Since They're Talking About Him

[Enscheff]

This!!!!! I vote we still play the games, and not just add up the projected WAR and declare a winner before the season starts!

Educate yourself on the term "straw man argument". Nobody has suggested awarding anything based on projections.

Teams must project how players will perform in order to construct a roster. These public projections are the closest things we have to what teams actually use. If you can't understand how they work, or the information they convey, that is your shortcoming, not the stats'.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I propose building a team by employing the best scouts and minor league developmental coaches and heavily investing in the draft and international signings. I strongly prefer high upside high school players in the draft and I prefer quantity over quality with the international signings. I also have a strong preference for pure hitting prospects over prospects that strike out a ton. I dont like investing in catching prospects, hate drafting them high. Once the farm system is loaded I would probably draft college players for a year or two that wont take as long as HS or international prospects to reach the majors. The goal being to create a glut of talent hitting the majors withing a 3 year time period. If I was in full control of a small market team I would try to install a new pitching rotation idea of 3 pitchers throwing 3 innings a game every 3 games. So 9 pitchers for that, 1 closer, 1 long reliever, and 1 LOOGY or GB specialist. I think pitchers would stay healthier and there are a lot of pitchers that could fit into this role that otherwise might not make it as a starter. I would avoid major free agent signings like the plague and would avoid making trades for established players unless I thought I was winning it big time. Really would avoid trades like that altogether but if I would make trades if other teams wanted the prospects I have that I think are over rated.

So yeah, exactly like the DBacks.

 

[Enscheff]

I propose building a team by employing the best scouts and minor league developmental coaches and heavily investing in the draft and international signings. I strongly prefer high upside high school players in the draft and I prefer quantity over quality with the international signings. I also have a strong preference for pure hitting prospects over prospects that strike out a ton. I dont like investing in catching prospects, hate drafting them high. Once the farm system is loaded I would probably draft college players for a year or two that wont take as long as HS or international prospects to reach the majors. The goal being to create a glut of talent hitting the majors withing a 3 year time period. If I was in full control of a small market team I would try to install a new pitching rotation idea of 3 pitchers throwing 3 innings a game every 3 games. So 9 pitchers for that, 1 closer, 1 long reliever, and 1 LOOGY or GB specialist. I think pitchers would stay healthier and there are a lot of pitchers that could fit into this role that otherwise might not make it as a starter. I would avoid major free agent signings like the plague and would avoid making trades for established players unless I thought I was winning it big time. Really would avoid trades like that altogether but if I would make trades if other teams wanted the prospects I have that I think are over rated.

So yeah, exactly like the DBacks.

Good ideas. Your 3/3/3 pitching rotation is controversial, but I've seen many good arguments in favor of giving a system like that a chance.

Now how exactly are any of those ideas contrary to using advanced metrics to valuate MLB players and calculating surplus value to assess their trade values?

Are you starting to see how your arguments are never really counter to any other points being made?

 

[cajunrevenge]

I never said I was against advanced stats. Just specific ones. I believe in using scouting to find my surplus value when dealing with prospects/young players. Its not going to come in the form of a number just "Hey we all think this guy is going to be a perennial all star lets not trade him/trade for him". I want to identify the good prospects not just assume a middle of the road result and assign a numerical value to that. I also dont like WAR. Its an accumulative stat. I prefer Run Creation or stats that measure the value without factoring in how many at bats or innings pitched. Yes I know 200 innings is more valuable than 100 innings but I can see that without needing WAR.

And believe me I give people **** for what I consider bad logic when it comes to scouting too like the old "Grit" argument or the desire for "clutch" players. I question everything, its my curse.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

we have had that 3/3/3 debate before. I have been in favor, but I just don't see a transition like that for another decade or so. It is funny, you watch the playoffs and managers manage like that when games are on the line... you hear things like: everyone is available, and he might go three innings and then go to the Pen. But then no one is ballsy enough to try that on a regular basis. I suppose these high profile pitchers don't want to see stats taken away from them.. after all the stats are what get them paid.

Lets see, if you went to the bump every 3rd day, you would make roughly 54 starts. If you are capped at 3 innings, then you are going to throw 162 innings. Pitchers would be hard pressed to buy into that system.

The biggest problem is back to back extra inning games or back to back games with one or more pitcher who is just ineffective. I know there is extra innings padded in with the 3 other pitchers outside your 9 rotators.. but I could see having 3 guys in AAA that are average at best...

 

[smootness]

I never said I was against advanced stats. Just specific ones. I believe in using scouting to find my surplus value when dealing with prospects/young players. Its not going to come in the form of a number just "Hey we all think this guy is going to be a perennial all star lets not trade him/trade for him". I want to identify the good prospects not just assume a middle of the road result and assign a numerical value to that. I also dont like WAR. Its an accumulative stat. I prefer Run Creation or stats that measure the value without factoring in how many at bats or innings pitched. Yes I know 200 innings is more valuable than 100 innings but I can see that without needing WAR.

And believe me I give people **** for what I consider bad logic when it comes to scouting too like the old "Grit" argument or the desire for "clutch" players. I question everything, its my curse.

I think you misunderstand how surplus value is used. It shouldn't determine who gets traded vs. kept. It doesn't even make sense in that context, really. It is used to ensure you aren't giving up too much in a deal, especially considering that other GMs use it.

I compare it to, say, the NFL draft. You can approach the draft by saying, 'I don't care about projections or where other teams would take anybody, I'm going to scout and take the players I like.' The problem with that is that if you don't take into consideration the way others value each player, you're going to take guys earlier than you need to and end up worse off. If you love a guy with a 4th round grade and think he's a 1st, why take him in the 1st if you can get him in the 3rd and basically get two 1st rounders, according to your scouting.

If you don't love a player in your farm system, and his current surplus value is higher than your assessment, you can trade him and get more than you think he's really worth in return. If you're not taking into account current surplus value, you're going to take what you believe he's worth in return, which is less than you can get in reality. That's why it's important.

If everyone uses surplus value as a basic baseline, then scouting will help determine who wins and loses deals. But if your GM is getting jipped in surplus value, he's doing a bad job of negotiating, even if his scouting is correct.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Only thing I caution you about with surplus value is the word value. That is a very subjective word. If a team is wanting x player because it greatly improves their team then the FO values him more. I am not arguing the worth of surplus value. But there is a set formula for every team and every player. I am a believer that the whole can be more than the sum of it parts. There are certain mix of players that might produce and certain mix that might be volatile.

I just don't think you can use surplus value to determine who wins or loses in trades

 

[nsacpi]

Only thing I caution you about with surplus value is the word value. That is a very subjective word. If a team is wanting x player because it greatly improves their team then the FO values him more. I am not arguing the worth of surplus value. But there is a set formula for every team and every player. I am a believer that the whole can be more than the sum of it parts. There are certain mix of players that might produce and certain mix that might be volatile.

I just don't think you can use surplus value to determine who wins or loses in trades

A few thoughts on surplus value.

1) What we are usually discussing is expected surplus value. Teams trade for expected future production. Some sort of forecast or projection is inherent in any such exercise. To make this point in no way changes the fact that the game is played on the field by human beings rather than in a spreadsheet with a bunch of formulas.

2) The starting point for any calculation of expected surplus value are projection systems that use past performance. But projection systems don't know everything. It is necessary for any front office to make refinements and adjustments to those forecasts based on scouting and every other piece of information they have. It is even ok for us posters to argue why the projection systems might be undervaluing or overvaluing a player.

3) In the case of minor league players, the starting point in calculating expected surplus value for me is to look at their rankings by an outfit like Baseball America and the analysis that has been done of future production of prospects at various ranking positions. I also like to make some judgmental adjustments, sometimes based on what having seen a player in action or some other poster having seen the player. I do try to have some symmetry to those adjustments (make as many upward adjustments as downward ones for Braves prospects) to avoid systematic bias.

4) For the most part I want to "win" trades in the sense that we get more back in expected surplus value than we give up. If there is a clear positional need (like catcher right now where we have both a long and short-term need), I'm willing to overpay some (in other words give up more in expected surplus value than I am getting back).

 

[thewupk]

Only thing I caution you about with surplus value is the word value. That is a very subjective word. If a team is wanting x player because it greatly improves their team then the FO values him more. I am not arguing the worth of surplus value. But there is a set formula for every team and every player. I am a believer that the whole can be more than the sum of it parts. There are certain mix of players that might produce and certain mix that might be volatile.

I just don't think you can use surplus value to determine who wins or loses in trades

In cases like the Miller and Swanson trade, yes you can. It was totally lopsided in our favor. Miller could have had a repeat of 2015 and we still would of won that trade easily. In one of the White Sox deals this offseason? Remains to be seen how each of the parts perform. If you give up more than you need to acquire a player then you've already lost. The end result might be good but that just shows bad negotiating on your part.

 

[smootness]

Only thing I caution you about with surplus value is the word value. That is a very subjective word. If a team is wanting x player because it greatly improves their team then the FO values him more. I am not arguing the worth of surplus value. But there is a set formula for every team and every player. I am a believer that the whole can be more than the sum of it parts. There are certain mix of players that might produce and certain mix that might be volatile.

I just don't think you can use surplus value to determine who wins or loses in trades

You missed what I'm saying. I said that scouting will determine who wins and loses deals ultimately, especially if surplus value is roughly even in the deal. My point is that because surplus value is basically the way value (or whatever you want to call it) is determined on the market right now, you are making a bad deal if you're giving up more in surplus value than you're getting back. Not because you are definitely getting a worse player, but because you could either get more back or give up less.

Let's say for argument's sake there is a corner outfield bat we really like, and he has a certain surplus value according to the market. And let's say that we are ok giving up Teheran to get that outfielder, but Teheran actually has more surplus value according to the market. If we make that deal straight up, it doesn't mean we will 'lose' the deal in the sense that we will definitely end up worse off by having made that trade. But it does mean we will be worse off than we could have otherwise been by making a different deal. We could have either gotten the outfielder plus more, or we could have given up less than Teheran to make the surplus value equivalent.

Again, surplus value doesn't necessarily indicate you made your team worse. It just means you didn't negotiate well and likely could have made an even better deal.

 

[rawwr]

You missed what I'm saying. I said that scouting will determine who wins and loses deals ultimately, especially if surplus value is roughly even in the deal. My point is that because surplus value is basically the way value (or whatever you want to call it) is determined on the market right now, you are making a bad deal if you're giving up more in surplus value than you're getting back. Not because you are definitely getting a worse player, but because you could either get more back or give up less.

Let's say for argument's sake there is a corner outfield bat we really like, and he has a certain surplus value according to the market. And let's say that we are ok giving up Teheran to get that outfielder, but Teheran actually has more surplus value according to the market. If we make that deal straight up, it doesn't mean we will 'lose' the deal in the sense that we will definitely end up worse off by having made that trade. But it does mean we will be worse off than we could have otherwise been by making a different deal. We could have either gotten the outfielder plus more, or we could have given up less than Teheran to make the surplus value equivalent.

Again, surplus value doesn't necessarily indicate you made your team worse. It just means you didn't negotiate well and likely could have made an even better deal.

To add an example that actually happened - look at the Touki trade. Dave Stewart came out after the trade and said that internally their experience with Touki had led them to believe he wasn't likely to pan out, that he wasn't throwing nearly as hard as prospect publications said he could, etc. However, even if the D'backs were right about Touki and the $10 million or so in salary relief they got for him was fair for how much they thought Touki was worth, they still lost the trade. They lost the trade because they traded him for what he was worth to them, rather than considering his surplus value to other teams. That's why, after the trade, you heard about other baseball execs grumbling that the D'backs never shopped Touki around - because if they had, they would have certainly gotten more for him than they got from us.

 

[smootness]

To add an example that actually happened - look at the Touki trade. Dave Stewart came out after the trade and said that internally their experience with Touki had led them to believe he wasn't likely to pan out, that he wasn't throwing nearly as hard as prospect publications said he could, etc. However, even if the D'backs were right about Touki and the $10 million or so in salary relief they got for him was fair for how much they thought Touki was worth, they still lost the trade. They lost the trade because they traded him for what he was worth to them, rather than considering his surplus value to other teams. That's why, after the trade, you heard about other baseball execs grumbling that the D'backs never shopped Touki around - because if they had, they would have certainly gotten more for him than they got from us.

Yep. Perfect example. Even if Touki doesn't pan out and never makes the majors, they 'win' the deal...but it's still a bad deal for them.

 

[thewupk]

Dave Stewart got taken quite often. Surprised he lasted as long as he did.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Dave Stewart got taken quite often. Surprised he lasted as long as he did.

most likely on the info from his scouting department.

I also think you guys are missing what I am saying. I am not arguing for or against surplus value.. just saying value is a subjective term. I might 'value' something more than you do.. so what I am saying is that you can't say we could have gotten more for JT based on his surplus value because his surplus value is completely subjective.. not real.. arbitrary value that we as fans came up with based on some industry jargon. But honestly his value is completely different in every deal that is discussed involving him.

the HO debacle is another example of value.. I am not going to calculate value for anyone at the time of the trade, but we gave up Jose and Wood (call Paco and JJ a wash) for HO and a draft pick.. We didn't feel either had as much value as the pieces in return. Of course the fans were more right on this one than our scouting department.

I think we all are sort of saying the same thing. I think my biggest beef is with the term 'value' and how it is used in regards to contract. We calculate value based on projections + contract basically.. Only problem is that not every team is dealing with the same budget. so $10 to the Braves doesn't have the same value as $10 to the Dodger$ even though the money is exactly the same.

 

[smootness]

most likely on the info from his scouting department.

I also think you guys are missing what I am saying. I am not arguing for or against surplus value.. just saying value is a subjective term. I might 'value' something more than you do.. so what I am saying is that you can't say we could have gotten more for JT based on his surplus value because his surplus value is completely subjective.. not real.. arbitrary value that we as fans came up with based on some industry jargon. But honestly his value is completely different in every deal that is discussed involving him.

the HO debacle is another example of value.. I am not going to calculate value for anyone at the time of the trade, but we gave up Jose and Wood (call Paco and JJ a wash) for HO and a draft pick.. We didn't feel either had as much value as the pieces in return. Of course the fans were more right on this one than our scouting department.

I think we all are sort of saying the same thing. I think my biggest beef is with the term 'value' and how it is used in regards to contract. We calculate value based on projections + contract basically.. Only problem is that not every team is dealing with the same budget. so $10 to the Braves doesn't have the same value as $10 to the Dodger$ even though the money is exactly the same.

Surplus value is probably calculated differently by different teams, and you're right that a dollar to one team isn't always exactly equal to a dollar for another team.

But the bottom line is that you have to have some general evaluation of the market value for a player, and regardless of your scouting of players or the ultimate results of the deal, it needs to be a fairly equal trade in terms of the market value on either side. If you're giving up more value in that sense than you're getting back, you've done a poor job of negotiating. Yes, there's a difference between market value and on-field value, and if you want to use a term besides 'value' because of that, that's fine. But if a trade clearly seems lopsided in terms of market value on each side, then one of the GMs likely negotiated poorly and, regardless of the eventual on-field value, could have gotten more or given up less.

 

[thewupk]

It's also important to note that each team likely has different rankings of their top 100 prospects. Each organization/evaluate is different. Callis/Mayo and the mlb pipeline team don't have Acuna in the top 100. KLaw has Gahora in the 70's, etc. These different evaluations can differ from what most of the public goes off of which is BA normally. So nothing is going to be exact here. That's when you have to rely on your scouting to make sure you are getting the best deal of the pieces invovled. However when things get lopsided (like the Miller/Swanson trade) is when you really have to question the Dbacks decision.

 

[Russ2dollas]

you can't just add up surplus value.

Bill Simmons talks about that in his basketball book.....something to the effect of," in the NBA 4 quarters do not equal a dollar."

Studs are hard to come by. One player being 5+ WAR is tough. Trading a 5+ WAR guy for 10, 1 WAR guys is not a win. And then with prospects or picks you have a lot of uncertainty about actual value.

Teams usually are trading a known value with a relatively known risk/variability of future value for future value. Predicting the future is hard.

 

[smootness]

It's also important to note that each team likely has different rankings of their top 100 prospects. Each organization/evaluate is different. Callis/Mayo and the mlb pipeline team don't have Acuna in the top 100. KLaw has Gahora in the 70's, etc. These different evaluations can differ from what most of the public goes off of which is BA normally. So nothing is going to be exact here. That's when you have to rely on your scouting to make sure you are getting the best deal of the pieces invovled. However when things get lopsided (like the Miller/Swanson trade) is when you really have to question the Dbacks decision.

Good point.

 

[smootness]

you can't just add up surplus value.

Bill Simmons talks about that in his basketball book.....something to the effect of," in the NBA 4 quarters do not equal a dollar."

Studs are hard to come by. One player being 5+ WAR is tough. Trading a 5+ WAR guy for 10, 1 WAR guys is not a win. And then with prospects or picks you have a lot of uncertainty about actual value.

Teams usually are trading a known value with a relatively known risk/variability of future value for future value. Predicting the future is hard.

Yeah, I agree with this. It's not an exact science, for sure. It's just a handy tool to try to evaluate market value.

 

[Southcack77]

It's also important to note that each team likely has different rankings of their top 100 prospects. Each organization/evaluate is different. Callis/Mayo and the mlb pipeline team don't have Acuna in the top 100. KLaw has Gahora in the 70's, etc. These different evaluations can differ from what most of the public goes off of which is BA normally. So nothing is going to be exact here. That's when you have to rely on your scouting to make sure you are getting the best deal of the pieces invovled. However when things get lopsided (like the Miller/Swanson trade) is when you really have to question the Dbacks decision.

Several thoughts:

1. Surplus value is pretty theoretical until you've actually done the shopping around.
2. The values accessible to the public are not likely the values that front offices use.
3. If the Cubs don't value their own players as much as others do, based on their own scouting, and they feel the only return on assets that helps them win the title in a given year is someone like Chapman, then the calculation is flawed. Let's say the Cubs though that Chapman was only answer in the bullpen and that internally they felt that shoring up that weakness was the difference in winning or not winning a title. Let's say that they realize that surplus value would tell them that they could obtain different, possibly better in the aggregate talent returns for their prospects but none of those other returns would make them any more likely to win a title. The name of the game is winning titles ultimately. It's not a bad deal if they are correct in that assessment. Also, they are able to look at their own payroll and system and determine whether the assets they are giving up will bring down the long term system. I think its a fair call even if someone's math problem says it doesn't balance.
4. Baseball front offices are paid to exercise judgment. Stats are only one thing that inform that analysis. I'm ok with a front office overpaying to address a weakness occasionally if they think it will win them the title. Doing it repeatedly is where organizations tend to get in trouble, but big market teams can reload pretty quickly.