Looking for value: McCutchen?

[Horsehide Harry]

So, I saw on MLBTR that the Pirates are looking to play Marte in CF and have Cutch go to RF. Seems like the Pirates have decided that playing CF is actually hurting Cutch's trade value (his defense there has never been good).

So, it seems to me that maybe Cutch could be had at a discount and the Pirates have done a potential acquiring team the favor of re-aligning Cutch's expectations about what position he will play -stay in Pitt, play RF, get traded play LF or RF but CF will never be his home again.

Obviously, when he was contending for MVP every year his trade value was off the charts. But, what does everyone think it might be now given recent events?

I was thinking trade for McCutchen and play him in LF. And trade one of Kemp/Neck (hell, why not both?) and the one who stays plays RF.

But what do the Braves give up that still is a win for them?

[NYCBrave]

Personally, just too risky. He wasn't great last year, and is now on the wrong side of 30. Under contract for this year plus one option year. I don't think it makes sense for us to take the risk at this point. WAR last year: McCutchen: .7, Kemp: .7, Markakis: 1.1. I get it, your betting on a rebound, but its no sure thing.

[Horsehide Harry]

Personally, just too risky. He wasn't great last year, and is now on the wrong side of 30. Under contract for this year plus one option year. I don't think it makes sense for us to take the risk at this point. WAR last year: McCutchen: .7, Kemp: .7, Markakis: 1.1. I get it, your betting on a rebound, but its no sure thing.

Yeah, his bWAR last year was -.7 due mostly to his -2.6 DWAR with 2.2 OWAR. The years before his WAR was 4.9, 6.3, 8.1, 7.0, 5.7, 3.8, 2.3

He will be 30 this year

I think the Pirates are thinking that they will move him out of CF to LF or RF where his range will play better and his DWAR will significantly improve. Let's say his DWAR gets back to 1.0 and his OWAR gets back to 5. He could be seen then as a 5+ WAR guy again, not out of the realm of possibility. I think if you can get him for the trade value cost of a 2 WAR guy then the risk is worthwhile. OTOH, the Pirates may see the risk of getting him back to 5 WAR value as worth the payroll.

[thewupk]

Yeah, his bWAR last year was -.7 due mostly to his -2.6 DWAR with 2.2 OWAR. The years before his WAR was 4.9, 6.3, 8.1, 7.0, 5.7, 3.8, 2.3

He will be 30 this year

I think the Pirates are thinking that they will move him out of CF to LF or RF where his range will play better and his DWAR will significantly improve. Let's say his DWAR gets back to 1.0 and his OWAR gets back to 5. He could be seen then as a 5+ WAR guy again, not out of the realm of possibility. I think if you can get him for the trade value cost of a 2 WAR guy then the risk is worthwhile. OTOH, the Pirates may see the risk of getting him back to 5 WAR value as worth the payroll.

That's really what it comes down to. What is Pittsburgh willing to get back for Cutch. How do they currently value him and what does the league value him at? If you can trade for him as a 2 WAR player then it would something to entertain.

Another thing is are the Braves the team that should be making this gamble? If they were 1 player away and think a rebounding Cutch could be that guy then yes. But I don't think the Braves are that team. Braves would still need more to go right than Cutch playing like he did pre 2016.

[gilesfan]

Fans will burn the team at the stake if they don't get significant value in return. I think he may be damaged good so I wouldn't take that risk.

[cajunrevenge]

I would take a chance on him but I wouldnt pay the asking price.

[Enscheff]

Back when the Nats were trying to get Cutch, the Pirates wanted Giolito and Robles. That is 2 Top 10 prospects in the game. The Nats refused and got Eaton instead.

The Braves would have to give up Swanson and Albies to match that package. If you believe Giolito is valued as a Top 50 guy rather than a Top 5 guy (which is a sentiment I've read in a few places), the equivalent package would be Albies plus Newcomb.

For a team projected to win 80 games, even with a resurgent Cutch, it makes zero sense.

[smootness]

Yeah, his bWAR last year was -.7 due mostly to his -2.6 DWAR with 2.2 OWAR. The years before his WAR was 4.9, 6.3, 8.1, 7.0, 5.7, 3.8, 2.3

He will be 30 this year

I think the Pirates are thinking that they will move him out of CF to LF or RF where his range will play better and his DWAR will significantly improve. Let's say his DWAR gets back to 1.0 and his OWAR gets back to 5. He could be seen then as a 5+ WAR guy again, not out of the realm of possibility. I think if you can get him for the trade value cost of a 2 WAR guy then the risk is worthwhile. OTOH, the Pirates may see the risk of getting him back to 5 WAR value as worth the payroll.

His dWAR is not likely to improve much by moving to RF. His lack of range will hurt him just as much in a corner spot as it does in CF.

I don't think this move is being made with the intent of improving his trade value as much as it's being made to make their team better. Marte is the better option in CF.

[Horsehide Harry]

Back when the Nats were trying to get Cutch, the Pirates wanted Giolito and Robles. That is 2 Top 10 prospects in the game. The Nats refused and got Eaton instead.

The Braves would have to give up Swanson and Albies to match that package. If you believe Giolito is valued as a Top 50 guy rather than a Top 5 guy (which is a sentiment I've read in a few places), the equivalent package would be Albies plus Newcomb.

For a team projected to win 80 games, even with a resurgent Cutch, it makes zero sense.

Yeah, but I think the Pirates have come to the conclusion that the Cutch isn't as valuable a they thought. If that's the case and they want to move him for money reasons, then he might be had for less.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense for a rebuilding Braves team at this point in time. I've said the same about the so called ACE acquisitions like Sale, Quintana, Archer, etc. as well as most other thoughts on bringing in one big time player because I don't think the Braves are just one big time anything away from really being competitive. In fact, I've been pretty vocal that they are a long way from being finished with a talent gathering period of a rebuilding phase.

BUT, others don't view it that way. They want to win now, Now, NOW! I think it would be the wrong move to try to short circuit the process. But, McCutchen at a reasonable price wouldn't be a horrible gamble IF you were of the mind that he would make any real difference in the long run.

[Horsehide Harry]

His dWAR is not likely to improve much by moving to RF. His lack of range will hurt him just as much in a corner spot as it does in CF.

I don't think this move is being made with the intent of improving his trade value as much as it's being made to make their team better. Marte is the better option in CF.

I guess it would depend, and I don't know the answer, on his range to his right vs his left and how much territory he would be expected to cover with Marte in CF. I would think it would depend a lot on how well he adjusts before a gauge on range can be determined.

[Enscheff]

Yeah, but I think the Pirates have come to the conclusion that the Cutch isn't as valuable a they thought. If that's the case and they want to move him for money reasons, then he might be had for less.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense for a rebuilding Braves team at this point in time. I've said the same about the so called ACE acquisitions like Sale, Quintana, Archer, etc. as well as most other thoughts on bringing in one big time player because I don't think the Braves are just one big time anything away from really being competitive. In fact, I've been pretty vocal that they are a long way from being finished with a talent gathering period of a rebuilding phase.

BUT, others don't view it that way. They want to win now, Now, NOW! I think it would be the wrong move to try to short circuit the process. But, McCutchen at a reasonable price wouldn't be a horrible gamble IF you were of the mind that he would make any real difference in the long run.

Cutch is one of those players I think the Braves would have targeted for 2017 if pitchers like Folty, Wisler, Jenkins, Blair and Newcomb had progressed as expected. If the 2017 rotation was going to consist of Teheran, plus 3 of the 5 guys I listed, plus one of Garcia/Dicke/Colon, I think the Braves would have been a strong candidate to acquire Cutch (or Braun, or Ces) to play LF.

Since those pitchers failed to progress as hoped, the FO was forced to punt 2017 by acquiring cheaper "names" like Kemp, and all 3 of Garcia/Dickey/Colon.

It has always been my contention that the underwhelming roster the Braves currently have is a direct result of that aforementioned group of pitchers failing to develop, thus forcing the Braves to extend the rebuild one more season. As long as those pitchers continue to stall, the Braves will be forced into a holding pattern, which will lead to more losing seasons.

[Horsehide Harry]

Cutch is one of those players I think the Braves would have targeted for 2017 if pitchers like Folty, Wisler, Jenkins, Blair and Newcomb had progressed as expected. If the 2017 rotation was going to consist of Teheran, plus 3 of the 5 guys I listed, plus one of Garcia/Dicke/Colon, I think the Braves would have been a strong candidate to acquire Cutch (or Braun, or Ces) to play LF.

Since those pitchers failed to progress as hoped, the FO was forced to punt 2017 by acquiring cheaper "names" like Kemp, and all 3 of Garcia/Dickey/Colon.

It has always been my contention that the underwhelming roster the Braves currently have is a direct result of that aforementioned group of pitchers failing to develop, thus forcing the Braves to extend the rebuild one more season. As long as those pitchers continue to stall, the Braves will be forced into a holding pattern, which will lead to more losing seasons.

Agree with the caveat that I think counting on the Folty, Wisler, Jenkins, Blair group for 2017 was always folly. Wisler and Folty both showed in 2015 that they were works in progress. Blair was rushed in 2016. Jenkins never showed that he could miss bats. So a plan counting on those guys making up 3/5 or even 2/5 of a "good" rotation in 2017 was always wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is something good FO can't afford.

Even IF 3 of those guys were as good as reasonably hoped for, the Braves still have a lousy offensive team on the whole. A few hot months last year didn't change they real dynamic IMO and another year tacked onto Markakis and Kemp and Flowers won't help. And I am certainly not a believer in Garcia at 3B. Offensively you have to hope (pray) that Freeman continues his MVP play, Inciarte continues as the second half guy, not the first, Swanson at least holds serve to last year and doesn't regress and you get fountain of youth type miracles out of Kemp, Markakis, Garica, Flowers and Peterson (at least for a while).

In other words, 2017 only ever made any sense IF the pitching grew up and Wisler, Blair, Newcombe could be counted on for better than Garcia, Colon, Dickey (Folty is in both) AND they picked up significant offensive upgrades in 2-3 positions. And that's just to get to OK.

[Enscheff]

Agree with the caveat that I think counting on the Folty, Wisler, Jenkins, Blair group for 2017 was always folly. Wisler and Folty both showed in 2015 that they were works in progress. Blair was rushed in 2016. Jenkins never showed that he could miss bats. So a plan counting on those guys making up 3/5 or even 2/5 of a "good" rotation in 2017 was always wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is something good FO can't afford.

Even IF 3 of those guys were as good as reasonably hoped for, the Braves still have a lousy offensive team on the whole. A few hot months last year didn't change they real dynamic IMO and another year tacked onto Markakis and Kemp and Flowers won't help. And I am certainly not a believer in Garcia at 3B. Offensively you have to hope (pray) that Freeman continues his MVP play, Inciarte continues as the second half guy, not the first, Swanson at least holds serve to last year and doesn't regress and you get fountain of youth type miracles out of Kemp, Markakis, Garica, Flowers and Peterson (at least for a while).

In other words, 2017 only ever made any sense IF the pitching grew up and Wisler, Blair, Newcombe could be counted on for better than Garcia, Colon, Dickey (Folty is in both) AND they picked up significant offensive upgrades in 2-3 positions. And that's just to get to OK.

Right, but for example, let's say the young guys made some reasonable progression, so the rotation was projected to be:

Teheran: 3-4 WAR
Folty: 2-3 WAR
Wisler: 2-3 WAR
Blair: 1-2 WAR
Colon: 1-2 WAR

The Braves could have afforded to make some substantial changes to the offense:

C - Castro
1B - Freeman
2B - Jace/SRod/Albies
SS - Swanson
3B - Valbuena/SRod
LF - Ces/Braun/Cutch
CF - Inciarte
RF - Markakis

I think that team would have easily projected to win 85+ games and been a true WC contender.

Unfortunately, the young pitchers almost all fell flat on their faces in 2016, and the Braves were forced to spend their resources acquiring short term fixes to make the team "palatable" going into the new stadium. The only silver lining is that they were able to construct a roster with a non-zero chance of winning 80 games without mortgaging any of the future.

All we can hope for is this 1 year stall tactic works and the pitchers develop this season. If they don't the Braves won't be good for a few more years since the majority of their eggs are in the young pitching basket.

[Horsehide Harry]

Right, but for example, let's say the young guys made some reasonable progression, so the rotation was projected to be:

Teheran: 3-4 WAR
Folty: 2-3 WAR
Wisler: 2-3 WAR
Blair: 1-2 WAR
Colon: 1-2 WAR

The Braves could have afforded to make some substantial changes to the offense:

C - Castro
1B - Freeman
2B - Jace/SRod/Albies
SS - Swanson
3B - Valbuena/SRod
LF - Ces/Braun/Cutch
CF - Inciarte
RF - Markakis

I think that team would have easily projected to win 85+ games and been a true WC contender.

Unfortunately, the young pitchers almost all fell flat on their faces in 2016, and the Braves were forced to spend their resources acquiring short term fixes to make the team "palatable" going into the new stadium. The only silver lining is that they were able to construct a roster with a non-zero chance of winning 80 games without mortgaging any of the future.

All we can hope for is this 1 year stall tactic works and the pitchers develop this season. If they don't the Braves won't be good for a few more years since the majority of their eggs are in the young pitching basket.

Agreed

[smootness]

I guess it would depend, and I don't know the answer, on his range to his right vs his left and how much territory he would be expected to cover with Marte in CF. I would think it would depend a lot on how well he adjusts before a gauge on range can be determined.

Range doesn't really overlap, though. A corner OF may have a little less room to cover near the line, but he shouldn't if he's being positioned correctly.

[Enscheff]

Range doesn't really overlap, though. A corner OF may have a little less room to cover near the line, but he shouldn't if he's being positioned correctly.

This article sheds some light on why thexare moving Cutch to RF. Apparently he has good range to his right, and terrible range to his left. Putting him in RF allows his good range to play in the gap.

It is the damnedest thing, and I have not heard any reasonable explanations as to why his range is so lopsided.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-pirates-outfield-shuffle/

[Horsehide Harry]

This article sheds some light on why thexare moving Cutch to RF. Apparently he has good range to his right, and terrible range to his left. Putting him in RF allows his good range to play in the gap.

It is the damnedest thing, and I have not heard any reasonable explanations as to why his range is so lopsided.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-pirates-outfield-shuffle/

Good catch.

I still think the move is designed to rebuild value if they can before they trade him. I think Meadows is their long term CF with everybody else sliding back.

[smootness]

This article sheds some light on why thexare moving Cutch to RF. Apparently he has good range to his right, and terrible range to his left. Putting him in RF allows his good range to play in the gap.

It is the damnedest thing, and I have not heard any reasonable explanations as to why his range is so lopsided.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-pirates-outfield-shuffle/

Interesting. This is a good example of why using data is pretty much always a good thing. If you're using the straw man argument against data, then you're going to argue that people who like more data are going to say a player will be the exact same defensive player in all positions because that's what WAR says and they don't consider the fact that different positions have different angles, different territories to cover, etc. But here we see that data is showing us exactly that, that perhaps the positional change will help because he appears to be better at some aspects than others.

Data is always good if used as a tool because it simply seeks to explain and describe what is happening on the field. It cracks me up that people who refuse to use any kind of advanced analytics swear by things like BA and RBI...as though that isn't data.

Anyway, yes, that is a very interesting article. It will be an interesting test case on how much positional alignment affects defense. As the article mentions, they're moving two clear defensive strengths to new positions in the process. It could even prove true that McCutchen sees an improvement in defensive metrics but Marte and Polanco both go the other direction, and the overall impact on the team is neutral or negative.

[Hawk]

You realize that data and statistics are two separate things, right?

[smootness]

You realize that data and statistics are two separate things, right?

They really aren't.

Sure, some of the advanced metrics are not as simple and clear-cut as 'this stat shows this %'. But they all incorporate the same basic data, the advanced metrics just do so in a much more in-depth way to attempt to explain things better. You just see the final product, which is 'this player is worth X WAR'. You don't see all the underlying data, or statistics, but that's all it is: a calculation of statistics.

So while BA will always tell you exactly what % of ABs end in H, and in that sense be completely accurate at all times, and WAR is more complex and may not tell you literally the number of wins a player was worth or contributed, that doesn't necessarily make BA a better measure of anything. The issue with BA is what it doesn't tell you and the fact that it is a very poor measure of a player's overall worth. The issue with WAR is that it isn't clearly measured and may not be entirely accurate. What I don't understand is using one as some kind of absolute measure of worth while discounting the other entirely. IMO, BA should be used for exactly what it measures, and WAR should be taken into account as a rough measure of a player's overall ability and taken with a grain of salt. They are both using data to describe something, and both are useful if used correctly.

[Hawk]

They really aren't.

Sure, some of the advanced metrics are not as simple and clear-cut as 'this stat shows this %'. But they all incorporate the same basic data, the advanced metrics just do so in a much more in-depth way to attempt to explain things better. You just see the final product, which is 'this player is worth X WAR'. You don't see all the underlying data, or statistics, but that's all it is: a calculation of statistics.

So while BA will always tell you exactly what % of ABs end in H, and in that sense be completely accurate at all times, and WAR is more complex and may not tell you literally the number of wins a player was worth or contributed, that doesn't necessarily make BA a better measure of anything. The issue with BA is what it doesn't tell you and the fact that it is a very poor measure of a player's overall worth. The issue with WAR is that it isn't clearly measured and may not be entirely accurate. What I don't understand is using one as some kind of absolute measure of worth while discounting the other entirely. IMO, BA should be used for exactly what it measures, and WAR should be taken into account as a rough measure of a player's overall ability and taken with a grain of salt. They are both using data to describe something, and both are useful if used correctly.

In the end, though, statistics are just particular interpretations of data.

I've never heard anybody argue against data in and of itself (except, perhaps, quibbles with collection methods), but I've read many criticisms of statistical models.

I mean ... the data is the game itself.

[smootness]

In the end, though, statistics are just particular interpretations of data.

I've never heard anybody argue against data in and of itself (except, perhaps, quibbles with collection methods), but I've read many criticisms of statistical models.

I mean ... the data is the game itself.

Yes, correct. This is why it's beneficial to look into these statistical models to find out what they measure, how they get there, and how well they seem to hold up. You can then choose to use them however you wish.

What I don't understand is the dismissal out of hand of these newer, more in-depth models simply because they are new and not as easily understood. They shouldn't be treated as fact or used by someone who doesn't understand how they are calculated, but they also shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.

[thewupk]

Yes, correct. This is why it's beneficial to look into these statistical models to find out what they measure, how they get there, and how well they seem to hold up. You can then choose to use them however you wish.

What I don't understand is the dismissal out of hand of these newer, more in-depth models simply because they are new and not as easily understood. They shouldn't be treated as fact or used by someone who doesn't understand how they are calculated, but they also shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.

Right. The data would be those graphs from baseball savant we had last week. They showed Heyward allowed around 50 less hits or so than Kemp did in similar chances. The stat would be how to convert that to useful information like runs saved. It's up to you if you choose to believe what that stat is saying.

[smootness]

Right. The data would be those graphs from baseball savant we had last week. They showed Heyward allowed around 50 less hits or so than Kemp did in similar chances. The stat would be how to convert that to useful information like runs saved. It's up to you if you choose to believe what that stat is saying.

But even then, it shouldn't be a case of, 'I don't see how you can possibly assess how many runs you'll save by making one play, so that's a useless stat'. You should try to find out why they say a play is worth a certain amount of runs and determine if you think that's accurate. Again, I have no issue if someone has a legitimate issue with the way a statistic is calculated or believes it is limited in some way. I do have an issue with someone refusing to learn more and just dismissing it out of hand because it isn't immediately intuitive.

[thewupk]

But even then, it shouldn't be a case of, 'I don't see how you can possibly assess how many runs you'll save by making one play, so that's a useless stat'. You should try to find out why they say a play is worth a certain amount of runs and determine if you think that's accurate. Again, I have no issue if someone has a legitimate issue with the way a statistic is calculated or believes it is limited in some way. I do have an issue with someone refusing to learn more and just dismissing it out of hand because it isn't immediately intuitive.

I agree. That's just being ignorant.

[Hawk]

What I don't understand is the dismissal out of hand of these newer, more in-depth models simply because they are new and not as easily understood. They shouldn't be treated as fact or used by someone who doesn't understand how they are calculated, but they also shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.

I think the easy answer is that there is a set of 'tried and true' statistics (BA, RBI etc.) which the common fan tends to gravitate to simply because they have been around for so long and because they are relatively unpredictable/unreliable.

The term homo economicus is sometimes used to describe presumed rational human behavior in (predictive) economic modeling. To extrapolate that general sentiment onto the discussion at hand, it should be important to disclaim that contemporary MLB analytical measurements are subject to the same variety of unpredictable (or unaccountable) aberrant fluctuations and outliers that often (majorly) skew economic modeling.

Many statistical enthusiasts really struggle to admit that the game is played by men and not by machines.

I rarely see people outright dismiss new models, but I do seem them probe for fallibility and question the extent they should be valued over others. To me, that's healthy.

[Southcack77]

Right, but for example, let's say the young guys made some reasonable progression, so the rotation was projected to be:

Teheran: 3-4 WAR
Folty: 2-3 WAR
Wisler: 2-3 WAR
Blair: 1-2 WAR
Colon: 1-2 WAR

The Braves could have afforded to make some substantial changes to the offense:

C - Castro
1B - Freeman
2B - Jace/SRod/Albies
SS - Swanson
3B - Valbuena/SRod
LF - Ces/Braun/Cutch
CF - Inciarte
RF - Markakis

I think that team would have easily projected to win 85+ games and been a true WC contender.

Unfortunately, the young pitchers almost all fell flat on their faces in 2016, and the Braves were forced to spend their resources acquiring short term fixes to make the team "palatable" going into the new stadium. The only silver lining is that they were able to construct a roster with a non-zero chance of winning 80 games without mortgaging any of the future.

All we can hope for is this 1 year stall tactic works and the pitchers develop this season. If they don't the Braves won't be good for a few more years since the majority of their eggs are in the young pitching basket.


Yeah, I don't see that team contending for the WS.

Although this post actually makes it seem like the Braves front office aren't total idiots making random moves, which is quite a concession.