Another Waaaaaaay Out Of The Box Thought

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Kemp has hit really really well since the break. And aside from one god awful month has hit well most of the year.

True. Just depends on how much defense should weigh in on the calculation, I guess.

 

[thewupk]

Lol... but Harper's season hasn't been disappointing at all, right giles? (standing by for all the reasons why it hasn't been disappointing)

I was assured a month ago Harper was going to have a 150 WRC+ the rest of the season

 

[rico43]

I am not sure what people see in trading for Brian McCann. He is paid way to much for his production, Flowers is hitting way better than McCann (.272 vs .234), the problem with Flowers is the pitiful numbers for throwing out base stealers. I mean historically pitiful (like .036%), McCann is not a heck of a lot better in that department (.230%), and is only getting older.
Unfortunately we traded away a better catcher when we traded Evan Gattis (.500 throwing out runners and 26 homers),.

I do not see any good reason to waste money or trade resources on Brian McCann. There has to be a better option out there.

This get my nod for the wrongest post of the season. To even consider Flowers again is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head for very reason you cited. McCann has the arm, the technique and a knack for working with pitchers.

Recker should be kept around a solid backup who does a lot of the little things that help a team win. And I will wait until new manager David Ross is on board to see what he considers a solid MLB catcher.

 

[Russ2dollas]

I think I like it. But he's coming off an ACL and only has one more year of control...right?

I'd actually think hard about an Adonis/Ruiz platoon. That probably maximizes both and gives you a majority of Ruiz w/o over exposing him.

But it might be worth it just to drop Markakis if it takes Markakis plus a Gant or someone like that.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

This get my nod for the wrongest post of the season. To even consider Flowers again is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the head for very reason you cited. McCann has the arm, the technique and a knack for working with pitchers.

Recker should be kept around a solid backup who does a lot of the little things that help a team win. And I will wait until new manager David Ross is on board to see what he considers a solid MLB catcher.

Whoever ends up at catcher should be there first and foremost (and a looooong way ahead of anything else) to help develop the young pitching whether it be framing, calling the game, coaching on the field, keeping the runners close or throwing them out. You don't spend the better part of two years collecting and hoarding young pitching then put them with a stat conscious catcher or one who doesn't really know the job.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Stayed up to watch that goofy Jets-Bills game last night so I'm a little loopy this morning, but an "interesting" (if absolutely nothing else) thought popped up. If the brass still isn't sold on Adonis, I wonder if our scouts like Mike Moustakas enough to trade Markakis for him straight-up?

With the emergence of Cheslor Cuthbert and with Hunter Dozier all but ready, I wonder if this wouldn't be an almost perfect swap for both teams?

The Royals would get the OF bat they need without seriously weakening either their MLB roster or their minor league system, and the Braves would get the 3B with pop they'd like to have while creating ABs for both Inciarte and Mallex.

If the Royals re-sign Morales, KC would then look like: 2B- Merrifield, CF- Cain, 1B- Hosmer, DH- Morales, RF- Markakis, C- Perez, LF- Gordon, 3B- Dozier, SS- Escobar

If the Braves do trade for Mac, Atlanta would then look like: RF- Inciarte, SS- Swanson, 1B- Freeman, LF- Kemp, 3B- Moustakas, C- Mac/Flowers, 2B- Peterson, SP, CF- Mallex

Sure it would make us a little LH-heavy early on in 2017, but Albies will fix that soon enough. It would also buy another full season of development for Ruiz in Gwinnett to see whether his power will further develop before we'd have to make a call on Moustakas. Adding Moustakas' and Mac's pop to the lineup should easily offset playing Ender and Mallex in the OF together.

I would be for it but I don't see why KC would do it. They would be taking on money and getting the lesser player. Dozier can play either 3B or OF and Bonafacio is their best true OF prospect and he is a RF and at AAA. They could put Dozier and/or Bonafacio in RF and let Moustakas play 3B through until FA. OR, and this is what I think they should do, they would trade Moustakas for prospects and play Dozier at 3B and Bonafacio in RF. But, unfortunately for them, Mouse is hurt and will need to show he's healthy before teams are willing to give them full value so I could see him being moved at the end of spring or at the deadline.

 

[mqt]

I honestly forgot Moustakas tore his ACL and thought you must be crazy. I'd still do that trade in a heartbeat, even with a guy like Ellis. If we're serious about competing in 2017 then I don't think Ruiz has done enough to be counted on as the strong side of a platoon. Giving up a mid-level pitching prospect would be more than worth it to get a guy like Moustakas for next year. By the end of the year either Ruiz would be ready or we would be able to make a long term decision on the position.

 

[mqt]

I am not sure what people see in trading for Brian McCann. He is paid way to much for his production, Flowers is hitting way better than McCann (.272 vs .234), the problem with Flowers is the pitiful numbers for throwing out base stealers. I mean historically pitiful (like .036%), McCann is not a heck of a lot better in that department (.230%), and is only getting older.

Unfortunately we traded away a better catcher when we traded Evan Gattis (.500 throwing out runners and 26 homers),.



I do not see any good reason to waste money or trade resources on Brian McCann. There has to be a better option out there.

So nobody is going to touch this one?

 

[GovClintonTyree]

It's funny. For the top defensive players, like Simmons, I tend to like bWAR more because I believe Simmons is worth ~5 wins/year. But for bad defensive players who can hit, I tend to like fWAR more, because I do think Kemp has been a net positive for us.

Is it possible that being good defensively has more impact than being bad defensively, if that makes sense?

Or am I just dumb?

Post of the week. This is kind of what I've been wrestling with for a while, but couldn't find words.

Just because (for instance)Kemp makes all the routine plays and not much else doesn't make him a poor fielder, it's just kind of neutral for his team. The fact that (for instance) Heyward occasionally shoots guys going first-to-third and spears balls in the gap absolutely has value and adds runs.

How is "replacement level" range and arm quantified, anyway? That's got be a highly subjective undertaking.

 

[Chico]

I don't see how KC would make the Moose trade. They have to restock their farm system. I think they will trade him, but for prospects.

Why McCann? Because he'll sell tickets, he's good with young pitchers, and still has some pop which we'll need in the middle of the order if we plan on having 3-4 punching judies with speed in the lineup. Most importantly Mac won't cost us a pick or core prospects.

I like Flowers, but he's had a .370 BABIP this year. I think there's some regression for him next year. He's fine to keep, but we need an offensive minded catcher to team with him.

 

[chop2chip]

Post of the week. This is kind of what I've been wrestling with for a while, but couldn't find words.

Just because (for instance)Kemp makes all the routine plays and not much else doesn't make him a poor fielder, it's just kind of neutral for his team. The fact that (for instance) Heyward occasionally shoots guys going first-to-third and spears balls in the gap absolutely has value and adds runs.

How is "replacement level" range and arm quantified, anyway? That's got be a highly subjective undertaking.

It's not really quantifying replacement level defense. It's measuring how well a defender plays given his opportunities (which come in many different forms aside from just catching fly balls).

For one, Kemp doesn't make all of the routine plays, unless your standard for routine involves only plays that land in his glove (and even then he's dropped a fly ball already). He doesn't have a good throwing arm and he struggles cutting balls off in the gaps. That's not "neutral" value.

I'm fine with some weighting his offense and defense differently than WAR, but what you're doing isn't how I hope the team is valuating team defense.

 

[chop2chip]

It's funny. For the top defensive players, like Simmons, I tend to like bWAR more because I believe Simmons is worth ~5 wins/year. But for bad defensive players who can hit, I tend to like fWAR more, because I do think Kemp has been a net positive for us.

Is it possible that being good defensively has more impact than being bad defensively, if that makes sense?

Or am I just dumb?

bWAR and fWAR don't weight defense differently. They simply use different defensive metrics, so I think you've introduced some bias into your valuation. Although, I do think it's important to understand all three version of WAR (including BP's) as there are examples where the models disagree quite drastically with each other.

Your question is interesting though. It's essentially arguing whether making an out has the same value as not making an out (in the simplest terms as I understand there's more to defense than simply put outs). I'm not sure of the math behind that question or whether I'm considering the logic properly, but my initial inclination is that making an out provides more value than failing to make an out simply because an out is a more positive outcome than a single is a negative outcome (I think).

 

[thewupk]

Post of the week. This is kind of what I've been wrestling with for a while, but couldn't find words.

Just because (for instance)Kemp makes all the routine plays and not much else doesn't make him a poor fielder, it's just kind of neutral for his team. The fact that (for instance) Heyward occasionally shoots guys going first-to-third and spears balls in the gap absolutely has value and adds runs.

How is "replacement level" range and arm quantified, anyway? That's got be a highly subjective undertaking.

Those ratings are actually based on an average MLBer which is pretty easy to calculate. So if you are -1.5 in range for example you are 1.5 runs below average. The replacement level factor doesn't come in until the final WAR calculation. Which is why you can have a theoretical player who is completely average at 0 batting runs, 0 baserunning runs, and 0 UZR and he will come out to around ~1 WAR depending on the position.

 

[thewupk]

bWAR and fWAR don't weight defense differently. They simply use different defensive metrics, so I think you've introduced some bias into your valuation. Although, I do think it's important to understand all three version of WAR (including BP's) as there are examples where the models disagree quite drastically with each other.

Your question is interesting though. It's essentially arguing whether making an out has the same value as not making an out (in the simplest terms as I understand there's more to defense than simply put outs). I'm not sure of the math behind that question or whether I'm considering the logic properly, but my initial inclination is that making an out provides more value than failing to make an out simply because an out is a more positive outcome than a single is a negative outcome (I think).

That's correct. The math is fairly complex. I've looked at it and don't really want to again. The basis is that every play has an expected run value. This is based on all the plays across MLB and how they lead to actual runs scored. For example a homerun is generally worth 1.4 runs, a single .4, a walk .3, etc. Those are estimates as I don't recall their actual values. This is what WOBA and WRC+ are based on.

If a shortstop ranges into the hole and takes a hit away that 90% of the time is a hit then he essentially saved .4 runs. He doesn't get all .4 runs credited to his defensive numbers because 10% of the time the play is made. But he does get a lot of it. The same way if a ball is hit to you that 90% of the time an out is made yet you turn it into a single because you have horrible range. You are going to get penalized big time.

The same hold true in the OF on plays where an out isn't made. If a guy hits a ball into he gap that is a double 75% of the time yet you cut it off and keep it a single. You get positive points for that. Of course it goes in the opposite direction as well if you constantly turn singles into doubles. That is why in the OF range is the biggest contributor to defensive numbers. It factors in every play even on those where outs aren't made.

 

[chop2chip]

That's correct. The math is fairly complex. I've looked at it and don't really want to again. The basis is that every play has an expected run value. This is based on all the plays across MLB and how they lead to actual runs scored. For example a homerun is generally worth 1.4 runs, a single .4, a walk .3, etc. Those are estimates as I don't recall their actual values. This is what WOBA and WRC+ are based on.

If a shortstop ranges into the hole and takes a hit away that 90% of the time is a hit then he essentially saved .4 runs. He doesn't get all .4 runs credited to his defensive numbers because 10% of the time the play is made. But he does get a lot of it. The same way if a ball is hit to you that 90% of the time an out is made yet you turn it into a single because you have horrible range. You are going to get penalized big time.

The same hold true in the OF on plays where an out isn't made. If a guy hits a ball into he gap that is a double 75% of the time yet you cut it off and keep it a single. You get positive points for that. Of course it goes in the opposite direction as well if you constantly turn singles into doubles. That is why in the OF range is the biggest contributor to defensive numbers. It factors in every play even on those where outs aren't made.

Thanks for the response.

Does making an out hold more value than failing to make an out? From an expected value perspective, I would guess that since an out one third of the time ends an inning, thus any chance for further scoring opportunities, it holds more value than a single, since the defense still has the opportunity from preventing that single from scoring runs (either before or after the single is hit).

The counter argument is that making an out is the exact opposite as failing to make an out, so the expected values would mirror each other, but I doubt that's how the math works out. I'm curious towards that answer though.

 

[Hudson2]

I'd only trade for Mac if he costs around 10 a year. If we can't get him for that and not give up a top 15 prospect then I'd look elsewhere. As far as Moose goes, I'd definitely make a deal for him with Markakis involved but it'll take a good prospect with him to make it happen. We need 2 hitters next year and maybe 2 starters to really compete like the FO wants.

 

[thewupk]

Thanks for the response.

Does making an out hold more value than failing to make an out? From an expected value perspective, I would guess that since an out one third of the time ends an inning, thus any chance for further scoring opportunities, it holds more value than a single, since the defense still has the opportunity from preventing that single from scoring runs (either before or after the single is hit).

The counter argument is that making an out is the exact opposite as failing to make an out, so the expected values would mirror each other, but I doubt that's how the math works out. I'm curious towards that answer though.

The value of an out is factored in. Whether or not it holds more value than failing to make an out I'm not sure. I would lean towards the expected values mirroring each other though.

 

[Carp]

I am not sure what people see in trading for Brian McCann. He is paid way to much for his production, Flowers is hitting way better than McCann (.272 vs .234), the problem with Flowers is the pitiful numbers for throwing out base stealers. I mean historically pitiful (like .036%), McCann is not a heck of a lot better in that department (.230%), and is only getting older.

Unfortunately we traded away a better catcher when we traded Evan Gattis (.500 throwing out runners and 26 homers),.



I do not see any good reason to waste money or trade resources on Brian McCann. There has to be a better option out there.

Throwing out base runners is about the last thing to be concerned about defensively. Pitch framing is significantly more important and both Mac and Flowers do very well there. In no universe has Gattis ever been a better defender than Mac.

Offensively, Flowers has been better this year, but he's also been quite lucky with BABIP. His career average is .231 and he can't hit RHP. A Mac and Flowers platoon should be extremely productive.

 

[Enscheff]

It's funny. For the top defensive players, like Simmons, I tend to like bWAR more because I believe Simmons is worth ~5 wins/year. But for bad defensive players who can hit, I tend to like fWAR more, because I do think Kemp has been a net positive for us.

Is it possible that being good defensively has more impact than being bad defensively, if that makes sense?

Or am I just dumb?

I think you just have to use some common sense. Teams have been using poor defensive LFers and winning for years. Obviously, if you had your choice, you would take an .800+ OPS guy with above average defense over Kemp...Cespedes, for example. However, that player would have cost the Braves a LOT more than it cost to acquire Kemp ($120M+ in the case of Ces).

You can hide bad defense in LF and 1B if the player can hit as long as there are good defenders where the most chances go (up the middle). If Kemp truly is back to being a .260/.320/.480 guy with 30 HRs from the RHed side of the plate, that will play just fine on an offensively challenged team like the Braves. If Markakis is back to being a 10-15 HR guy with average-ish defense in RF, the OF is fine whether Mallex or Inciarte is in CF.

The point is the Braves can't afford Cespedes. They couldn't afford Heyward or Upton. They CAN afford an OF of Kemp/Markakis/Inciarte or Mallex. If they can improve at 3B and C they will have enough for an average offense, and then it all comes down to the young pitching making progress to determine how many games they ultimately win.

 

[Russ2dollas]

I don't see how KC would make the Moose trade. They have to restock their farm system. I think they will trade him, but for prospects.

Why McCann? Because he'll sell tickets, he's good with young pitchers, and still has some pop which we'll need in the middle of the order if we plan on having 3-4 punching judies with speed in the lineup. Most importantly Mac won't cost us a pick or core prospects.

I like Flowers, but he's had a .370 BABIP this year. I think there's some regression for him next year. He's fine to keep, but we need an offensive minded catcher to team with him.

How many prospects do you get for 1 year of Moose coming off an ACL?