So Where Are The Fits?

thewupk said:
Current MLB GM's disagree. But I guess you want to go back to a world where Adam Dunn gets to play the field.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that assertion. I think most of them have their own thinking on how heavily to weigh defense. And I know Adam Dunn cost his team a lot of runs and don't want to return to a world where we ignore that. I would suggest a more nuanced stance.

My point is not that it's irrelevant, but that we're now overvaluing or misvaluing defense, where we used to undervalue it. Yes, I understand that a run saved is the same as a run produced. But there are a lot of assumptions made after the raw data is acquired and before the metric is produced that aren't necessarily settled.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I would disagree with that assertion. I think most of them have their own thinking on how heavily to weigh defense. And I know Adam Dunn cost his team a lot of runs and don't want to return to a world where we ignore that. I would suggest a more nuanced stance.

My point is not that it's irrelevant, but that we're now overvaluing or misvaluing defense, where we used to undervalue it. Yes, I understand that a run saved is the same as a run produced. But there are a lot of assumptions made after the raw data is acquired and before the metric is produced that aren't necessarily settled.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I would disagree with that assertion. I think most of them have their own thinking on how heavily to weigh defense. And I know Adam Dunn cost his team a lot of runs and don't want to return to a world where we ignore that. I would suggest a more nuanced stance.

My point is not that it's irrelevant, but that we're now overvaluing or misvaluing defense, where we used to undervalue it. Yes, I understand that a run saved is the same as a run produced. But there are a lot of assumptions made after the raw data is acquired and before the metric is produced that aren't necessarily settled.
Click to expand...

You disagree that GM's are valuing the whole package now instead of just paying for a bat? Tell that to Trumbo and his agent. Defensive liabilities that can hit aren't going to be the prize FA's that they used to be. That should be obvious by now.
 
smootness said:
This just doesn't make sense, there is no way that is going to happen. Why? Because those guys do play defense. So regardless of what you brought them in to do primarily, they are still out there playing defense and can be compared in their value there to all other players who play defense. If a guy in the OF is converting batted balls into outs less frequently than another OF, that is lost value no matter what they do at the plate. Sure, that player can still be more valuable overall if his offense is better. But the lost defensive value still matters. Those are still outs you're not getting, runs you're giving up, and games decided.

It's like saying a DE who gets to the QB with ease but is a complete sieve against the run is just as valuable as a DE who does both well because they weren't brought in to stop the run. That may be true, but either way, if the opposing team chooses to run on you and one guy can stop it better than the other, he is providing more value.
Click to expand...

See my comment to thewupk. One thing that bothers me is the positional adjustment. We've made the assertion that a run saved is equivalent to a run produced. And now we have statcast to give us really good data. Then we take that raw data and weight it - .x runs per ball times probability...if we've valued the single/double/triple right...then we apply a positional adjustment.

Why? Andrelton Simmons has balls he gets and an occasional one he doesn't and that renders a RAR, and it results in 3-4 dWAR. He has more chances to make more plays and accrue a valuation than does Kemp (or a good left fielder). Then there's "positional adjustment" is in there. There's no reason to add or subtract an additional 7 runs or 9 runs, in my opinion. The current formula is double counting. A run's a run, right?

That's just one instance of things I think are still open to interpretation.

Jason Heyward was **** last year, and the WAR calcs had him positive overall because of his defense. Ridiculous. Overvalued defense and baserunning. Even new school posterboy Joe Maddon couldn't bear to watch him go out-and-around in the World Series. How can such a fabulous defender and baserunner making $23m/yr wind up on the bench in the World Series?

The echo chamber in here gets so loud, I thought I'd counter the groupthink. Again, carry on.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Insider article on ESPN says the Yanks need 1B help (Adams) and a starter (Garcia?) and a RP (JJ, Viz). Maybe that is a partner. Maybe we can fill multiple needs for a better piece.

Sox could maybe use some infield help that is cheap.....

Indians.....Tehran if he plays well at all........maybe garcia.

Cubs........SP and reliever.
Click to expand...

Add the Astros to the list of teams that need help at 1B.
 
See, I would like to keep Adam's....BUT there could be a really good return for him at the deadline. How smart would that be to gain more than we gave away for a player we won't really need while covering for Freddie? Playing in Suntrust and being able to play every day, Adam's value is probably as high as it will ever be.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
See my comment to thewupk. One thing that bothers me is the positional adjustment. We've made the assertion that a run saved is equivalent to a run produced. And now we have statcast to give us really good data. Then we take that raw data and weight it - .x runs per ball times probability...if we've valued the single/double/triple right...then we apply a positional adjustment.

Why? Andrelton Simmons has balls he gets and an occasional one he doesn't and that renders a RAR, and it results in 3-4 dWAR. He has more chances to make more plays and accrue a valuation than does Kemp (or a good left fielder). Then there's "positional adjustment" is in there. There's no reason to add or subtract an additional 7 runs or 9 runs, in my opinion. The current formula is double counting. A run's a run, right?
Click to expand...

A run is a run. However you aren't going to find many people that agree than an average CF (0 runs saved by advanced metrics) is equally valuable as an average LF defensively. And without including the positional adjustment that's what you are trying to assert.
 
TheBravos said:
See, I would like to keep Adam's....BUT there could be a really good return for him at the deadline. How smart would that be to gain more than we gave away for a player we won't really need while covering for Freddie? Playing in Suntrust and being able to play every day, Adam's value is probably as high as it will ever be.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're getting a top 100 guy for Adams.

But I could see us getting a good player that might be a better fit long term. Maybe you could get a Dustin Peterson type guy (solid defender, good bat, unlikely to have the power to be plus at his position) if someone felt having a guy mash vs RH at 1B would maybe get them a ring.

I still don't think we'd trade Kemp. I don't think Coppy is the analytics guy I though. And I don't know if other teams would think Kemp would be willing to play 1B. But you could see that bat a fit. Maybe even Neck at 1B if we ate some money or dumped him for nothing. IF Houston, Yanks and Sox look to improve 1B we could have some options.

I wouldn't give Adams away. And I know our bench was historically bad to start the year. But I'm also not over valuing 1 year of a bench bat with no defense over a legit piece.
 
You have to look and see what we gave up to get Adams. His value isn't going to significantly increase over the course of a month or two. Yepez didn't make the Braves top 32 according to fangraphs so isn't even a 40 FV player. Essentially a non prospect for all intents and purposes. He has much better value to the Braves as a bench piece for the next year and a half. Possibly a good candidate to extend for a couple of years if he would be willing to be a bench piece.
 
thewupk said:
You have to look and see what we gave up to get Adams. His value isn't going to significantly increase over the course of a month or two. Yepez didn't make the Braves top 32 according to fangraphs so isn't even a 40 FV player. Essentially a non prospect for all intents and purposes. He has much better value to the Braves as a bench piece for the next year and a half. Possibly a good candidate to extend for a couple of years if he would be willing to be a bench piece.
Click to expand...

Logic doesn't always rule the day come the trade deadline, teams get antsy to add a piece and often overpay.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Braves wanted to move Adams if they were able to land a really intruiging piece, not a top-100 guy; but a guy with that type of potential -- maybe coming off injury or a down season. Its really not hard to go look back at previous deadline deals and say 'how did team A get that from Team B for a bench player/reliever'. It happens a lot.
 
Preacher said:
Logic doesn't always rule the day come the trade deadline, teams get antsy to add a piece and often overpay.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Braves wanted to move Adams if they were able to land a really intruiging piece, not a top-100 guy; but a guy with that type of potential -- maybe coming off injury or a down season. Its really not hard to go look back at previous deadline deals and say 'how did team A get that from Team B for a bench player/reliever'. It happens a lot.
Click to expand...

Agree. We've traded KJ twice. Aybar last year. Frenchy. Several years ago we tried to really overpay for a mid rotation starter rental but lucked out b/c the guy vetoed the trade.

I don't think people are going to give up potential superstars in AA or better for anyone we would be willing to move. But I agree we could get a massive overpay. Abyar for Scivodgdgdg (whatever the AA catcher's name) was a massive overpay. Even if that guy only does a good job of developing our starters in the minors he's better than Aybar last year.
 
Preacher said:
Logic doesn't always rule the day come the trade deadline, teams get antsy to add a piece and often overpay.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Braves wanted to move Adams if they were able to land a really intruiging piece, not a top-100 guy; but a guy with that type of potential -- maybe coming off injury or a down season. Its really not hard to go look back at previous deadline deals and say 'how did team A get that from Team B for a bench player/reliever'. It happens a lot.
Click to expand...

Sure. If a team is offering that then I would jump on it.
 
did I dream this or didn't we almost get Sanchez for Grilled Cheese before injury. That would have been on a half a years work..
 
thewupk said:
I'm sure. And if that prospect played defense like Adam Dunn then that same team would win more games if prime Brett Gardner was their LF.
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather have a club with a mix of Gardners and Dunns and that I would win more. All WARs are not created equal. Which is why Heyward only got $23m/yr from the Cubs instead of the $44m/yr his last two years of WAR suggested. I've seen guys try and do all sorts of gymnastics to explain this disparity, and basically it comes down to the vast majority of teams weighting the components differently from the formula - or just doing their own thing.

I'm sure a platoon of Jeff Francoeur and Kelly Johnson would be of fairly similar WAR value to our current left fielder. For me, I'll take the .900 OPS and adequate at best D in LF. That doesn't mean I want a team full of that guy. Inciarte is awesome in CF.

And why Matt Kemp is more valuable on a team with modest hitting than his WAR count suggests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top