So Where Are The Fits?

[thewupk]

in his walk year his wrc+ was only 97. the 120 was the year before and it was by far his best. The year before 120 it was 107.

I grant you he would have gotten paid more. Chris Carter hit 41 bombs and would have been the top $ guy 20 years ago.

But you put that all on these guy's defense. It's not. The 222 batting avg and 320 OBP are impacting carter much more than defense. If they were around 400 OBPs like Miggy then people would pay them and deal with the negative defense like they do with Miggy.

His WRC+ is 97 this season. It was 123 last year.

And it's not just their defense but it's a major part of it. You are right that OBP is more valuable than SLG which is why many prefer WOBA to OPS since OPS values OBP incorrectly. Be that as it may. The WAR stat as a whole accurately depicts these types of players which is my point.

Yes Miggy has bad defense and teams still pay him mega bucks. Because he is(was) a top hitter in baseball. Bad defenders who are upper echelon hitters still have really awesome WAR numbers. Horrible defenders who are just above average to good hitters do not. Which is why players like Trumbo and Kemp are generally rated as below average players and get paid accordingly.

 

[Southcack77]

So by that logic (Kemp is better because he likes playing in Atlanta), he hasn't increased his value in any way. If you are going to be consistent with that line of logic, Kemp will revert to being a worse player if traded away from the Braves.

Kemp is being paid like a 1+ win player (after subtracting HO's contract), and he is on pace to produce 1.8 WAR. His WAR has gone backwards over the last few weeks as his BABIP normalizes and his defense continues to be awful, so even that below-average pace is likely unsustainable.

Kemp is not valuable. No team will be looking to acquire him unless the Braves decide to simply unload him by eating a large portion of his salary (the amount they have to assume has already been discussed on this board). I find it highly unlikely the Braves will pay to unload a guy they acquired for the sole reason of making it appear as if they are trying to compete.

He was playing poorly in San Diego and now he is playing much better.

No one said that was magically attributable to the air in Atlanta. That's a weird conclusion to draw over two ball parks.

His playing better for nearly an entire seasons of at bats does make him a more valuable player. Perhaps not much more valuable, but more valuable nonetheless.

 

[Russ2dollas]

So you think a pitcher losing value is an equivalent scenario as a hitter gaining value, and those things happen at the same rate? Seriously?

I never said it was equivalent. You said that it was silly for Kemp's value to change based on a few months.
1. It's more than a few months as he has been much better since he came to ATL
2. Quintana is an example of a player's value changing based on a few months of performance (non-injury).

1 and 2 do not require that hitters and pitchers are equivalent. It does not mean the rate is the same. But a couple of months performance can change a player. Especially on the lower levels of the market. You often see low end starters (Cahill this year) or relief pitchers (Norris) or hitters (KJ) get traded above their value b/c of a couple of months performance for a contending team.

 

[Russ2dollas]

His WRC+ is 97 this season. It was 123 last year.

And it's not just their defense but it's a major part of it. You are right that OBP is more valuable than SLG which is why many prefer WOBA to OPS since OPS values OBP incorrectly. Be that as it may. The WAR stat as a whole accurately depicts these types of players which is my point.

Yes Miggy has bad defense and teams still pay him mega bucks. Because he is(was) a top hitter in baseball. Bad defenders who are upper echelon hitters still have really awesome WAR numbers. Horrible defenders who are just above average to good hitters do not. Which is why players like Trumbo and Kemp are generally rated as below average players and get paid accordingly.

I am with you that the WAR stat has a better correlation coefficient than anything we have publicly reported. That is not the same as saying all runs or all wins are the same.

 

[Enscheff]

He was playing poorly in San Diego and now he is playing much better.

No one said that was magically attributable to the air in Atlanta. That's a weird conclusion to draw over two ball parks.

His playing better for nearly an entire seasons of at bats does make him a more valuable player. Perhaps not much more valuable, but more valuable nonetheless.

Great, he is more valuable. Still untradeable.

Is that the argument you posi-Braves are trying to make? That he is now less un-valuable than he was, even though he is still not an asset? I can't think of a more absurd point to argue lol. But hey, whatever makes you feel like you're "right' about something and I'm "wrong"...fine by me.

 

[Southcack77]

On Matt Adams:

He was acquired for the Braves #32, which was a prospect that would rank higher in many organizations. That cost was based on his mostly having been a disappointing player relative to his former promise.

If he finishes the next few weeks as a starter exceeding what he's done before, he's likely to raise his trade value - though this might be offset by the reduced pre-arb control and any expected raise he will receive.

Still, you would expect the Braves might at least get an upside player a ways from the majors for him - something similar to Yepez.

Or you can make him part of a contention pu-pu platter for some brave team that wants to go for it. And if you have something like Brandon Phillips, Johnson, and Adams in a package maybe that's worth something to some enterprising team that wants to pay the trade deadline premium.

Also, considering some of the trades of AAAA and middling MLB talent the Braves have swung for interesting pieces, you just never know.

 

[Enscheff]

I never said it was equivalent. You said that it was silly for Kemp's value to change based on a few months.
1. It's more than a few months as he has been much better since he came to ATL
2. Quintana is an example of a player's value changing based on a few months of performance (non-injury).

1 and 2 do not require that hitters and pitchers are equivalent. It does not mean the rate is the same. But a couple of months performance can change a player. Especially on the lower levels of the market. You often see low end starters (Cahill this year) or relief pitchers (Norris) or hitters (KJ) get traded above their value b/c of a couple of months performance for a contending team.

LOL, the scale on which these values have changed makes your comparison pointless. Kemp maybe improved his value by a few million bucks, most of that being due to the Braves paying down his contract. Quintana's value has probably halved due to the way pitchers can fall off a cliff suddenly.

So no, your Quintana anecdote means nothing when trying to use it as "proof" Kemp's value has increased. The fact you think it does shows a complete lack of understanding about player value...or desperation to "prove Enscheff wrong" that perpetuates this board.

 

[Southcack77]

Great, he is more valuable. Still untradeable.

Is that the argument you posi-Braves are trying to make? That he is now less un-valuable than he was, even though he is still not an asset? I can't think of a more absurd point to argue lol. But hey, whatever makes you feel like you're "right' about something and I'm "wrong"...fine by me.

I'd probably use the simpler construction that he's more valuable.

I have no interest in painting Kemp as a wise acquisition,or someone that is likely to fetch much in trade. I'd like for his value to have risen enough to the extent that the Braves might get out of the remaining years on his deal, but I am not sure that it has.

However, I'm also prepared to say that Kemp is a pretty good hitter at the moment and that much outweighs his defense. I'm not terribly confident he can maintain the hitting for the entire season or in following seasons.

 

[Enscheff]

On Matt Adams:

He was acquired for the Braves #32, which was a prospect that would rank higher in many organizations. That cost was based on his mostly having been a disappointing player relative to his former promise.

If he finishes the next few weeks as a starter exceeding what he's done before, he's likely to raise his trade value - though this might be offset by the reduced pre-arb control and any expected raise he will receive.

Still, you would expect the Braves might at least get an upside player a ways from the majors for him - something similar to Yepez.

Or you can make him part of a contention pu-pu platter for some brave team that wants to go for it. And if you have something like Brandon Phillips, Johnson, and Adams in a package maybe that's worth something to some enterprising team that wants to pay the trade deadline premium.

Also, considering some of the trades of AAAA and middling MLB talent the Braves have swung for interesting pieces, you just never know.

LOL, Matt Adams, the Braves newest trade chip!

 

[thewupk]

I am with you that the WAR stat has a better correlation coefficient than anything we have publicly reported. That is not the same as saying all runs or all wins are the same.

Nothing is exact because of the luck factor. Things happen. But if you upgrade your expected team WAR by 5 you are generally going to win 5 more games. Teams with the highest WAR will generally have the most wins. The better players produce the most WAR. That's kind of the whole point of the exercise.

 

[Russ2dollas]

Great, he is more valuable. Still untradeable.

Is that the argument you posi-Braves are trying to make? That he is now less un-valuable than he was, even though he is still not an asset? I can't think of a more absurd point to argue lol. But hey, whatever makes you feel like you're "right' about something and I'm "wrong"...fine by me.

I think more valuable is relevant. Again we're living in a universe where we think Coppy agrees with 90% of the board that dumping Kemp is a good thing.

If that's true it should be easier to do now.

They owed Olivera something like 30 million bucks. San Diego decided losing 30 million was better than owing Kemp 60 million + roster spot. IF the Braves dumped him for a bag of balls tomorrow and paid his whole way this year they would have taken a 30 million hit + maybe a roster spot and turned it into roughly 2 oWAR of production for about 30 million (Dodgers are paying like 3 million, plus SD paid some last year????). They would get the roster spot back and they would be financially free moving forward. That's better.

Now I grant you it's possible they could have just dumped Olivera and maybe found a guy that could give them 1-2 WAR for the minimum. I would agree that would have been my course.

 

[thewupk]

I think more valuable is relevant. Again we're living in a universe where we think Coppy agrees with 90% of the board that dumping Kemp is a good thing.

If that's true it should be easier to do now.

They owed Olivera something like 30 million bucks. San Diego decided losing 30 million was better than owing Kemp 60 million + roster spot. IF the Braves dumped him for a bag of balls tomorrow and paid his whole way this year they would have taken a 30 million hit + maybe a roster spot and turned it into roughly 2 oWAR of production for about 30 million (Dodgers are paying like 3 million, plus SD paid some last year????). They would get the roster spot back and they would be financially free moving forward. That's better.

Now I grant you it's possible they could have just dumped Olivera and maybe found a guy that could give them 1-2 WAR for the minimum. I would agree that would have been my course.

The main difference is that player would be easier to trade if they needed to.

 

[Russ2dollas]

LOL, the scale on which these values have changed makes your comparison pointless. Kemp maybe improved his value by a few million bucks, most of that being due to the Braves paying down his contract. Quintana's value has probably halved due to the way pitchers can fall off a cliff suddenly.

So no, your Quintana anecdote means nothing when trying to use it as "proof" Kemp's value has increased. The fact you think it does shows a complete lack of understanding about player value...or desperation to "prove Enscheff wrong" that perpetuates this board.

You are the one that made them equivalent.

I responded because you did what you do, that is you made an authoritative statement that was wrong. Player's values do change over a couple of months. That is all I said. You are using a straw man that I said these are equivalent or that Quintana's change was the same as kemps. I did not.

 

[Russ2dollas]

Nothing is exact because of the luck factor. Things happen. But if you upgrade your expected team WAR by 5 you are generally going to win 5 more games. Teams with the highest WAR will generally have the most wins. The better players produce the most WAR. That's kind of the whole point of the exercise.

Again, I agree. But saying WAR is the best predictor of future performance is not the same as saying a "run" scored is the same as a "run" saved.

 

[thewupk]

Again, I agree. But saying WAR is the best predictor of future performance is not the same as saying a "run" scored is the same as a "run" saved.

It's not. But a run created on offense is equal in value to a run saved on defense. I mean it's how the literal game is designed.

 

[Enscheff]

You are the one that made them equivalent.

I responded because you did what you do, that is you made an authoritative statement that was wrong. Player's values do change over a couple of months. That is all I said. You are using a straw man that I said these are equivalent or that Quintana's change was the same as kemps. I did not.

OK, great, so you have proven yourself to be "right". Kemp has increased his trade value a tiny bit.

You know good and well that isn't what I was talking about, and it isn't what folks in this very thread are suggesting. Folks are suggesting Kemp has increased his value so dramatically that AL teams will come asking for him. I can go back and quote several posters who contend Kemp is above average and should be coveted by AL teams.

I realize this silly "find a small point to argue with Enscheff about so I can prove him wrong about something...anything...even if it's the meaning of a word or semantics" is common, but you know as well as I do that the ongoing discussion about Kemp was NEVER over whether or not he marginally improved his value since joining the Braves until you made it that way so you could be "right about something".

Kemp is not appreciably more valuable now. He will not be traded unless Coppy assumes another bad contract (the Braves don't "eat" money in trades).

So feel free to congratulate yourself on being "right" about his value increasing...no matter how trivial that increase my be.

 

[Russ2dollas]

It's not. But a run created on offense is equal in value to a run saved on defense. I mean it's how the literal game is designed.

we agree 90 plus percent so I don't know if the semantics are worth it

I wish the defensive metrics ppl would change it to outs from runs. They are not trying to measure runs saved as much as they are measuring outs created or missed.

I know it's just words in some ways but I think it would make more sense to say Simmons created x more outs than other ss vs fictional runs. I guess they don't do that bc it could get confused with actual outs

 

[Enscheff]

we agree 90 plus percent so I don't know if the semantics are worth it

I wish the defensive metrics ppl would change it to outs from runs. They are not trying to measure runs saved as much as they are measuring outs created or missed.

I know it's just words in some ways but I think it would make more sense to say Simmons created x more outs than other ss vs fictional runs. I guess they don't do that bc it could get confused with actual outs

No, just, no.

Simmons making a 5 star play prevented a single. Inciarte making a 5 star play prevented an extra base hit. Therefore, Inciarte's play was far more valuable despite the fact that they each created 1 more out.

It is trivial to convert batted ball types to expected outcomes, and then convert those outcomes to expected runs created (or prevented).

The only issue with defensive metrics is the fact that currently the plays are judged based on humans watching video. As soon as statcast data is more robust, it will be easy to calculate who made which plays, how hard those plays were, and what would have happened if the play was/wasn't made.

If Inciarte catches a ball in the gap that only 10% of CFers get to, and that ball is a double 60% of the time and a triple 40% of the time, and a double is generally worth 1 run, and a triple is generally worth 2 runs (numbers made up to illustrate the calc), Inciarte just "saved" 0.9 * ((0.6 * 1) + (0.4 * 2)) = 1.26 runs.

 

[thewupk]

we agree 90 plus percent so I don't know if the semantics are worth it

I wish the defensive metrics ppl would change it to outs from runs. They are not trying to measure runs saved as much as they are measuring outs created or missed.

I know it's just words in some ways but I think it would make more sense to say Simmons created x more outs than other ss vs fictional runs. I guess they don't do that bc it could get confused with actual outs

As Enscheff said not all outs are created equally. It's one of the reasons why a corner outfielder for example can have a really good or bad runs saved metric based on a smaller amount of plays than a middle infielder. Balls in the gap or down the line end up as extra base hits and are more damaging.

 

[Russ2dollas]

No, just, no.

Simmons making a 5 star play prevented a single. Inciarte making a 5 star play prevented an extra base hit. Therefore, Inciarte's play was far more valuable despite the fact that they each created 1 more out.

It is trivial to convert batted ball types to expected outcomes, and then convert those outcomes to expected runs created (or prevented).

The only issue with defensive metrics is the fact that currently the plays are judged based on humans watching video. As soon as statcast data is more robust, it will be easy to calculate who made which plays, how hard those plays were, and what would have happened if the play was/wasn't made.

If Inciarte catches a ball in the gap that only 10% of CFers get to, and that ball is a double 60% of the time and a triple 40% of the time, and a double is generally worth 1 run, and a triple is generally worth 2 runs (numbers made up to illustrate the calc), Inciarte just "saved" 0.9 * ((0.6 * 1) + (0.4 * 2)) = 1.26 runs.

That makes sense.

Will the statcast percentages be based off how far a guy ran or based off a particular spot? If a SS catches a ball in short RF because of a shift, then what happens? If Kemp is standing on the foul line and catches a ball on the line what happens?