GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Great point. This has been bugging me but I never put it as clearly as you did here.
Braves Extend Inciarte
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
Great point. This has been bugging me but I never put it as clearly as you did here.
Thank you.
I think its almost hypocritical for a saber inclined person to deny the existence of these possibilities. All empirical evidence suggest that we learn more about the human experience over time. To act as if we are at a point of understanding whereby there are no loose ends is foolish.
I think Bill Shanks refers to this as makeup. To me it's one of those things that are great to have if you have it but it's really should be an icing on the cake feature. First and foremost what should matter is your on the field ability. And we are great at evaluating that ability already.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
It does play a big role in faux GMs considering trades, but bears no semblance of useful analysis in real trades. Look no further than the recent Sale and Eatin deals. The team giving up the sure thing receives far more surplus value, because it hasn't been realized yet. It's theoretical.
nsacpi figured out that an equal surplus value trade for Chris Archer was Newcomb and....Albies, I think (nsacpi, correct me, please). Two players, nothing more. If that were true, then Archer would have a tomahawk across his chest.
I agree that quantifiable abilities should hold more weight in analysis.
Defensively I will agree with you. Offensively we are at a point where we do know how good someone is and how valuable that person is.
We know with a certain confidence percentage. There is absolutely no way that we know everything about everything when it comes to offensive production.
Again, I'm not trying to make an argument the current metrics are a waste of time. We just need to be sure that we understand that mastery is never obtainable. It forever eludes us and its what drives us to being great.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
I would generally agree with this premise, as well, in particular if you're looking backwards.
But you're generally not.
The future...Infinite variables and infinite possibilities.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
As do I. I'm just suggesting that we not believe all current metrics are an absolute inerrant truth.
That's the case with any prospect trade. Yet each prospect has a theoretical value based on what similar prospects have performed across the history of baseball. The Sale trade was pretty even in surplus value. The Eaton deal was probably an overpay on the Nats part but if Gio's stock has really fallen in the eyes of evaluators then it may not be that bad. Similarly I believe Newcombs stock has fallen so it would take more. But that being said it takes two teams to make a trade. If Newcomb and Albies really did equal Archers surplus value then Tampa would also need to be at a point to where they would want to move him.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Congrats to Coppy for locking down an excellent CF for a long time at a club-friendly price. Onward and upward.
Nothing is perfect. But that 1% that it may be off isn't enough to move the needle in anyway at all. That extra trait that is yet to be identified isn't going wOBA is much better than OPS. But the big differences only show up in extreme cases and the difference is negligible.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
...which is where the receiving team for the star, interested in adding a sure thing in exchange for a 'maybe', decides to part with another prospect or two to make the rebuilding team feel like they 'win' the trade (at least in terms of mythical surplus value).
And that's how deals get made. Nearly every time.
Is it 1%? What if it turns out to be 10%? More?
We really just don't know. I'd like to leave it as a discussion point at least and not discount it as if we are neanderthals.
They aren't. But this is what front offices in MLB have transitioned to. Now they may have systems that outclass what's publicly available but a players worth is determined in FA and they are given contracts accordingly. Just as surplus value is a big part of trade negotiations. They aren't 100% perfect and likely never will be but it's how teams are making decisions going forward. Arguing otherwise is pointless imo. The Diamondbacks were one of the last true teams that didn't understand this and the Braves abused them badly in 3 separate occasions over the last few years. They were a big believer in 'grit' and we saw where that got them. That line of thinking is no longer valid.
Those extra prospects are C prospects with no needle moving. If the Braves traded for Archer it would be Albies (assuming he's close to top 10) and likely two other prospects in the top 50 range. That would be equal and anything more would be filler.
It won't. Baseball hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. Those who get on base and hit for power are your best offensive hitters. What you are arguing is there is some intangible that makes a player better than their performance on the field. I disagree with that. Intangibles can make you better than your actual talent. But that performance will show up.
Personally I think you're making one of the most repeated mistakes in history. The idea that we know all there is to know.
