think the league average tRA you’d want to use is about 4.80, but that’s just a rough guestimate.

+18 for Jacobs in 2008?  Tough to believe for a guy that couldn’t crack a .300 OBP.  Fangraphs has him dead even over the past three seasons, and bb-ref has him at about +7.5.  Hard to believe he’ll be 18 runs better average in the AL this season.

If you’ve been following the Peavy to the Braves talks, the rumors are that Towers wants Wren to give him Yunel Escobar and other prospects. 

Escobar is about a +21 defensively according to Dewan’s +/- Fielding Bible, +10 defensively according to Tango’s Fan Scouting Report, +12 defensively according to MGL’s UZR, +7 defensively according to jinaz, and a +12.5 offensively relative to the average SS according to baseball prospectus’ pmlv.  Wouldn’t that make him worth between a 4.5 and a 5.0 WAR? 

I think Peavy has been on average about a 5 WAR over the last three seasons.  The Braves would be getting 5 years of club control over him.  They would have to give him $81 million over those 5 seasons.  That’s great value in free agency dollars.

However, the Braves also already have about 5 years club control left on Escobar.  He’s making the league minimum and isn’t yet arb-eligible.  Trading a 4.5 to 5 WAR SS who won’t make much money on the five club control seasons you have left and who hasn’t yet fully matured along with other prospects for a 5 WAR, $81 million injury risk of an ace doesn’t seem to make sense to me.

Even worse, Towers wants Wren to take Khalil Greene’s $6 million off his hands.... That $6 million hit ($5.4 more than Escobar makes) will likely hurt the Braves in getting and/or maintaining a good bench, outfield, and set of relievers. 

Any thoughts?

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2231&position=1B

Jacobs was +1 Situational Wins in 519 PA.  So, per 630 PA (which is what MGL is quoting, or 146.5 games… MGL, 150 Games is 650 PA), that would make him +1.2 wins.  That’s not far off the +18 runs MGL has him for in 2008, if he’s got good baserunning numbers, or the park factors look better for him.

***

For his career, his Offensive Situational Wins is +2.27 wins in 1611 PA, or +1.0 wins per 700 PA (162 G).

As for fielding, according to the Fans, he is DEAD LAST among 1B, which makes him possibly the worst fielder in MLB.  Billy Butler is not much better.  I’m not even going to look at UZR or Dewan, because I can’t even imagine that they could trump what the Fans see.

Let’s give him 70% playing time.
WAR = .70 * (+1 -1 -1.25 +2) = 0.5 WAR

***

Nunez has a career -0.9 situational wins in 691 PA.  Per 9 innings, that’s roughly -.05 wins relative to league average, or a .450 pitcher.  Problem is, a replacement-level pitcher is .460 in the AL.

***

So, what we have here is a trade of a platoon player for a guy who is a back of the bullpen guy.  For this kind of trade, it becomes a question of whether a scout on one side or the other sees more than the other guy, and if there’s some tiny hole for each team to plug.

***

This seems to be about as ho-hum as a “trade” as there is.  Heck, I would argue that MLB ought to have a protected list of say 20 players of their 40-man roster, excluding anyone under 25.  Everyone else is a free agent.

This way, instead of worrying about trades, they can simply draft whatever is in the scrap heap every year to fill-in whatever holes they think they have.  These two players would not be protected.

Peavy is a great pitcher of course: +9.4 wins in his last 5 years (almost 4000 batters).  That puts him close to a .590 pitcher, compared to the .390 repl level for a NL starter, or +.20 wins per full game.  If you give him 22 full games, that’s 4.4 WAR.

Esobar, according to the Fans, is a bit above average (and less than Greene).  With the positional adjustment, that makes his fielding roughly +1.5 wins.

In 942 PA, he has +1.54 Situational Wins, or about 1 win per 700 PA. 

If we give him 75% playing time, then we get:
WAR = .75 * (+1 +1.5 + 2) = 3.4

***

A 1 WAR difference is almost $5MM in difference.  Obviously, Peavy makes alot more than 5MM more than Escobar.

Would you rather have a 250K Lamborghini, with 200K left in payments, or a 150K Porsche, with 50K left in payments (or whatever the appropriate comparison is)?  With the Porsche maybe requiring more day-to-day maintenance (young guy, not much history, not exactly sure what we have in escobar), and the Lamborghini possibly breaking down it the middle of the road at any time (pitchers who have injuries are scary).

If you really can’t afford to make the payments, and if the other guy really needs the best car around, and if your risk aversion puts you in this position, then maybe you can make a case for the trade.

Tango/62: I agree on the surface with your analysis. I do think that Nunez has shown himself to be a better than a back of the bullpen guy the last couple of years, but agree that he’s not a hot property and is relatively easy to replace, no biggie.

My main problem with the Royals going after Jacobs in trade is that they already have 2-3 guys that are cheaper and probably at least as good with potential to be better than Jacobs, and 2 of them are younger (Kila, Buter). Moreover, if they really wanted a guy to fill the role Jacobs is most optimally utilized in (DH vs. RHP) there are guys out there who could be had for less than the $3M+ figure Jacobs is likely to get in arbitration who are as good or better. And they could be had without giving up talent, however marginal.

Of course, if MGL’s projection is accurate, then this trade looks much better for the Royals.

I’m not as good at projections as MGL or Rally, but I have Jacobs pegged at -4 runs for next year in 459 PA, not adjusted for park.

Colin/65: Is that just hitting, or overall?

Hitting relative to league.

ESPN reported that the Brewers picked up Mike Cameron’s option for 2009 ($10 mil). Factoring in projected playing time and aging, is his projected performance going to be worth that much?

As a general rule, Mike Cameron is year-in year-out the least appreciated above average player in baseball.

I would build a team with Mike Camerons and Endy Chavezes, and Mark Ellises, and Placido Polancos, and I’d contend for the playoffs every year.

***

Devil: any platoon player or back of the bullpen guy is worth at most 1 WAR, and therefore, should get less than 5MM$ on the free agent market.  In arbitration, 1st year arb, they get 40 cents on the dollar.

In the case of Jacobs, he’ll be worth very little.  Let’s see what he gets.

An average player in fulltime play is worth 2 WAR, or about 10 million.  Cameron is a bit above average hitting, fielding, and plays a premium position, so this was pretty much a no-brainer. 

On these options, there is usually a buyout so keeping Cameron may have only been 8 million more expensive than letting him go.

Tango, on my blog you questioned my use of 5.25 million per win.  Am I getting ahead of myself in inflation?  I thought last year was 4.8 mil, but maybe it was 4.4 and we should be up to 4.8 this year.  I can’t remember.

Just looking at the raw numbers I have in front of me, I have Cameron at $12.2 million for the upcoming year. That’s using the Chone defensive projections and basing it on 514 PAs. I just do a basic projection so I’d wait for the big guns to come in and tackle this one.

Rally, right I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

In 2007, I used 4:
http://tangotiger.net/salary2007.html

And 2008, 4.4:
http://tangotiger.net/salary2008.html

So, I’m going with 4.84 for 2009.

It also depends how many WAR you have.  I get around 1000 WAR for the season.  MGL has less, probably 800 or 900, so each of his wins costs more.

Tango/#69: It will be interesting to see what Jacobs gets. I guess I was quoting a figure from Dick Kaegel, official reporter of royals.com and known idiot, so I probably shouldn’t take that as gospel.

I suppose I also get confused, however, as to how we should view the market or even arb rulings. How “rational” is it. Maybe I’m conflating posts of different people that I’ve read on here, so I apologize if so, and I don’t mean this as a criticism, but more of a question, and here it is: at least on the FA market, sometimes the comments on deals are such that “oh, okay, that confirms how we valued player x.” However, sometimes the comments are more in the vein of “wow, that sure is stupid, player y isn’t worth that,” or, as in the case of Mark Ellis, “wow, the team sure got a great deal on player z, he’s worth way more than that.”

I suppose the question is how rational the market for marginal wins really is, overall. Are deals like Ellis and Milton Bradley last year (or, on the other end, Jose Guillen last year and Kyle Lohse this year) just outliers, or is the market less “rational” than it should be if it were efficient.

Getting back to Mike Jacobs, when you write “let’s see what he gets,” do you mean that ‘let’s see what he gets” meaning “this is how the arbitrator sees his value” or “this is what his value really is?” I hope the question makes sense.

I hope my posts/quetsions aren’t too annoying—I realize that these are probably very basic (albeit long-winded and confusingly worded ) questions, but for my part I appreciate the the time various people take to respond—I’m learning a great deal. Hopefully I’m not testing anyone’s patience too much. A few weeks back I even nerded up my own “2009 salary chart” from your previous posts extrapolating the 4.84/WAR from last year’s 4.4 and posts around that.

-------------------------

I think Rally went with the $5.25M/WAR because, unconsciously, he wants the Hunter and Matthews contracts to look better! [joking, of course. Love the defensive projections. Well, I wish they were better for certain players, but that’s hardly your fault.]

What’s the scale for the lwts offensive metric that MGL and Rally use? (what’s good per 600 PA or w/e)

I know you were kidding, but Hunter is probably a slight bargain at 5.25 per win, and slightly overpaid at 4.84.  No complaints about him at all.

For Matthews, any $ per win looks bad when you are no better than replacement.

Here are the weights I’m using:
1b .47
2b .77
3b 1.02
hr 1.4
bb .31
hbp .33
out -.2875
sb .19
cs -.44

Shouldn’t Hunter’s 2008 be judged against $4.4M/WAR?

Sure.

+7.4 batting (b-ref)
+3 defense
+25 al replacement level
+2.5 cf

total +3.79 wins * 4.4 = 16.7

Not counting baserunning, which he’s good at.  I’m happy with his performance, he can keep the change.

That’s what I thought. Justin’s numbers have him about the same, I was just confused with all the 4.86/5.25 being thrown around.

For Jacobs’ 2008 park and opponent adjusted lwts, I have him, per 500 PA, as:

s 59 (6.5 of those were IF singles)
d 26.7
t 2.13
hr 40.3
BB+HP 25.3
roe 2.9
so 111.5
FB outs 128.8
GB outs 122.4

I don’t count DP except as they are included in the out value of the GB out.

so = -.288 runs
FB outs = -.274
GB outs = -.288 (for a lefty batter)

non-IF single = .48 runs
IF single = .4
d = .77
t = 1.07
hr=1.40
roe = .51
bb or hp =.32

Tango, my PA’s are AB+SF+BB+HP-IBB-sac attempts (1.5*SH).

In the AL this year, there were 38.1 of these PA per game.  So 630 PA per player is 149 games.  In the NL, there were fewer PA per game, 37.7, I think, so that 630 PA is around 150.5 games.  That is why I use 630 PA for 150 games.  Obviously for a player who tends to bat in the top half of the lineup, there are more PA per 150 games and vice versa for players at the bottom of the order.

Tango/63

For Escobar, you use (+1 +1.5 +2) which I’m pretty sure is (hitting, fielding, NL).  Don’t you also need to add in the fact that he’s a SS?

MGL/79

You have the 3 out values as so = -.288, FB outs = -.274, GB outs = -.288

I was under the impression that an out was worth closer to -.30.  Is this due to playing in FL? Here is a link to where I think I got that in my head from…

http://www.tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php?title=Batting_Runs

Thanks guys…

The run value of every event depends on the run environment:
http://tangotiger.net/customlwts.html

As for Escobar, I combined fielding and position:

Esobar, according to the Fans, is a bit above average (and less than Greene).  With the positional adjustment, that makes his fielding roughly +1.5 wins.

What am I worth in free agency?  My baserunning and defense drag me down, but what am I worth as an AL DH?

Pat Burrell’s WPA/LI for the last 5 years, more recent first: +2.8, +2.8, +2.0, +2.0, +1.9, averaging 600 PA per year.  So, that’s +2.8 per 700 PA weighted, or +2.5 per 700, weighted and regressed.  Knock out a little for aging, say +2.25 overall offense.  A very good hitter.

He s-cks as a fielder.  I give a blanket -2.25 for any guy that should be a DH, in terms of his fielding + position.

In the NL, he gets +2 wins per 162G.

Let’s give him 80% playing time.

WAR = .80 * (+2.25 -2.25 +2) = 1.6

Man, that’s low.  It just goes to show how much you handcuff your team with being such a poor fielder.

Am I being too hard on him?  Maybe.  I’m just doing this fairly quickly.  Maybe he’s a 2 WAR player, but he won’t be much more than that.

Ouch, he will be one overpriced m-therfu--er.  Excuse my hyphenations.

I would see Burrell about the same as a hitter, but I’m curious why you use -2.25 for him as a defender, rather than -1.75 as a DH, if that’s what he would play (I think that’s why #82 was asking about)?

The DH value is -2.25, with a +.50 bonus if you accumulate your stats AS A DH.

If you remember in The Book, we said that there’s a DH penalty, that it’s harder to DH.  So, for a guy like Hafner or Ortiz, their stats have been depressed, and therefore, we give them an extra +0.5 wins to compensate.

For Burrell, he did not act as a DH, and therefore, we don’t need to compensate him.

He stinks as a fielder, say -1.5 wins as an OF and -0.75 for the corner OF adjustment.  Or he’d be -1 win as a 1B and -1.25 for the 1B adjustment.

Remember what we do.  We always ask: “What would an average player have done, if he performed under the same conditions as our guy?”.

Ah, OK. That makes more sense—if a guy’s previous stats were as a DH, then he gets the +0.5 bonus because we “know” he can do it, or whatever.

Actually, my cheesy weighted projections for Dunn and Burrell are both look better by “only” giving them the -22.5 penalty instead of adding their field + pos (assuming that the horrible fielding numbers I have for them the past 3/4 years are accurate). Yikes.

My simple weighted average of the last three years(using -2.25 rather than his “actual” defensive value) has Adam Dunn projected a a bit under 2.25 WAR for next year. Would I be correct that implies (just rounding offfor simplicity) say, 3/$28M or 4/$32M? If so, wow, I think someone s going to give him way more than that…

I’d have to re-read the info in The Book about the DH penalty, but I’m not sure we went any further than if a player DH’s AND plays a position in the same season or even sporadically in his career, he hits worse as a DH.  I don’t think we ever figured out if some or most (or all) of that penalty was from the fact that players who often or mostly play the field might DH when they are a little injured, hence the “penalty” is an injury.  Or, if we used a player’s entire career, did we control for age (obviously a player who plays the field early in his career and then DH’s later in his career will hit worse as a DH)?

IOW, I am not sure there should be any penalty if a player switches to DH and then settles in that position.  My guess would be there isn’t.  If the data contradict that, then I my guess is wrong.  I just don’t know (I don’t think actually) the data we looked at in The Book did in fact contradict that.

I don’t know that UZR hates Burrell all that much:

05 -3
06 -12
07 -30
08 -8

On offense, I have him as around +1.5 wins or 3.3 WAR in my scheme.  Om defense, his projection in LF is around -10.  Baserunning he is worse than even an average LF’er.

Around 1.5 WAR overall.  Yes, he will be mad overpaid. How many times have I said that poor fielding slugging 1B and corner outfielders are overpaid like no one’s business?  If you ever doubt that, think Carlos Lee.

I would start a thread of the Carlos Lee Family of Players (like I did with Endy), but I’d have some 30 or 40 guys in there, easy.

What would be interesting is to start lists of guys in the Lee and Chavez families who somehow defy the expectation that they will be over/underpaid.

Maybe Matt Stairs would be a guy who is like a “Lee” family member (power hitter, bad defense) who never really quite got his financial due (short, stout Canadian Guy Discount).

It’s would be harder to find a guy who got overpaid for (alleged?) fielding/defensive skills… Jason Varitek might enter that discussion. I know people disagree about Omar Vizquel’s fielding (I have not particular opionin)… If I remember rightly, UZR has never been particularly impressed with Ichiro’s defense, and a large part of why he’s “worth it” is his allegedly awesome OF defense.

I don’t think Varitek has been overpaid, except maybe this past season, the last year of his deal.  He’s been well above average hitting for a catcher, and good enough defensively.

Aubrey Huff only got 3 years, 21 million the same year Carlos Lee got his big deal.  Despite their projections and defensive value being very similar.

You won’t find two more similar players than Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn, except they bat from different sides of the plate.

Clarification: I meant that Varitek’s upcoming contract may or may not overpay him for his defensive skills and or “good work with pitchers,” since I assume that overpayers won’t be expecting much offense out of him.

devil/90: While Torii Hunter might have ultimately not been overpaid (I think he was), I think he WAS overpaid for his defense. UZR hasn’t loved him for a very long time, I don’t think, yet most of that money was because Hunter has a reputation as the best defensive CF in baseball. In truth, he’s a decent CF and a decent hitter. Overall money might work out, but the motivation for the contract was probably wrong.

Burnett has confirmed he is opting out. I have him at around 5.25 WAR over the past 3 years (weighted). Assuming half a win for aging, and $4.8MM a year, is he really in for $20MM, $22MM a year? Perhaps his health history will discount this a bit, but I think he gets as much as Lowe, if not more.

The rumors of Varitek’s early demise have been greatly exaggerated. I think he will be underpaid next year.  The bar is so low for catchers, in terms of their offense, that even a really bad hitter is an average catcher offensively. Combine that with a catcher having a career bad year, and then combine that with the catcher being pretty old, and you have a perfect storm of a catcher getting underpaid.  The only thing that prevents Tek from being vastly underpaid is that which makes people think he is going to overpaid, which he will not be.  That is his supposed defensive and leadership skills.

Tek’s offensive lwts, last 4 years:

23.4
-15.7
9.7
-16.5

What do you think a Marcel says about that?  Compare that to an average catcher with around -15 (I forget).  This guy is projected to be an above average catcher, or at least average one, yet everyone speaks as if he is replacement level.

Among other things, everyone assumes that an “old” player who has a bad year somehow defies Marcel.  Why is that?  It is simple to look back in history and look at all old players who had a bad year, even really bad year. Guess what you find the next year?  Marcel!  I have to constantly remind people, “Where do you think Marcel comes from?  Real players, real data!  If reality didn’t match up to Marcel, then there would be no Marcel, because that’s where Marcel comes from!”

If Marcel did not work for fairly common subsets of people, like old players with bad recent years or young players with good recent years, or some such thing, Tango, I, Rally, and everyone else would be revising Marcel to fit the data (reality).

So let’s please stop assuming that everyone is an exception to Marcel (or at least that you just KNOW who those exceptions are, because you are smarter than Marcel).

MGL #95: you are absolutely right. Although I don’t know how to run an “official” Marcel myself, I can do a weighted average that I think is sort of close. My problem was not that I was trying to “outsmart” Marcel or identify an exception, but simply that I didn’t look at Varitek’s stats very carefully, and thought that his 2007 was bad and his 2006 was good, which, if I understand how these things work, would change his outlook for next year considerably.Once I actually looked at the numbers and plugged them in, he does, indeed, look like an above-average catcher (before adjusting for age). I apologize for my carelessness.

I have Tek at -8 in 440 PA, so around -11 in 600 PA, right around where MGL said. That’s just a Marcel with some LWTS applied to it.

Of course, with a catcher (especially an older catcher) I’m not sure that per 600 PA is the best yardstick to use, given that he’s never had 600 PA in any season in his career and isn’t likely to start now. That might ding his value a little bit.

Marcel might work for common subsets of players, but for a 37 year old catcher with 1300 games caught under his belt and coming off a terrible year, I’d probably take the under on whatever marcel will spit out for Tek.

But either way, let’s say Tek is -11 for hitting.  +12.5 for being a catcher seems to be what Tango settled on a week or so back, so I’ll use that.  Defense, I have no idea.  Fans had him dead average (50.3) so 0 seems like a fine guess.  +25 for AL replacement.  That puts him +26.5.  Give him 70% playing time and he’s about a +18.5/+1.8. 

At 4.8M/win, that’s something like 8.5M.  Is he going to be paid much less than that?  I doubt he’ll be underpaid next season, and if he signs a multi-year deal, I’d think the odds will be VERY high that he’s grossly overpaid in years 2-x.

I’d probably take the under on whatever marcel will spit out for Tek.

That’s generous!

Yeah, I’ll take the under too!  How about if you give me 3-2?  Still take the under? How about if you allow Marcel 5 runs of “slop?” Still take the under?

Come on, I am not saying that Marcel should be perfectly linear or uniform or however you want to put it!

Your 1.8/8.5mm is probably not too far off.  And I am not very good at guessing what a player is going to command in a contract. I could guess 2/15, which would probably be about right.  We’ll see I guess.

I am mostly referring to many or even most people “bad-mouthing” Varitek as if he were replacement level, which I think they are. If not, then I take everything I said back.

Agreed on Varitek.  I’ve got him somewhere in the 8-11 million range, depending on how many games you expect him to catch.

Red Sox fans on BTF are talking like he’ll get a 2/15 deal, as if it was massively overpaying for him.  I hope he signs elswhere and Red Sox fans get a taste of what replacement level catching really looks like.

I hope he signs elswhere and Red Sox fans get a taste of what replacement level catching really looks like.

The return of Doug Mirabelli!

[Cue long response showing why I’m an idiot (again) and how Mirabelli’s year off means he will come back as a 1.5 WAR player.]

Mirabelli is not even close to a replacement level catcher. It is almost impossible to be a replacement level catcher since the average catcher is so low already in offensive lwts.  Literally, almost any hitter in AAA, if he could learn how to catch would be better than replacement level.  Well, maybe not “almost everyone” but you know what I mean.

Rally, #100, that is exactly what I was saying.  Perfect storm for people thinking that he is going to be overpaid AND that he will suck next year. 

1) Bad year (people always overvalue recent performance, of course).

2) Low junk stats in 08 - BA, HR, and RBI.

2) Since the average catcher sucks at hitting, a catcher who is just a little below average in hitting will be perceived as really sucking.

3) His age to go along with #2.  If an older player has a bad year, he is “done” (in the eyes and minds of the average fan).

4) They just took a disliking to Varitek’s offensive production and that snowballed and was fueled (as usual) by the media.

Varitek hit just as badly in 06 as a 35 or 36 year old (and his junk stats were also bad).  I don’t remember, but I suppose he was “done” then too.  Anyone want to some research on what the fans and media were saying after 06?  Miracle of miracles, he was +10 on lwts in 07!  Whaddaya know!

Mirabelli is not close to a replacement level catcher?  How so? Do you have him better or worse? (From your post I think you mean he’s better)

Mirabelli is 33 runs below average (LW figures from B-ref) in his last 480 PA, going back to 2005.  He did hit pretty well in 2004, but I’m not sure how relevant that is (when he was 33) to next year, when he’ll be 38, if he were to decide to unretire. 

Take a marcel of those numbers, and throw in an extra round of aging since he didn’t play last year...if he’s not replacement level or below then I don’t know who is.

Somebody is a replacement level catcher.  Take the projections of the best 60-75 catchers, and the guy after that is replacement level, a guy who you can sign for the league minimum.

If the position adjustment is set so low that all your catchers, including you AAA ones, show as above replacement level, then your RL is too low.

"It is almost impossible to be a replacement level catcher since the average catcher is so low already in offensive lwts.  Literally, almost any hitter in AAA, if he could learn how to catch would be better than replacement level.  Well, maybe not “almost everyone” but you know what I mean.”

I do know what you mean, but doesn’t this mean that the margin between replacement level and average is less than two wins? Doesn’t it also mean that an average catcher is worth less than $10 million a year?

Huh. My one-off joke making fun of myself turned into a debate about whether or not Doug Mirabelli would or wouldn’t be a replacement level catcher, and also one about whether or not replacement level catchers exist… The Butterfly Effect. I hope this didn’t kill someone 3 years down the road or anything.

Rally, you are right of course.  Whatever the level of the next X number of catchers after we give 2 or so per team IS replacement level.

I should have said that replacement level for catchers is higher relative to average, than for other positions.

I have him at -23.8 (non-weighted) over the last 480 PA since 05.

Throw in regression and even an age adjustment, and I don’t think you get a projection of much worse than -22 or so.

The average catcher is around -13 to -14 I think.  So he is -8 to -9 worse than that.  That might be replacement level for catchers, even though I generally use -18 worse than average or so.

So what I meant was that he is not that far from average, I guess. 

While obviously it is hard to find players who are willing and able to catch with some requisite skill, the number of players who can hit at -25 to -30 levels is enormous.  That would suggest that catchers should have a higher average offense.  I submit that they should, but for the fact that any decent hitting catcher is often moved off of catcher, catcher’s probably take a beating which depresses their original true talent, and teams seem to overvalue perceived defensive value behind the plate (maybe they are right - I don’t know), and guys like Fick and Craig Wilson are not allowed to catcher even though they would be well-above average hitters for the position.

I don’t have my Marcels ready yet.  Let’s take a peek at Manny.  He’s an unbelievable hitter, probably +4 WAA per 162G.  He’s a bad fielder, which we fix at -2.25.  His replacement level is around +2.3.  He plays all the time, so give him 85%.

WAR = .85 * (+4 -2.25 +2.3) = 3.44

That’s a 2yr deal, for 30 or 35MM.  He apparently has been offered a 2/50 deal.

I did some unofficial Marcels projections:

http://www.editgrid.com/user/cwyers/2009_Marcels_Projections

SG’s CAIRO projections are available now as well, I believe.

Given the recent discussion in these parts (as well as throughout the “blogosphere” about the Mark Ellis resigning, what do people make of these recent comments from Christina Kahrl (who is, I believe, an As fan):

“But to be terse (by my standards), the word that sums up my feelings on keeping Ellis is ‘resigned’ (as opposed to “re-signed"). OK, we kept him, and in the long and unhappy history of second base in A’s history, Ellis is sort of our generation’s Dick Green, a nifty player, but not a great one. For that money, it’s not a great deal, and given that it’s spread out evenly, this isn’t even a situation like Terrence Long’s contract, where we can always hope Billy gets somebody else to pick up the heavy back end of the tab.”

From http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=544

I’m not trying to stir anything up, but while I realize that BP writers in general aren’t perfect, this just seems a bit… I dunno… “Wrong,” maybe? I mean, Terence Long?

I don’t know if Christina is an A’s fan.  Huck is (worked for them I think).

Anyway, it’s a summary position presented without evidence.  That makes the statement as meaningless as the millions of other statements posted on the web each day.

If she were to expand on her thought, provide evidence, then we can talk.

Ditto what Tango said.  I’ll add, consider the source.  Since when does Kharl have any more credibility when it comes to evaluating player value and contracts than, say, Buster Olney?  I am not aware of any, although I could be wrong.

Summary statements with no evidence should be taken for what they are worth, with one important caveat.  The source. If Buster Olney (or anonymous fan X) tells us that player A is better than player B, we are skeptical, as we should be, that they have any idea what they are talking about (in fact, we basically ignore it), and we demand evidence, and rightfully so.

If Tango says the exact same thing, and we are aware of Tango’s credentials, while it would be nice to demand evidence, it is not particularly necessary, especially if it is something that is not particularly controversial and we already know that Tango is more than competent to make correct judgments like that.

So let’s not put the the same demands and requirements on everyone.  The source is at least as important, probably more, since it is not easy to decipher someone’s evidence, especially if you have no expertise in that area yourself.

While I appreciate the sentiment in the illustration, I’ll have to disagree.  It ends up with the possibility of “resting on laurels”.  You can give a pass once in a while, but I’d prefer being challenged than have what I say without evidence be accepted at face value.

So, if I said that Chase Utley and Joe Mauer signed to an incredibly deep discounts two years ago, and I say it without evidence, maybe it’s not worthless, but it’s pretty darn close to it, because there’s nothing you can do with the info.  All I should get is a temporary pass until I explain further.

It’s not really a move, but the Giants’ projected shortstop right now is Emmanuel Burriss. Rally has him at -2 next season at short. Offensively.... well how bad does it look?

Tango, Kahrl is an A’s fan, she actually confirmed it in her last chat.

x (Y): Better farm right now—A’s or Rangers?

Christina Kahrl: I guess that’s a grass/greener question, but speaking as an A’s fan who likes what