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.
|
Post by buffs4444 on Nov 15, 2012 11:31:02 GMT -5
Market value. Currently that is somewhere between Matt Cain and Cole Hamels money. From 2010-2012 Matt Cain: 661.1 IP, 123 ERA+, 10.6 fWAR Cole Hamels: 640.0 IP, 134 ERA+, 15.7 fWAR Zack Greinke: 604.0 IP, 106 ERA+, 4.7 fWAR Pretty sure you're using rWAR and that you missed a year (baseball-reference.com breaks out 2012 into two entries for his two teams and it looks like you added only the two 2012 entries and 2011); adding the third year gets you to 7.9rWAR. Without going too far down the statistical rabbit hole, though I appreciate everyone favoring their own statistic, but i'm just not a rWAR guy---too many secondary modifications that make it more about "fun with math" than evaluation. Not knocking it, and many people favor one over the other, so I understand everyone using what they're more comfortable with... Cain fWAR: 12.3 Hamels fWAR: 13.1 Greinke fWAR: 14.2 Appreciate the response, brother. Cheers, Lou
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Nov 15, 2012 11:44:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Nov 15, 2012 11:57:05 GMT -5
Wow! Totally opposite of what I was perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2012 12:08:29 GMT -5
Pretty sure you're using rWAR and that you missed a year (baseball-reference.com breaks out 2012 into two entries for his two teams and it looks like you added only the two 2012 entries and 2011); adding the third year gets you to 7.9rWAR. Without going too far down the statistical rabbit hole, though I appreciate everyone favoring their own statistic, but i'm just not a rWAR guy---too many secondary modifications that make it more about "fun with math" than evaluation. Not knocking it, and many people favor one over the other, so I understand everyone using what they're more comfortable with... Cain fWAR: 12.3 Hamels fWAR: 13.1 Greinke fWAR: 14.2 Appreciate the response, brother. Cheers, Lou You are correct that I missed a year on Greinke's WAR, I simply added up the three most recent entries. Good catch on that. As far as the relative value of Fangraphs vs. Baseball-References WAR calculations, I had this conversation in another thread a couple days ago. I don't like Fangraphs WAR because it uses xFIP. xFIP is an EXCELLENT statistic, but WAR, I think, should have some retroactive value. Over 600 plus innings, ERA (and ERA+), to me, is more value than xFIP. It's a significant sample size, and it starts to filter out those who consistently over or underperform their xFIP, rather than those one-year mirages. Because fWAR uses xFIP, it systematically overrates pitchers who underperform their peripherals, like Greinke and AJ Burnett, while underrating those who do outperform, like Mark Buehrle or Tom Glavine or most knuckleballers. Over a large sample-size, rWAR becomes less and less useful. I mean, Greinke's ERA+ over 600 innings is 28 points lower than Hamels - but Fangraphs is telling me he's been more valuable? To me, that doesn't add up. Hamels has produced better results for a significant time period. Any statistic that tells you otherwise is getting it wrong. With that in mind, signing Greinke to an ace-level contract would be based on his peripherals. Which, again, he has underperformed - and by more than a little bit - in three consecutive years. It's out of the small-sample "bad luck" nexus, and into the range that tells me that he's simply not as good as his peripherals say he should be. Basically, he's the new A.J. Burnett. So yeah - proceed with caution. It doesn't bring me happiness to say all of this either, because I've always liked watching Greinke pitch. He'd clearly make the Red Sox better, at a minimum. I hope he figures out his problems from the stretch, and gets to the level of his talent. But as a 29 year old pitcher with a significant statistical background to base a decision on, the Red Sox can't be signing a player to $170 million contracts based on a hope that he'll put it together finally. EDIT: Short version - any WAR statistic that says Greinke has been more valuable than Cole Hamels over the last three years is broken.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 12:14:35 GMT -5
Greinke really reminds me of Javier Vasquez, as far as a guy with great stuff and great peripherals who nevertheless wasn't a great pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by kindasweaty on Nov 15, 2012 12:40:02 GMT -5
Excellent! I couldn't have said it better. It actually will be very "freeing" to just watch this team and not worry so much about the standings. Really excited about seeing some of these guys start their MLB careers. As I said earlier, it is a rare opportunity. Isn't that what we went through this year? I feel like it bred apathy more than freedom. Although a lot of that came from the fact that the guys I wanted to root for were terrible (Lester, Buchholz to a lesser extent, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Doubront) or hurt (Pedy, Papi, Ellsbury, Middlebrooks). If you're not willing to bring them up because they're not ready, that's one thing. But if you'd rather they toil away in the minors during the period in which you're supposed to break in young players (a down period for your ML club) then when would you? When you're in a playoff hunt and can't afford to let a rookie scuffle for 100+ games?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 13:16:05 GMT -5
Arb clocks? I hear the Red Sox aren't exactly strapped for cash these days...
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 15, 2012 13:32:34 GMT -5
You are correct that I missed a year on Greinke's WAR, I simply added up the three most recent entries. Good catch on that. As far as the relative value of Fangraphs vs. Baseball-References WAR calculations, I had this conversation in another thread a couple days ago. I don't like Fangraphs WAR because it uses xFIP. xFIP is an EXCELLENT statistic, but WAR, I think, should have some retroactive value. Over 600 plus innings, ERA (and ERA+), to me, is more value than xFIP. It's a significant sample size, and it starts to filter out those who consistently over or underperform their xFIP, rather than those one-year mirages. Because fWAR uses xFIP, it systematically overrates pitchers who underperform their peripherals, like Greinke and AJ Burnett, while underrating those who do outperform, like Mark Buehrle or Tom Glavine or most knuckleballers. Over a large sample-size, rWAR becomes less and less useful. I mean, Greinke's ERA+ over 600 innings is 28 points lower than Hamels - but Fangraphs is telling me he's been more valuable? To me, that doesn't add up. Hamels has produced better results for a significant time period. Any statistic that tells you otherwise is getting it wrong. With that in mind, signing Greinke to an ace-level contract would be based on his peripherals. Which, again, he has underperformed - and by more than a little bit - in three consecutive years. It's out of the small-sample "bad luck" nexus, and into the range that tells me that he's simply not as good as his peripherals say he should be. Basically, he's the new A.J. Burnett. So yeah - proceed with caution. It doesn't bring me happiness to say all of this either, because I've always liked watching Greinke pitch. He'd clearly make the Red Sox better, at a minimum. I hope he figures out his problems from the stretch, and gets to the level of his talent. But as a 29 year old pitcher with a significant statistical background to base a decision on, the Red Sox can't be signing a player to $170 million contracts based on a hope that he'll put it together finally. EDIT: Short version - any WAR statistic that says Greinke has been more valuable than Cole Hamels over the last three years is broken. It's fine to say that fWAR is flawed (and I would agree) and that it doesn't tell you what you think WAR should tell you, but you really haven't said why rWAR is better. How is it helpful at all to use a stat that is based off of runs allowed (ERA essentially). That means a large portion of a pitcher's rWAR has absolutely nothing to do with the pitcher himself; rWAR is, in part, telling you how good the defense was behind the pitcher, how "lucky" he was, and even tells you a little bit about what parks he pitched in. Also, fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP, so it doesn't adjust the home run rate, and isn't really a "predictive" stat like you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 15, 2012 14:16:14 GMT -5
Arb clocks? I hear the Red Sox aren't exactly strapped for cash these days... Free agency clock, then. Last I checked, years under control was still a major issue for all teams. If a prospect can develop in AAA or develop in the majors, let 'em develop in AAA. Bradley & Webster could probably jump to the majors next year and work through growing pains, but what's the point? If you want to watch them play, go to Pawtucket or maybe they'll come to a AAA city near you. I don't mind bringing up a rookie during a pennant chase. Maybe they struggle in the adjustment, maybe they thrive -- better chance that they thrive if they're not rushed.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 14:53:41 GMT -5
It's fine to say that fWAR is flawed (and I would agree) and that it doesn't tell you what you think WAR should tell you, but you really haven't said why rWAR is better. How is it helpful at all to use a stat that is based off of runs allowed (ERA essentially). That means a large portion of a pitcher's rWAR has absolutely nothing to do with the pitcher himself; rWAR is, in part, telling you how good the defense was behind the pitcher, how "lucky" he was, and even tells you a little bit about what parks he pitched in. Also, fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP, so it doesn't adjust the home run rate, and isn't really a "predictive" stat like you're suggesting. Hey, how about no one uses this crappy stat until there's some kind of widespread consensus on what it's even supposed to measure?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 14:55:37 GMT -5
Free agency clock, then. Last I checked, years under control was still a major issue for all teams. If a prospect can develop in AAA or develop in the majors, let 'em develop in AAA. Bradley & Webster could probably jump to the majors next year and work through growing pains, but what's the point? If you want to watch them play, go to Pawtucket or maybe they'll come to a AAA city near you. I don't mind bringing up a rookie during a pennant chase. Maybe they struggle in the adjustment, maybe they thrive -- better chance that they thrive if they're not rushed. They should just be at whatever level is best for their development, and the Red Sox can sort out the team-friendly extensions later.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 15, 2012 15:41:51 GMT -5
They should just be at whatever level is best for their development Rather than the level that is worst for their development? Shrewd.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 15, 2012 15:44:19 GMT -5
Rather than playing arg clock games.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 15, 2012 15:57:22 GMT -5
It's fine to say that fWAR is flawed (and I would agree) and that it doesn't tell you what you think WAR should tell you, but you really haven't said why rWAR is better. How is it helpful at all to use a stat that is based off of runs allowed (ERA essentially). That means a large portion of a pitcher's rWAR has absolutely nothing to do with the pitcher himself; rWAR is, in part, telling you how good the defense was behind the pitcher, how "lucky" he was, and even tells you a little bit about what parks he pitched in. Also, fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP, so it doesn't adjust the home run rate, and isn't really a "predictive" stat like you're suggesting. In simple terms, I believe ERA+ is a better input than FIP for a WAR calculation, because of what I think WAR should measure. That's really the crux of my entire argument. Is that a circular argument? Maybe. Lets bring this discussion back from the abstract to a concrete comparison of the players involved though. 1: Zack Greinke is going to be paid like Cole Hamels 2: Come Hamels has a 134 ERA+ over the past three years. Greinke has a 106 ERA+. 3: Greinke's peripherals over that time indicate that he's been about as good at doing the things pitchers are supposed to do, in a basic sense (strikeouts, walks, home runs, ground balls) as Hamels. It's a lot of money to gable that Greinke will start producing results that match up to his peripherals. Is that a good gamble? I won't hold it against anyone or think less of you as a person if you say "yes I think it is a good gamble - Greinke needs to be in front of a better defense, have a better pitching coach, have better luck, etc." My worry is that a lot of Greinke's problems aren't really defense or park related. It's that he pitches significantly worse with men on base because he's had mechanical problems from the stretch. At points last season he was pitching from the windup with men on base to try to get himself back on track. Since it's been three years now, I worry that it's a problem that he's failed to correct, and may not be able to. This circles back to why I prefer rWAR to fWAR. Please don't think I'm being condescending or elitist with my arguments. I'm 100% willing to hear if I'm wrong (And expect that people will tell me so). There's no clearly correct side to this debate, which is why it's a debate, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 15, 2012 16:48:06 GMT -5
In simple terms, I believe ERA+ is a better input than FIP for a WAR calculation, because of what I think WAR should measure. That's really the crux of my entire argument. Is that a circular argument? Maybe. Lets bring this discussion back from the abstract to a concrete comparison of the players involved though. 1: Zack Greinke is going to be paid like Cole Hamels 2: Come Hamels has a 134 ERA+ over the past three years. Greinke has a 106 ERA+. 3: Greinke's peripherals over that time indicate that he's been about as good at doing the things pitchers are supposed to do, in a basic sense (strikeouts, walks, home runs, ground balls) as Hamels. It's a lot of money to gable that Greinke will start producing results that match up to his peripherals. Is that a good gamble? I won't hold it against anyone or think less of you as a person if you say "yes I think it is a good gamble - Greinke needs to be in front of a better defense, have a better pitching coach, have better luck, etc." My worry is that a lot of Greinke's problems aren't really defense or park related. It's that he pitches significantly worse with men on base because he's had mechanical problems from the stretch. At points last season he was pitching from the windup with men on base to try to get himself back on track. Since it's been three years now, I worry that it's a problem that he's failed to correct, and may not be able to. This circles back to why I prefer rWAR to fWAR. Please don't think I'm being condescending or elitist with my arguments. I'm 100% willing to hear if I'm wrong (And expect that people will tell me so). There's no clearly correct side to this debate, which is why it's a debate, I suppose.Not at all. I actually agree with this general argument despite not agreeing about the worth of ERA+. I do think that Greinke may be as good, or better than Hamels going forward -with a good defense behind him - because of the difference in peripheral stats, but even their peripheral stats aren't that far apart, so it's certainly not a given, and it would be too risky for my taste to give him that kind of money banking on him performing closer to his peripheral stats.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 15, 2012 17:23:46 GMT -5
I am glad we didn't get Hunter. If we were close then it would be different. I personally believe one or two of the kids will pull a WMB. They will force the Sox to promote them. I would rather them commit to pitching money wise. Just lock that starting staff down.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 15, 2012 18:45:10 GMT -5
If the idea is to compete in 2013, then the Sox best shot would be to sign Josh Hamilton and Hideki Kuroda - with one major caveat.
In Hamilton's case, they shouldn't offer more than 3 guaranteed years. They could add incentives based on games played (say 560 games or 145 games in Season 3) that could bring a fourth season. They need to protect themselves in case of relapse, so an out clause protecting them financially would be in order.
Say a 3 year $60 million deal with an incentives to trigger a 4th season.
And if that's not enough to best Seattle or Philly, they can have him.
And with Kuroda, it would be a one year deal around $15 million.
If the Sox make these two moves they'd be improved for 2013, although I'd hate to see them give up two draft picks (at least the 3rd pick would go to NY instead of the 2nd pick).
The good news is it wouldn't hamstring them long-term (although losing the draft picks could hurt), but even though I throw out this thought, I really have my reservations about Hamilton - the constant babysitting he requires, the injuries, the so-so defense, the struggles with addiction (like chewing tobacco as well), and his OBP being only decent and not worthy of a $20 million/player.
By far he'd be the best option and it would give them two power lefties in the middle of the lineup and his contract would be up when Stanton becomes a free agent - again I'm of the school of thought that unless NY or Texas deals for him, he will go on the free agent market after his walk year completes - the Sox should keep the funds available for him and King Felix - spend the money on the elite free agents rather than spending big bucks on long-term second tier player contracts.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 15, 2012 19:34:23 GMT -5
I'm with James on this one. Over a large enough sample (and 600+ IP is a large enough sample), ERA-based statistics may be more useful and predictive than DIPS-based statistics, especially for pitchers like Greinke where we have an independent narrative about why he's underperforming his peripherals (in this case, struggles pitching out of the stretch). ERA+ explicitly adjusts for park effects (Kaufman Stadium and Miller Park are slightly-above-average in terms of park effects, but Anaheim is one of the lower-scoring venues out there) and it's not like he pitched in front of terrible defenses (by team BABIP, Royals were 25th in 2010, Brewers were 13th in 2011, Brewers were 29th in 2012 but Angels were 2nd).
I think only using DIPS stats to predict Greinke's future performance would be shortsighted, just as if you did so to predict Nolasco. Sure, there still might be some noise in a three-year sample, but I don't think you can just wave away the significant differences between his ERA and his DIPS stats with just small sample size arguments.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Nov 15, 2012 20:14:27 GMT -5
Some good dialogue in this thread, especially enjoyed the replies from James, good reading.
A different question, for those advocating the 2014 timeline, my question is this: what changes in the next 12-14 months that isn't possible currently? Is there a crucial free agent slated to be available next year that you feel brings this whole thing together? Is there a prospect or three you see making a major advancement to superstar level during that time? A team that isn't quite ready to rebuild that will begin selling off assets in the next year or so?
I've stated several times that I believe this team can/will contend in 2013, but I'm also the type that likes to hear the contrasting argument and weigh it against my own.
Would really enjoy hearing from those who pick 2014 what specific moves they see happening over the next 14 months that could not be completed in the next 2.
cheers, Lou
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 16, 2012 0:49:23 GMT -5
Sorta replying to Buffs but mostly thinking out loud...
I'm of the mindset that the Red Sox shouldn't make poor value signings just to try to contend next season, but I believe their goal should be to contend, if that makes sense. I'd be extremely disappointed if they "punted" next year (Sands, Gomez, etc. playing every day). I think they could contend without signing Greinke or Hamilton if they make a series (say 6-8) of smart acquisitions. Right now I'm just looking for them to acquire quality talent at good value in any way possible.
I'd be fine with signing Greinke to a 4-5 year market value deal or Hamilton to a three year market value deal, but I don't think that will be an option. The Angels are in win now mode, are basing their entire offseason around him. I can't imagine the Angels pass on a "market value" deal when they desperately need pitching. Hamels and Cain weren't on the free agent market, the industry is full of cash right now, and next year's crop doesn't look any better. I wouldn't sign any non-generational pitcher (Pedro, Halladay, Verlander, Felix) at $20m+ AAV for more than five seasons, I just think it's bad business and an unnecessary risk. I can't imagine Hamilton taking three seasons here, if that was an option I'd expect a return to Texas.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Nov 16, 2012 1:20:20 GMT -5
If the idea is to compete in 2013, then the Sox best shot would be to sign Josh Hamilton and Hideki Kuroda - with one major caveat. In Hamilton's case, they shouldn't offer more than 3 guaranteed years. They could add incentives based on games played (say 560 games or 145 games in Season 3) that could bring a fourth season. They need to protect themselves in case of relapse, so an out clause protecting them financially would be in order. Say a 3 year $60 million deal with an incentives to trigger a 4th season. And if that's not enough to best Seattle or Philly, they can have him. And with Kuroda, it would be a one year deal around $15 million. If the Sox make these two moves they'd be improved for 2013, although I'd hate to see them give up two draft picks (at least the 3rd pick would go to NY instead of the 2nd pick). The good news is it wouldn't hamstring them long-term (although losing the draft picks could hurt), but even though I throw out this thought, I really have my reservations about Hamilton - the constant babysitting he requires, the injuries, the so-so defense, the struggles with addiction (like chewing tobacco as well), and his OBP being only decent and not worthy of a $20 million/player. By far he'd be the best option and it would give them two power lefties in the middle of the lineup and his contract would be up when Stanton becomes a free agent - again I'm of the school of thought that unless NY or Texas deals for him, he will go on the free agent market after his walk year completes - the Sox should keep the funds available for him and King Felix - spend the money on the elite free agents rather than spending big bucks on long-term second tier player contracts. I am in the same line of thinking. Ben hasn't tipped his hand much beyond saying that he expects to be among the highest payrolls in baseball next year. That makes me believe he could actually sign Hamilton and Kuroda. The numbers I shot out were 4 years 100 mil for Hamilton and 2 years 30 for Kuroda. I think my numbers are conservative for Hamilton since he publicly stated that he was looking for 175 mil. People have to realize that the cost of doing business in the free agent market has gone up significantly. What we think of as a 20 mil player is probably closer to a 25 mil. If Ortiz is a 15 mil player for two years at his age and position... Hamilton is at least a 25 mil player at four years... warts and all. Keep in mind Beltre got 5x80 mil at the same age... so my 4x100 is really the absolute least we could expect. Now if the Sox could get creative by minimizing risk by guaranteeing only 3-4 years and build in incentives and out clauses... with the potential total contract being 5 years 125 mil. I could honestly handle that because that is what it will take realistically... I could even see it taking 2 option years with 4 guaranteed. Adam dunn is a 4 year 56 mil player with more strikeouts and worse defense. What do you realistically think a former MVP will cost that doesn't embarrass himself on defense like Manny? Have you seen the contract numbers for Bourne who is like Bradley, the next best player on the list? It's a joke. Hunter got 2x26 for the twilight of his career. Boras is already angling that Ells is a player to build around and is hinting towards over 100 mil to resign. He had one dominant season and the rest were mainly crap besides his first partial season. Who would you rather have for that kind of money? The price will be steep... but we wouldn't have to trade the farm to get him. We also have much more money coming in by being below the luxury tax and would catch the yanks in a rebuilding year. Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Nov 16, 2012 6:20:34 GMT -5
Is there still a rule that you can't trade free agents for a year without their consent? If there isn't that would mean we could sign older people to 1-year deals and, if magic doesn't happen in 2013, sell them off at the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 16, 2012 7:15:04 GMT -5
Is there still a rule that you can't trade free agents for a year without their consent? If there isn't that would mean we could sign older people to 1-year deals and, if magic doesn't happen in 2013, sell them off at the trade deadline. So when an older Napoli is hitting 240 with 6 HRs & an even older Kuroda is 2-6 with an era of 5.15 at the trade deadline & the magic hasn't happened you think somebody might want them? What do you think they'll bring? I mean besides empty seats, low ratings & the call for heads to roll.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 16, 2012 12:00:45 GMT -5
So when an older Napoli is hitting 240 with 6 HRs & an even older Kuroda is 2-6 with an era of 5.15 at the trade deadline & the magic hasn't happened you think somebody might want them? What do you think they'll bring? I mean besides empty seats, low ratings & the call for heads to roll. What an unnecessarily condescending response. Is there still a rule that you can't trade free agents for a year without their consent? If there isn't that would mean we could sign older people to 1-year deals and, if magic doesn't happen in 2013, sell them off at the trade deadline. I believe a player signing as a free agent can be traded after June 30. So I guess it would be a possibility, though honestly I don't see that playing out in practice.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 16, 2012 12:15:29 GMT -5
So when an older Napoli is hitting 240 with 6 HRs & an even older Kuroda is 2-6 with an era of 5.15 at the trade deadline & the magic hasn't happened you think somebody might want them? What do you think they'll bring? I mean besides empty seats, low ratings & the call for heads to roll. Let's make this interesting. If by July 15th, Napoli has hit fewer than 10 home runs or Kuroda has an ERA higher than 4.50, I get to pick your avatar and you have to keep it through the end of the calendar year. If either fails to reach those marks, you get to choose my avatar through the rest of the calendar year. Deal?
|
|
|