SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jon Lester to the Cubs 6/155
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 18, 2022 20:40:08 GMT -5
You act like Lester was mediocre in Chicago. He wasn't and when the team was at it's best Lester was the key guy. In 2016 when it really mattered there was no better place to allocate the money than Lester. Perhaps you're a younger Sox fan accustomed to seeing your team win championships? The Cubs hadn't won in 108 years. Hadn't even been to the Series in 71 years. Lester wasn't some guy who happened to be there. He was one of their best pitchers and contributed mightily to that win. It's not like he was a flop like Heyward or cost them 2 excellent seasons of Gleyber Torres like Aroldis Chapman did. The Cubs did very well to sign him. Only toward the very end was Lester a liability with the Cubs. 13.2 bWAR and 16.8 fWAR in 6 seasons. A league average player is said to provide ~2 WAR over a full season. Lester averaged 2.2 bWAR and 2.8 fWAR. He had a solid 2015, great 2016, and then four seasons of meh. I stand by "slightly above average" over the contract. I get a bit of a JD Drew vibe here. He was coming off three years of cumulative B-Ref WAR of 15.5 when the RS gave him five years and $70M before the '07 season. His performance with the RS was mixed - 11.4 WAR in five years, including a solid 4.4 and 3.1 in '09 and '10. He basically took early retirement in his last year, 2011, and put up a ghastly -.9 But he contributed mightily to the '07 championship with the grand salami in game 6 of the ALCS and was a solid regular in four of the five years we had him. I consider it a good signing - not good like the Papi signing before '03, but good like the Lester signing by the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 18, 2022 23:46:05 GMT -5
13.2 bWAR and 16.8 fWAR in 6 seasons. A league average player is said to provide ~2 WAR over a full season. Lester averaged 2.2 bWAR and 2.8 fWAR. He had a solid 2015, great 2016, and then four seasons of meh. I stand by "slightly above average" over the contract. Not league average player, but average regular. Maybe that's what you meant but to me, that's a bit more than a semantic argument - average among the guys who get regular playing time rather than average among every player in the league. 2.8 fWAR would've put him among the top 50 pitchers in baseball last year. Anyway, more importantly, I really disagree with the characterization of his time in Chicago as "He had a solid 2015, great 2016, and then four seasons of meh." He finished in the top 10 of the Cy Young voting in 2018 with a 125 ERA+. He was league average in 2017 and 2019 and only had one poor year in 2020 - a wonky-ass season in which players were affected differently by the various on- and off-field circumstances the league was playing through. That said, if you told the Cubs that in years 1-5 they were going to get one elite year, two above-average years, and two average years, maybe they wouldn't have been thrilled, but they wouldn't have been cursing their luck either. He was a top-20 starter in the game for those five years, then had a poor COVID 2020. I meant an average regular - we're on the same page there.
His 2018 was pretty weak by most metrics relating to expected performance. 4.39 FIP, 4.43 xFIP, 4.99 or 5.13 xERA (depending on whether you trust the Fangraphs or Baseball Savant number), and 1.8 fWAR at a rate of only ~1 fWAR / 100 IP. To comp another illustrious Sox, Cubs, and A's alum, Lester's 2018 fWAR accumulation rate is right in line with Felix Doubront's rate over his Red Sox career. The Cy Young voting, W/L record, and ERA are night and day different, but they're not really reflective of how he pitched. I feel like an extremist on here sometimes because I put much more stock in underlying batted ball data than the results on the field, but I don't think it makes sense to sing a guy's praises for things outside of his control, like having good luck, playing in front of a solid defense, or pitching in a pitcher-friendly park.
Where Lester's fWAR ranks isn't that imporant, for three reasons. 1) His ~$26 million AAV was certainly ranked near the top for starting pitchers from 2015-2020. He should rank higher on that list than the fWAR one, since vets get paid more, but still. He was being paid like a back end #1 and only pitched like it for 1 or 2 seasons out of 6. 2) Lester milked that WAR out of an extremely high number of innings. One might argue that an innings eater is valuable to a team, and I'd definitely agree, but you don't pay a guy this well to have him be slightly above average and durable. You pay him to dominate. 3) SP innings have been steadily declining over time, which should in turn result in lower fWAR totals per player. It's not too helpful to compare Lester's 2015-2020 fWAR totals against a list from 2021 for that reason.
If you want to completely throw out 2020, Lester looks like more of an above average player over the contract. He'd be ~3.3 fWAR per year, albeit in an insane ~188 IP per year. I think throwing out 2020 isn't really fair, though, since it's not as much an outlier under the hood as it might look. Like, here are Lester's Savant xERA totals from 2018-2021: 5.13, 5.13, 5.85, 5.16. Now, he may have rebounded a little, but are we really expecting him to have pitched well in a normal 2020? If anything I think a full season would have looked ugly on paper, so losing much of that season to COVID may have made Lester's CHC numbers look better than they otherwise would have.
With that said, I messed up in my post and should have prorated the WAR average for the shortened 2020 season. Doing that makes it ~2.5 bWAR and ~3.1 fWAR per season over the deal, which looks a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 19, 2022 0:38:00 GMT -5
13.2 bWAR and 16.8 fWAR in 6 seasons. A league average player is said to provide ~2 WAR over a full season. Lester averaged 2.2 bWAR and 2.8 fWAR. He had a solid 2015, great 2016, and then four seasons of meh. I stand by "slightly above average" over the contract. I think the Cubs will take the actual championship they won over any theoretical "might have won another year" arguments. And I doubt Jon Lester and his contract cost them shots at winning again. Chris already laid out the argument that I had made earlier that his final season, a useless season in 2020, dragging down his averages. Lester was great when the Cubs absolutely needed him to be great and he was well above average for the duration of that contract. When you think about how many contracts are signed by free agents in their 30s and how many of them are flops, I'd say the Cubs did damn well in the signing. You can't expect a guy who is a free agent in his 30s to have seasons that guys who are usually in their primes in their 20s have. So it comes down to: do you flat out not sign free agents altogether or deal with the fact that you're going to pay the free agent premium and that toward the end of the contract, even a good one, you're likely going to get slippage, especially with pitchers who are extremely fragile? When you factor in that the Cubs got a durable pitcher who was healthy throughout his contract, effective for most of it, and great when it truly mattered for the franchise, I'd say the Cubs did damn well in this signing and would do this signing 10 times out of 10 if given the same exact situation. I think just throwing on a WAR number lacks some of the nuance of the Cubs franchise situation and the fact that Lester was effective for the duration of that contract and that compared to a lot of free agent signings which by its nature are doomed to failure, actually worked out very well. I'm sure they would with hindsight, but even with hindsight you can't argue that the Lester signing won them that WS. In order to even try to make that point, you need to start considering hypotheticals of how else that $26 million may have been allocated if not on Lester. Also, let's say they lost the WS in 7 in 2016. How do they feel about the contract then? If their feelings are different, they're not being objective about the value Lester provided. If not, they need to find another jutsification for Lester's deal being worth it beyond "flags fly forever, so anything that was done on the road to winning the WS is automatically worth it".
Read my follow up post to Chris for more on how I feel he performed. He was really good in 2015-2016, above average in 2017, and bad for the rest of the deal. His results were good in 2018, but no thanks to how he threw the ball.
I agree that a lot of these 30-something FA deals are flops, but I that's more of an indictment of giving out deals like this than an endorsement of Lester's deal.
My strategy as a GM would be to only target higher AAV / lower year deals when pursuing great players on the wrong side of 30. I would try to avoid deals like the one the Cubs gave Lester, since even if everything goes well you're knowingly mortgaging the future for the present; you expect get a few years of a great player at a discount in exchange for a few years of a mediocre player at a price premium later in the contract, but there's also a big risk of injury, especially as those players age. If I'm going to be giving out a mega deal, it's going to be for a guy who should reasonably be expected to produce well for the majority of the deal and with a good chance to provide surplus value over the contract. So, I'd say the most efficient play is to try to extend young stars early through their prime years (see Tatis Jr., Wander Franco, Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna). The risk of injury is still there and underperformance could be an issue too, but once you see the talent is real the possibility of getting insane value makes the risks worth it. You also will have that player off the books before they're in a nursing home, so you remove a lot of the risk of decline that often afflicts the latter years of big FA deals.
Let's imagine that two players have the same WAR total over a given season, but one is more durable than the other. Which would you rather have and why? I would take the less durable player in most cases, because you at least have the opportunity to fill their place with someone else useful when they're forced to miss time. In other words, with any kind of depth, you'd generate more team WAR over the same amount of innings with the elite player. You also have higher theoretical upside for the playoffs, where innings sponges aren't as useful. (Lester was great in the playoffs over his career even if you consider the effect of him pitching more when his performance was better, so he's a bit of an outlier here, but I digress). The workhorse doesn't test your depth as much, but the price for that is more limited upside. You can use things like innings caps and early hooks to help keep injury-prone pitchers on the field when it matters most too, whereas nothing you do will increase the upside from your workhorse. There are other arguments for the workhorse, like reducing strain on the rest of the pitching staff, but still. I'm not mortgaging my future to bring a guy like that on at 6/155 in 2014-15 dollars.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 19, 2022 10:46:14 GMT -5
I think the Cubs will take the actual championship they won over any theoretical "might have won another year" arguments. And I doubt Jon Lester and his contract cost them shots at winning again. Chris already laid out the argument that I had made earlier that his final season, a useless season in 2020, dragging down his averages. Lester was great when the Cubs absolutely needed him to be great and he was well above average for the duration of that contract. When you think about how many contracts are signed by free agents in their 30s and how many of them are flops, I'd say the Cubs did damn well in the signing. You can't expect a guy who is a free agent in his 30s to have seasons that guys who are usually in their primes in their 20s have. So it comes down to: do you flat out not sign free agents altogether or deal with the fact that you're going to pay the free agent premium and that toward the end of the contract, even a good one, you're likely going to get slippage, especially with pitchers who are extremely fragile? When you factor in that the Cubs got a durable pitcher who was healthy throughout his contract, effective for most of it, and great when it truly mattered for the franchise, I'd say the Cubs did damn well in this signing and would do this signing 10 times out of 10 if given the same exact situation. I think just throwing on a WAR number lacks some of the nuance of the Cubs franchise situation and the fact that Lester was effective for the duration of that contract and that compared to a lot of free agent signings which by its nature are doomed to failure, actually worked out very well. I'm sure they would with hindsight, but even with hindsight you can't argue that the Lester signing won them that WS. In order to even try to make that point, you need to start considering hypotheticals of how else that $26 million may have been allocated if not on Lester. Also, let's say they lost the WS in 7 in 2016. How do they feel about the contract then? If their feelings are different, they're not being objective about the value Lester provided. If not, they need to find another jutsification for Lester's deal being worth it beyond "flags fly forever, so anything that was done on the road to winning the WS is automatically worth it".
Read my follow up post to Chris for more on how I feel he performed. He was really good in 2015-2016, above average in 2017, and bad for the rest of the deal. His results were good in 2018, but no thanks to how he threw the ball. I agree that a lot of these 30-something FA deals are flops, but I that's more of an indictment of giving out deals like this than an endorsement of Lester's deal.
My strategy as a GM would be to only target higher AAV / lower year deals when pursuing great players on the wrong side of 30. I would try to avoid deals like the one the Cubs gave Lester, since even if everything goes well you're knowingly mortgaging the future for the present; you expect get a few years of a great player at a discount in exchange for a few years of a mediocre player at a price premium later in the contract, but there's also a big risk of injury, especially as those players age. If I'm going to be giving out a mega deal, it's going to be for a guy who should reasonably be expected to produce well for the majority of the deal and with a good chance to provide surplus value over the contract. So, I'd say the most efficient play is to try to extend young stars early through their prime years (see Tatis Jr., Wander Franco, Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna). The risk of injury is still there and underperformance could be an issue too, but once you see the talent is real the possibility of getting insane value makes the risks worth it. You also will have that player off the books before they're in a nursing home, so you remove a lot of the risk of decline that often afflicts the latter years of big FA deals. Let's imagine that two players have the same WAR total over a given season, but one is more durable than the other. Which would you rather have and why? I would take the less durable player in most cases, because you at least have the opportunity to fill their place with someone else useful when they're forced to miss time. In other words, with any kind of depth, you'd generate more team WAR over the same amount of innings with the elite player. You also have higher theoretical upside for the playoffs, where innings sponges aren't as useful. (Lester was great in the playoffs over his career even if you consider the effect of him pitching more when his performance was better, so he's a bit of an outlier here, but I digress). The workhorse doesn't test your depth as much, but the price for that is more limited upside. You can use things like innings caps and early hooks to help keep injury-prone pitchers on the field when it matters most too, whereas nothing you do will increase the upside from your workhorse. There are other arguments for the workhorse, like reducing strain on the rest of the pitching staff, but still. I'm not mortgaging my future to bring a guy like that on at 6/155 in 2014-15 dollars.
Not really sure what your point is. The Cubs were a team on the doorstep of being something special. They needed solid pitching they could rely on. The only better option to sign at that point would have been Max Scherzer who would have cost more than Lester. Lester was a big part of the Cubs' rotation in 2016, a key figure. I'm not sure what there's to debate about that or the theoretical moves they could have done that would have left them just as well off had they not signed him. The Cubs didn't even need to win the World Series for Lester to be a successful signing. At that point, the threshold for the Cubs was getting to a World Series, something they hadn't done since 1945, so even if they hadn't won, Lester certainly helped the Cubs accomplish their mission. The World Series victory was gravy. As it was, he was a key pitcher in the 7th game of the World Series. My memory is that Hendricks pitched well but was pulled after about 5 innings. Lester got them into the 8th with two outs before leaving on an infield single. Aroldis Chapman then blew up and eventually gave up a game tying HR to Rajai Davis before recovering and holding Cleveland off in the 9th before the Cubs scored twice in the 10th and Carl Edwards Jr got the first two outs of the 10th, gave up a run, and was rescued by Mike Montgomery. So you can argue that Lester contributed to the 7th game World Series win, merely the biggest game the Cubs have played in a century. If you want to play the - they could have done A, B, or C and done just as well, that's unknowable. The reality is that the Cubs won. I mean, we can play this same game with the Red Sox. Run your numbers and you see that in 2004 dollars the Sox overpaid Keith Foulke for the overall performance - great 2004 and useless 2005 and 2006. Same exercise with the Shane Victorino signing, which I complained about at the time of the signing - 3 years and 39 million, where Victorino was only good for one year out of 3, but I don't complain about either signing because both impacted a World Championship run for the good. This isn't a if the team wins any trade or signing is good - I mean the Heyward signing for the Cubs was a disaster, even with his wonderful 10th inning Game 7 speech. But doing the Cubs could have done A, B, or C and still come out as well with theoretical championships had they not signed Lester sounds foolhardy to me. Cubs fans will take the real championship and Lester's positive impactful contributions to that championship. Just like Red Sox fans won't undo the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal where you can play the same game and say the Sox would have been just as well off with Youkilis at 3b, Hanley at SS, the best of Carlos Pena at 1b and AJ Burnett as the starter the Sox went after. But 2007 actually does belong to the Sox and we'll never know if the alternatives to that trade would have yielded results as good. I guess it's one in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. Extending it even further to today, the Sox failure to keep Lester ended up with the Sox spending a ton on David Price. The Price contract wasn't a huge success but even with the Sox eating it, I won't complain. Can't pretend that David Price wasn't impactful in 2018 or that his World Series success isn't part of the equation. I'll take that 2018 championship and not worry about theoretical championships that they could have won had they kept Lester. I still think the Sox made a mistake letting him go and apparently John Henry does, too, so the approval for the Sox to spend big on Price and to be aggressive keeping Sale (even if the timing of it given his health status was questionable). So I think I would say that the Sox made a mistake with Lester, but it worked out anyways. I guess it's possible for a team to make a mistake, compound it, and yet have it work out anyways.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 23, 2022 12:47:59 GMT -5
I'm sure they would with hindsight, but even with hindsight you can't argue that the Lester signing won them that WS. In order to even try to make that point, you need to start considering hypotheticals of how else that $26 million may have been allocated if not on Lester. Also, let's say they lost the WS in 7 in 2016. How do they feel about the contract then? If their feelings are different, they're not being objective about the value Lester provided. If not, they need to find another jutsification for Lester's deal being worth it beyond "flags fly forever, so anything that was done on the road to winning the WS is automatically worth it".
Read my follow up post to Chris for more on how I feel he performed. He was really good in 2015-2016, above average in 2017, and bad for the rest of the deal. His results were good in 2018, but no thanks to how he threw the ball. I agree that a lot of these 30-something FA deals are flops, but I that's more of an indictment of giving out deals like this than an endorsement of Lester's deal.
My strategy as a GM would be to only target higher AAV / lower year deals when pursuing great players on the wrong side of 30. I would try to avoid deals like the one the Cubs gave Lester, since even if everything goes well you're knowingly mortgaging the future for the present; you expect get a few years of a great player at a discount in exchange for a few years of a mediocre player at a price premium later in the contract, but there's also a big risk of injury, especially as those players age. If I'm going to be giving out a mega deal, it's going to be for a guy who should reasonably be expected to produce well for the majority of the deal and with a good chance to provide surplus value over the contract. So, I'd say the most efficient play is to try to extend young stars early through their prime years (see Tatis Jr., Wander Franco, Ozzie Albies, Ronald Acuna). The risk of injury is still there and underperformance could be an issue too, but once you see the talent is real the possibility of getting insane value makes the risks worth it. You also will have that player off the books before they're in a nursing home, so you remove a lot of the risk of decline that often afflicts the latter years of big FA deals. Let's imagine that two players have the same WAR total over a given season, but one is more durable than the other. Which would you rather have and why? I would take the less durable player in most cases, because you at least have the opportunity to fill their place with someone else useful when they're forced to miss time. In other words, with any kind of depth, you'd generate more team WAR over the same amount of innings with the elite player. You also have higher theoretical upside for the playoffs, where innings sponges aren't as useful. (Lester was great in the playoffs over his career even if you consider the effect of him pitching more when his performance was better, so he's a bit of an outlier here, but I digress). The workhorse doesn't test your depth as much, but the price for that is more limited upside. You can use things like innings caps and early hooks to help keep injury-prone pitchers on the field when it matters most too, whereas nothing you do will increase the upside from your workhorse. There are other arguments for the workhorse, like reducing strain on the rest of the pitching staff, but still. I'm not mortgaging my future to bring a guy like that on at 6/155 in 2014-15 dollars.
Not really sure what your point is. The Cubs were a team on the doorstep of being something special. They needed solid pitching they could rely on. The only better option to sign at that point would have been Max Scherzer who would have cost more than Lester. Lester was a big part of the Cubs' rotation in 2016, a key figure. I'm not sure what there's to debate about that or the theoretical moves they could have done that would have left them just as well off had they not signed him. The Cubs didn't even need to win the World Series for Lester to be a successful signing. At that point, the threshold for the Cubs was getting to a World Series, something they hadn't done since 1945, so even if they hadn't won, Lester certainly helped the Cubs accomplish their mission. The World Series victory was gravy. As it was, he was a key pitcher in the 7th game of the World Series. My memory is that Hendricks pitched well but was pulled after about 5 innings. Lester got them into the 8th with two outs before leaving on an infield single. Aroldis Chapman then blew up and eventually gave up a game tying HR to Rajai Davis before recovering and holding Cleveland off in the 9th before the Cubs scored twice in the 10th and Carl Edwards Jr got the first two outs of the 10th, gave up a run, and was rescued by Mike Montgomery. So you can argue that Lester contributed to the 7th game World Series win, merely the biggest game the Cubs have played in a century. If you want to play the - they could have done A, B, or C and done just as well, that's unknowable. The reality is that the Cubs won. I mean, we can play this same game with the Red Sox. Run your numbers and you see that in 2004 dollars the Sox overpaid Keith Foulke for the overall performance - great 2004 and useless 2005 and 2006. Same exercise with the Shane Victorino signing, which I complained about at the time of the signing - 3 years and 39 million, where Victorino was only good for one year out of 3, but I don't complain about either signing because both impacted a World Championship run for the good. This isn't a if the team wins any trade or signing is good - I mean the Heyward signing for the Cubs was a disaster, even with his wonderful 10th inning Game 7 speech. But doing the Cubs could have done A, B, or C and still come out as well with theoretical championships had they not signed Lester sounds foolhardy to me. Cubs fans will take the real championship and Lester's positive impactful contributions to that championship. Just like Red Sox fans won't undo the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal where you can play the same game and say the Sox would have been just as well off with Youkilis at 3b, Hanley at SS, the best of Carlos Pena at 1b and AJ Burnett as the starter the Sox went after. But 2007 actually does belong to the Sox and we'll never know if the alternatives to that trade would have yielded results as good. I guess it's one in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. Extending it even further to today, the Sox failure to keep Lester ended up with the Sox spending a ton on David Price. The Price contract wasn't a huge success but even with the Sox eating it, I won't complain. Can't pretend that David Price wasn't impactful in 2018 or that his World Series success isn't part of the equation. I'll take that 2018 championship and not worry about theoretical championships that they could have won had they kept Lester. I still think the Sox made a mistake letting him go and apparently John Henry does, too, so the approval for the Sox to spend big on Price and to be aggressive keeping Sale (even if the timing of it given his health status was questionable). So I think I would say that the Sox made a mistake with Lester, but it worked out anyways. I guess it's possible for a team to make a mistake, compound it, and yet have it work out anyways. My point is that it's impossible to say a team was "one piece away from a WS", or that a single acquisition was the reason they won. You might attempt to make that argument if you set the alternative as acquiring no one and keeping the money, but in the real world not acquiring Lester means an extra $26 million per year unallocated that could have been used to improve the team in other ways. Given Lester's value over the deal, I think it's likely that they would have at least come out even by spending that money elsewhere.
I've been over why I don't think it's a good argument to just say "scoreboard" when justifying a signing, but I'll rehash a bit. For one, the deal is six years long. Are you willing to ignore seasons worth of highly-paid garbage because they won a single WS? Plus, you never know who is going to show up in the playoffs, given how big of a factor sample size is. That's how guys like Steve Pearce randomly win WS MVP. Would you say a six year deal for Pearce at big money would have been justified in hindsight because he was a god in the 2018 WS? I doubt it. He was a pumpkin again by the next season and retired shortly thereafter. I think it's fine and correct to argue that having Lester in 2016 contributed to the Cubs' WS win, and it's fine and correct to say that we have no way of knowing how other signings would have turned out. Still, attributing the WS win to acquiring Lester and then saying you can't evaluate hypotheticals because Lester is the one that won the real ring is pretty silly in my opinion. If you can't consider hypotheticals, then it is impossible for anyone(s) other than Lester to have been a better signing simply because Lester was signed. If the Cubs had signed me and sat me on the bench en route to a 2016 WS we still wouldn't be able to entertain the hypothetical that maybe Jon Lester would have been a better signing.
I do like that you brought up Price, because that's another good example of why I feel this argument is poor. He was a waste of money by pretty much all metrics and became a 3/48 ball and chain on the Sox after he got traded. The Sox probably would have gotten better value from ~$30 million spent on the FA market in 2018 alone than Price's 4.15 xERA and 2.4 fWAR, plus 26 playoff IP with a 4.87 xFIP. The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing? Winning a WS during someone's contract should not absolve years of mediocrity, especially for long-term deals that hurt the team in other seasons.
I don't think it's fair to blame the Price and Sale deals on letting Lester walk. If a GM is irrational to the point of offering up a series of bad big money contracts because they regret letting a different player go, they are in the wrong line of work. I think letting Lester walk was the right decision, but signing Price and extending Sale in spite of his late-season arm issues were poor decisions.
FWIW, Jon Lester's career xFIP was 3.82. His career playoff xFIP was only 3.67. Especially given that he pitched a disproportionate amount of his playoff innings during the middle of his career, it's fair to say he wasn't even that special in the postseason. He was just himself. I don't care about runs allowed (i.e. the "scoreboard" argument) since anyone can benefit from a good defense, good luck, and cold weather keeping balls in the yard. I care about how he threw the ball, since that's what he can control and therefore what earned him the 6/155 deal in the first place. Since underlying performance is largely what earned him that contract, it only makes sense that this should also be how we determine whether that contract was worth it. You could argue that playoff offenses will tend to be stronger than regular season ones, and I'd agree with that, but 1) that's irrelevant to the gulf between Lester's ERA and FIP/xFIP, and 2) is probably balanced out by other factors, like the aforementioned offense-killing cold weather and throwing most of his playoff innings in the middle of his career.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2022 15:37:58 GMT -5
Not really sure what your point is. The Cubs were a team on the doorstep of being something special. They needed solid pitching they could rely on. The only better option to sign at that point would have been Max Scherzer who would have cost more than Lester. Lester was a big part of the Cubs' rotation in 2016, a key figure. I'm not sure what there's to debate about that or the theoretical moves they could have done that would have left them just as well off had they not signed him. The Cubs didn't even need to win the World Series for Lester to be a successful signing. At that point, the threshold for the Cubs was getting to a World Series, something they hadn't done since 1945, so even if they hadn't won, Lester certainly helped the Cubs accomplish their mission. The World Series victory was gravy. As it was, he was a key pitcher in the 7th game of the World Series. My memory is that Hendricks pitched well but was pulled after about 5 innings. Lester got them into the 8th with two outs before leaving on an infield single. Aroldis Chapman then blew up and eventually gave up a game tying HR to Rajai Davis before recovering and holding Cleveland off in the 9th before the Cubs scored twice in the 10th and Carl Edwards Jr got the first two outs of the 10th, gave up a run, and was rescued by Mike Montgomery. So you can argue that Lester contributed to the 7th game World Series win, merely the biggest game the Cubs have played in a century. If you want to play the - they could have done A, B, or C and done just as well, that's unknowable. The reality is that the Cubs won. I mean, we can play this same game with the Red Sox. Run your numbers and you see that in 2004 dollars the Sox overpaid Keith Foulke for the overall performance - great 2004 and useless 2005 and 2006. Same exercise with the Shane Victorino signing, which I complained about at the time of the signing - 3 years and 39 million, where Victorino was only good for one year out of 3, but I don't complain about either signing because both impacted a World Championship run for the good. This isn't a if the team wins any trade or signing is good - I mean the Heyward signing for the Cubs was a disaster, even with his wonderful 10th inning Game 7 speech. But doing the Cubs could have done A, B, or C and still come out as well with theoretical championships had they not signed Lester sounds foolhardy to me. Cubs fans will take the real championship and Lester's positive impactful contributions to that championship. Just like Red Sox fans won't undo the Hanley/Sanchez for Beckett/Lowell deal where you can play the same game and say the Sox would have been just as well off with Youkilis at 3b, Hanley at SS, the best of Carlos Pena at 1b and AJ Burnett as the starter the Sox went after. But 2007 actually does belong to the Sox and we'll never know if the alternatives to that trade would have yielded results as good. I guess it's one in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. Extending it even further to today, the Sox failure to keep Lester ended up with the Sox spending a ton on David Price. The Price contract wasn't a huge success but even with the Sox eating it, I won't complain. Can't pretend that David Price wasn't impactful in 2018 or that his World Series success isn't part of the equation. I'll take that 2018 championship and not worry about theoretical championships that they could have won had they kept Lester. I still think the Sox made a mistake letting him go and apparently John Henry does, too, so the approval for the Sox to spend big on Price and to be aggressive keeping Sale (even if the timing of it given his health status was questionable). So I think I would say that the Sox made a mistake with Lester, but it worked out anyways. I guess it's possible for a team to make a mistake, compound it, and yet have it work out anyways. My point is that it's impossible to say a team was "one piece away from a WS", or that a single acquisition was the reason they won. You might attempt to make that argument if you set the alternative as acquiring no one and keeping the money, but in the real world not acquiring Lester means an extra $26 million per year unallocated that could have been used to improve the team in other ways. Given Lester's value over the deal, I think it's likely that they would have at least come out even by spending that money elsewhere.
I've been over why I don't think it's a good argument to just say "scoreboard" when justifying a signing, but I'll rehash a bit. For one, the deal is six years long. Are you willing to ignore seasons worth of highly-paid garbage because they won a single WS? Plus, you never know who is going to show up in the playoffs, given how big of a factor sample size is. That's how guys like Steve Pearce randomly win WS MVP. Would you say a six year deal for Pearce at big money would have been justified in hindsight because he was a god in the 2018 WS? I doubt it. He was a pumpkin again by the next season and retired shortly thereafter. I think it's fine and correct to argue that having Lester in 2016 contributed to the Cubs' WS win, and it's fine and correct to say that we have no way of knowing how other signings would have turned out. Still, attributing the WS win to acquiring Lester and then saying you can't evaluate hypotheticals because Lester is the one that won the real ring is pretty silly in my opinion. If you can't consider hypotheticals, then it is impossible for anyone(s) other than Lester to have been a better signing simply because Lester was signed. If the Cubs had signed me and sat me on the bench en route to a 2016 WS we still wouldn't be able to entertain the hypothetical that maybe Jon Lester would have been a better signing.
I do like that you brought up Price, because that's another good example of why I feel this argument is poor. He was a waste of money by pretty much all metrics and became a 3/48 ball and chain on the Sox after he got traded. The Sox probably would have gotten better value from ~$30 million spent on the FA market in 2018 alone than Price's 4.15 xERA and 2.4 fWAR, plus 26 playoff IP with a 4.87 xFIP. The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing? Winning a WS during someone's contract should not absolve years of mediocrity, especially for long-term deals that hurt the team in other seasons.
I don't think it's fair to blame the Price and Sale deals on letting Lester walk. If a GM is irrational to the point of offering up a series of bad big money contracts because they regret letting a different player go, they are in the wrong line of work. I think letting Lester walk was the right decision, but signing Price and extending Sale in spite of his late-season arm issues were poor decisions.
FWIW, Jon Lester's career xFIP was 3.82. His career playoff xFIP was only 3.67. Especially given that he pitched a disproportionate amount of his playoff innings during the middle of his career, it's fair to say he wasn't even that special in the postseason. He was just himself. I don't care about runs allowed (i.e. the "scoreboard" argument) since anyone can benefit from a good defense, good luck, and cold weather keeping balls in the yard. I care about how he threw the ball, since that's what he can control and therefore what earned him the 6/155 deal in the first place. Since underlying performance is largely what earned him that contract, it only makes sense that this should also be how we determine whether that contract was worth it. You could argue that playoff offenses will tend to be stronger than regular season ones, and I'd agree with that, but 1) that's irrelevant to the gulf between Lester's ERA and FIP/xFIP, and 2) is probably balanced out by other factors, like the aforementioned offense-killing cold weather and throwing most of his playoff innings in the middle of his career.
Well that's the crux of the argument, reality vs virtual. I don't care how many theoretical moves you can argue that the Cubs could have made. The one they made was a big factor, hardly the lone factor, why they won, but hearing about the 30 some odd moves they could have made that would have left them just as well off or better makes my eyes glaze over because we'll never know. I'd rather have a real championship than a bunch of theoretical ones. Again, I'm saying Lester was a big contributor to their championship and pitched well during the bulk of the contract. If you're looking for efficiency $/WAR or something like that you'll never find it. Free agency doesn't work like that. If you were looking for that kind of efficiency you'd hardly ever sign a free agent of any significance. You also cited his FIP or whatever in the postseason as if that's more important than the runs he actually did give up. Again, theoretical vs real results. FIP and those kinds of metrics do a better job of predicting the future, no argument there, but I don't think it's more important than what actually happened. You seem to be saying that I'm saying if some guy happens to be on a team that wins then it's a great move. That's not what I'm saying. You don't see me waxing poetic about Julio Lugo. Lester was a lot more impactful on the Cubs championship than Lugo was with the Sox and unlike Lugo, Lester had other good seasons with the team he signed with. And while were at it, I don't know for sure the Sox win if Price wasn't so damn good in the 2018 World Series. If Price had sucked or been mediocre, then they lose Game 2 or Game 5 or both. Say it was just one of them, then they're up 3 games to 2 with injured Chris Sale pitching Game 6 and Eovaldi would go a possible Game 7 against Walker Buehler who was dominant in Game 3. So while yes the Sox could have won without Price's dominance in the 2018 World Series, it's possible they could have lost. I dont think it's a slam dunk at all that they win regardless of Price's performance.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 23, 2022 17:06:53 GMT -5
My point is that it's impossible to say a team was "one piece away from a WS", or that a single acquisition was the reason they won. You might attempt to make that argument if you set the alternative as acquiring no one and keeping the money, but in the real world not acquiring Lester means an extra $26 million per year unallocated that could have been used to improve the team in other ways. Given Lester's value over the deal, I think it's likely that they would have at least come out even by spending that money elsewhere.
I've been over why I don't think it's a good argument to just say "scoreboard" when justifying a signing, but I'll rehash a bit. For one, the deal is six years long. Are you willing to ignore seasons worth of highly-paid garbage because they won a single WS? Plus, you never know who is going to show up in the playoffs, given how big of a factor sample size is. That's how guys like Steve Pearce randomly win WS MVP. Would you say a six year deal for Pearce at big money would have been justified in hindsight because he was a god in the 2018 WS? I doubt it. He was a pumpkin again by the next season and retired shortly thereafter. I think it's fine and correct to argue that having Lester in 2016 contributed to the Cubs' WS win, and it's fine and correct to say that we have no way of knowing how other signings would have turned out. Still, attributing the WS win to acquiring Lester and then saying you can't evaluate hypotheticals because Lester is the one that won the real ring is pretty silly in my opinion. If you can't consider hypotheticals, then it is impossible for anyone(s) other than Lester to have been a better signing simply because Lester was signed. If the Cubs had signed me and sat me on the bench en route to a 2016 WS we still wouldn't be able to entertain the hypothetical that maybe Jon Lester would have been a better signing.
I do like that you brought up Price, because that's another good example of why I feel this argument is poor. He was a waste of money by pretty much all metrics and became a 3/48 ball and chain on the Sox after he got traded. The Sox probably would have gotten better value from ~$30 million spent on the FA market in 2018 alone than Price's 4.15 xERA and 2.4 fWAR, plus 26 playoff IP with a 4.87 xFIP. The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing? Winning a WS during someone's contract should not absolve years of mediocrity, especially for long-term deals that hurt the team in other seasons.
I don't think it's fair to blame the Price and Sale deals on letting Lester walk. If a GM is irrational to the point of offering up a series of bad big money contracts because they regret letting a different player go, they are in the wrong line of work. I think letting Lester walk was the right decision, but signing Price and extending Sale in spite of his late-season arm issues were poor decisions.
FWIW, Jon Lester's career xFIP was 3.82. His career playoff xFIP was only 3.67. Especially given that he pitched a disproportionate amount of his playoff innings during the middle of his career, it's fair to say he wasn't even that special in the postseason. He was just himself. I don't care about runs allowed (i.e. the "scoreboard" argument) since anyone can benefit from a good defense, good luck, and cold weather keeping balls in the yard. I care about how he threw the ball, since that's what he can control and therefore what earned him the 6/155 deal in the first place. Since underlying performance is largely what earned him that contract, it only makes sense that this should also be how we determine whether that contract was worth it. You could argue that playoff offenses will tend to be stronger than regular season ones, and I'd agree with that, but 1) that's irrelevant to the gulf between Lester's ERA and FIP/xFIP, and 2) is probably balanced out by other factors, like the aforementioned offense-killing cold weather and throwing most of his playoff innings in the middle of his career.
Well that's the crux of the argument, reality vs virtual. I don't care how many theoretical moves you can argue that the Cubs could have made. The one they made was a big factor, hardly the lone factor, why they won, but hearing about the 30 some odd moves they could have made that would have left them just as well off or better makes my eyes glaze over because we'll never know. I'd rather have a real championship than a bunch of theoretical ones. Again, I'm saying Lester was a big contributor to their championship and pitched well during the bulk of the contract. If you're looking for efficiency $/WAR or something like that you'll never find it. Free agency doesn't work like that. If you were looking for that kind of efficiency you'd hardly ever sign a free agent of any significance. You also cited his FIP or whatever in the postseason as if that's more important than the runs he actually did give up. Again, theoretical vs real results. FIP and those kinds of metrics do a better job of predicting the future, no argument there, but I don't think it's more important than what actually happened. You seem to be saying that I'm saying if some guy happens to be on a team that wins then it's a great move. That's not what I'm saying. You don't see me waxing poetic about Julio Lugo. Lester was a lot more impactful on the Cubs championship than Lugo was with the Sox and unlike Lugo, Lester had other good seasons with the team he signed with. And while were at it, I don't know for sure the Sox win if Price wasn't so damn good in the 2018 World Series. If Price had sucked or been mediocre, then they lose Game 2 or Game 5 or both. Say it was just one of them, then they're up 3 games to 2 with injured Chris Sale pitching Game 6 and Eovaldi would go a possible Game 7 against Walker Buehler who was dominant in Game 3. So while yes the Sox could have won without Price's dominance in the 2018 World Series, it's possible they could have lost. I dont think it's a slam dunk at all that they win regardless of Price's performance. I don't know if we're going to be able to bridge the philosophical divide here, but I see where you're coming from.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2022 18:00:29 GMT -5
Well that's the crux of the argument, reality vs virtual. I don't care how many theoretical moves you can argue that the Cubs could have made. The one they made was a big factor, hardly the lone factor, why they won, but hearing about the 30 some odd moves they could have made that would have left them just as well off or better makes my eyes glaze over because we'll never know. I'd rather have a real championship than a bunch of theoretical ones. Again, I'm saying Lester was a big contributor to their championship and pitched well during the bulk of the contract. If you're looking for efficiency $/WAR or something like that you'll never find it. Free agency doesn't work like that. If you were looking for that kind of efficiency you'd hardly ever sign a free agent of any significance. You also cited his FIP or whatever in the postseason as if that's more important than the runs he actually did give up. Again, theoretical vs real results. FIP and those kinds of metrics do a better job of predicting the future, no argument there, but I don't think it's more important than what actually happened. You seem to be saying that I'm saying if some guy happens to be on a team that wins then it's a great move. That's not what I'm saying. You don't see me waxing poetic about Julio Lugo. Lester was a lot more impactful on the Cubs championship than Lugo was with the Sox and unlike Lugo, Lester had other good seasons with the team he signed with. And while were at it, I don't know for sure the Sox win if Price wasn't so damn good in the 2018 World Series. If Price had sucked or been mediocre, then they lose Game 2 or Game 5 or both. Say it was just one of them, then they're up 3 games to 2 with injured Chris Sale pitching Game 6 and Eovaldi would go a possible Game 7 against Walker Buehler who was dominant in Game 3. So while yes the Sox could have won without Price's dominance in the 2018 World Series, it's possible they could have lost. I dont think it's a slam dunk at all that they win regardless of Price's performance. I don't know if we're going to be able to bridge the philosophical divide here, but I see where you're coming from. That's ok. I see where you're coming from, too. I do see your point of view. It's all good.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 23, 2022 18:09:20 GMT -5
Saying we didn’t need to sign someone because we won the World Series easily and we could have saved a few bucks and still won a flag but in a closer World Series is really an amazing argument.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 23, 2022 22:23:32 GMT -5
Saying we didn’t need to sign someone because we won the World Series easily and we could have saved a few bucks and still won a flag but in a closer World Series is really an amazing argument. If that was directed at my Price comment, that wasn't the point at all; the point was that $30 million should pay for more than the production of 2018 David Price, so even in a "flags fly forever" mindset his contract wasn't good. And that's just looking at 2018 in a vacuum, which is being generous. Price's contract of course was bad for the team over many seasons.
If not, carry on lol
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 23, 2022 23:13:18 GMT -5
Saying we didn’t need to sign someone because we won the World Series easily and we could have saved a few bucks and still won a flag but in a closer World Series is really an amazing argument. If that was directed at my Price comment, that wasn't the point at all; the point was that $30 million should pay for more than the production of 2018 David Price, so even in a "flags fly forever" mindset his contract wasn't good. And that's just looking at 2018 in a vacuum, which is being generous. Price's contract of course was bad for the team over many seasons.
If not, carry on lol
"The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing?"
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2022 10:29:06 GMT -5
If that was directed at my Price comment, that wasn't the point at all; the point was that $30 million should pay for more than the production of 2018 David Price, so even in a "flags fly forever" mindset his contract wasn't good. And that's just looking at 2018 in a vacuum, which is being generous. Price's contract of course was bad for the team over many seasons.
If not, carry on lol
"The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing?" notstarboard isn't making the argument that "we didn’t need to sign Price because we won the World Series easily and we could have saved a few bucks and still won a flag but in a closer World Series." They're pointing to a contradiction in redsoxchamps' argument: even if redsoxchamps is right that any signing that contributes to a championship is ipso facto justified, the Price contract doesn't meet that standard because he wasn't a significant contributor to the championship. (It's a debatable point, but that's what they're saying.)
My preferred argument along these lines is regarding Kimbrel. People like to say that the Kimbrel trade was justified because they won a WS. But he stunk in the playoffs in 2018 and very nearly choked away a magical season for the team. The better defense of the Kimbrel trade is to point to his 2017 season. But then it's no longer a "flags fly forever" argument...
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2022 10:46:12 GMT -5
Where I'd push back against notstarboard, though, is that the free agent pitching class from that off-season was pretty weak. Lester clearly was, and clearly performed as, the second best among them after Scherzer. You could say the Cubs goofed by not signing Scherzer, I guess, but you could say the same of 28 other teams too.
Even if you consider pitching and positional players fungible (and I'm not sure you should, given the importance of having strong starting pitching in the playoffs), I don't really see where they could've invested $25 million/year more effectively. The two priciest free agents that off-season were, uh, Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. #3 and 4 were Victor Martinez and Yasmany Tomas, who were, incredibly, even worse!
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,685
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2022 11:28:47 GMT -5
"The WS also didn't end up being that close, since the Sox won in 5 and would have had games 6 and 7 at home if they had dropped one more in LA. So now can we say that this was probably a poor signing?" notstarboard isn't making the argument that "we didn’t need to sign Price because we won the World Series easily and we could have saved a few bucks and still won a flag but in a closer World Series." They're pointing to a contradiction in redsoxchamps' argument: even if redsoxchamps is right that any signing that contributes to a championship is ipso facto justified, the Price contract doesn't meet that standard because he wasn't a significant contributor to the championship. (It's a debatable point, but that's what they're saying.) My preferred argument along these lines is regarding Kimbrel. People like to say that the Kimbrel trade was justified because they won a WS. But he stunk in the playoffs in 2018 and very nearly choked away a magical season for the team. The better defense of the Kimbrel trade is to point to his 2017 season. But then it's no longer a "flags fly forever" argument...
I'd say 2017 justified the Kimbrel deal. Not because he heavily contributed to them winning the division, but because the trade itself wound up working out fine. I'm not among those mourning the loss of Manny Margot. Decent player but hardly irreplaceable and certainly not a contributor at the time the Sox were in prime position to win a World Series. Kimbrel gave them one dominant season and two good ones. I'm not sure Margot will ever be able to say the same thing and the other 3 guys amounted to nothing. So no, I don't need 2018 to say that the deal worked out for the Sox. Was Margot a loss? Sure, sort of, but hardly irreplaceable and certainly not valuable in 2018. It's not like Margot is the second coming of Bagwell. I mean if you really want to look at the flag flies forever debate vs long-term value of a deal, then Theo Epstein is the guy to look at. His trade of young Gleyber Torres to the Yankees to rent Aroldis Chapman for the 2016 Cubs. That is the ultimate flag flies argument although Torres' downturn the past two seasons must be somewhat of a relief for Cubs fans. Kimbrel cost the Sox a lot less in talent ultimately (I know it's 4 players but Allen is marginal, Margot is so-so and the other two didn't amount to anything). Kimbrel gave the Sox 3 good to great seasons. Chapman pitched very well for his short stretch there and pitched well in the post-season until he nearly blew Game 7 after being overworked in Game 5 where his getting 7 outs in a 3-2 game where they had to win was extremely valuable. That's a better trade to do this Flags Fly forever debate vs how much is it ok to be hosed in a deal if it works out with the ultimate reward for a guy obtained who is a big part of accomplishing that goal? Of course, the Jon Lester thread, I'm sure, is not the place to have that debate though (as I see the mods nodding their heads with that sentence and getting ready to type, "Knock this stuff off! And FCS, stop relitigating past trades!!!!" - So I will heed that pre-warning and stop!).
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Jan 25, 2022 1:53:24 GMT -5
Where I'd push back against notstarboard, though, is that the free agent pitching class from that off-season was pretty weak. Lester clearly was, and clearly performed as, the second best among them after Scherzer. You could say the Cubs goofed by not signing Scherzer, I guess, but you could say the same of 28 other teams too.
Even if you consider pitching and positional players fungible (and I'm not sure you should, given the importance of having strong starting pitching in the playoffs), I don't really see where they could've invested $25 million/year more effectively. The two priciest free agents that off-season were, uh, Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. #3 and 4 were Victor Martinez and Yasmany Tomas, who were, incredibly, even worse! Even in a weak FA class, that doesn't mean a team should force a deal that isn't a great value. There's always the option of bringing in multiple cheaper players and waiting for the opportune moment to pull the trigger on the right expensive deal. The Bloom model, if you will Fair point, though. They could have done much worse than Lester.
|
|
hank
Rookie
Posts: 101
|
Post by hank on Jan 25, 2022 10:29:43 GMT -5
Where I'd push back against notstarboard, though, is that the free agent pitching class from that off-season was pretty weak. Lester clearly was, and clearly performed as, the second best among them after Scherzer. You could say the Cubs goofed by not signing Scherzer, I guess, but you could say the same of 28 other teams too.
Even if you consider pitching and positional players fungible (and I'm not sure you should, given the importance of having strong starting pitching in the playoffs), I don't really see where they could've invested $25 million/year more effectively. The two priciest free agents that off-season were, uh, Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. #3 and 4 were Victor Martinez and Yasmany Tomas, who were, incredibly, even worse! Even in a weak FA class, that doesn't mean a team should force a deal that isn't a great value. There's always the option of bringing in multiple cheaper players and waiting for the opportune moment to pull the trigger on the right expensive deal. The Bloom model, if you will Fair point, though. They could have done much worse than Lester. lol
|
|
|