Do you trade pitching for catching?
by fishfarmr on Jan 21, 2009 6:10 PM EST
98 comments
Do you trade pitching prospects for catching prospects? Or do you hold on to them and sign a few short term deals with has-beens (how about Pudge?) until our catching prospects arrive?
I have always said to trade prospects for proven players, but this has not proven to be so wise in hindsight. while Santana would have been nice, the prospects are all parts of our club. So I am not sure. Now add the fact that what we would be trading for is a Catcher prospect. Salty or Teagarden (the better of the two) are as major league tested as Buch. So do you make the trade? I am inclined to say yes for two reasons:
1: everyday player for fifth day player
2: Catching talent is scarcer than pitching.
Plus really skinny guys never last.
0 recs |
98 comments
Email
Print
Comments
really skinny-don’t jinx pedroia!!!
I agree…, get salty, he has better minor league numbers. Either mentor him with Tek, and have possibly 3 catchers (w/ Bard) on the roster, or maybe go for a vet like Pudge (another Boras guy) if Tek doesn’t work…though salty, bard, and kottaras waiting doesn’t sound awful….
"We're not going to give up," It doesn't happen, so who cares? There's always next year. It's not like it's the end of the world."
by revigik on Jan 21, 2009 6:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Salty won't stick at catcher, supposedly.
And we have a pretty damn good 1B and another one on the way that would force the bald guy back to 3B.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 21, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually accoriding to both the Sox scouts and the rest of the ML scouts at the DWL
Salty will stand a very good chance at staying at C
by laxtonto on Jan 21, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Domincan Winter League
There were scouts at pretty much every game Salty played in at the DWL including a game they had him catch a knuckleballer.
I am not worried about him defensively. He has enough arm to league average at worse. His problem was lack of reps that caused his footwork to lag behind his body and basically overthrow.
by laxtonto on Jan 21, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope your right,
well, thats if we get him. But the consensus around here is that he might have to move to 1b in the future.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
That would be nice if that’s true. Resign Tek, have him teach Salty – wait, what am I saying? Tek sucks at throwing runners out.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Teach him everything else.
Calling pitches, working with the staff, game preparation, NOT throwing out runners. Let somebody else teach him that.
by Schulz on Jan 22, 2009 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That'd work.
Is their a retired catcher that we could hire as a special coach? Or maybe Pudge?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would be inclined not to trade an arm for a catcher
While I agree a good catcher is harder to find than a good pitcher, arms are worth more. Catching position is usually not an offensive position and having a bullpen or farm system full of quality arms does help you get through a year an into the post season.
Personally I think the Sox should wait on making a move. Texas cannot play all their catchers so I am hoping their price comes down a little.
Tek/Bard is fine for 09.
I say keep Buchholz, Bowden and Masterson and then go out and buy yourself another catcher. Maybe Mauer if Minnesota does not pony up the dough when he reaches FA.
by SoxAcumen on Jan 21, 2009 7:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Sounds like a plan.
But, if an arm is worth more, why not take advantage of our surplus and get a good catcher, which is hard to come by. Rarity adds to value, IMO.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 21, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am just afraid
that the catcher will turn out badly. I would rather take a chance at a guy with good stuff who needs to learn how to pitch.
by SoxAcumen on Jan 21, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Catchers develop later than most players
So any trade for a young catcher probably won’t pay off for a few years (assuming the catcher pans out at all).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 21, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
It’s very rare that you see catchers develop completely in their early twenties.
The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble
by DirtySouthSox on Jan 21, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although...
…if we could trade Buchholz for Mauer straight-up, I’d make that deal in a heartbeat.
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You might want to throw Lugo in to sweeten the deal
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We should demand that St. Louis give us Pujols in exchange for Delmon Young from the Twins.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
If the Twins want Lugo, they have to throw in Morneau too and take Lowell off our hands.
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"take Lowell of our hands"
You do realize that you just quoted the Fish? See how that worked out for them?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a key difference, though
The Marlins got unproven prospects for Lowell (and Beckett), though one of them was Hanley. In this case, we’d be getting the best catcher and second best 1B in the league (and shifting the best 1B to 3B), while shedding the second most overrated utility infielder.
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But, Lowell is a better 3B than Youk is/would be.
So it’d be a downgrade at two positions.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not that much
And it would be a major upgrade at catcher and at the plate.
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, keep it restricted to Mauer for Buch.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 9:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I said, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
I’d much rather have Morneau and Mauer than Lowell and Buch.
by Gnick on Jan 22, 2009 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this Mauer trade actually being discussed?
I’m pretty sure it was mentioned as a joke.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was joking
Though if the Twins were dumb enough to make that trade…
by RSNexile on Jan 23, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It'd never happen.
Think about how much they wanted for Santana.
The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble
by DirtySouthSox on Jan 23, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Pohlad just died. You never know what might happen when a professional sports franchise goes into probate.
by RSNexile on Jan 23, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great point.
The rhythm is the bass and the bass is the treble
by DirtySouthSox on Jan 23, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on now
Yes, technically Hanley was unproven, but he was basically a lock as a future all-star.
by Schulz on Jan 22, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For every "lock as a future all-star" who pans out...
…there are ten other locks who end up busts.
by RSNexile on Jan 22, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Hanley’s stock had dropped quite a bit before we traded him. In his last year for us he put up a .271/.335/.385 line.
by Gnick on Jan 22, 2009 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
The Sox weren’t certain that he had a future with them.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
by SoxDevil on Jan 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He also had a "bad work ethic" rep
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 23, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're talking about Martin, OK
Otherwise, I’d hang onto the arms. Good, young, cheap pitching is hard to come by. The Sox came within 1 game of the WS with no production form their catchers (not to mention a beat up team).
As for Ivan Rodriguez, I’d pass. He never has been a good handler of pitchers, nor is he a patient hitter. He had a .294 OBP in 2007 and a .319 OBP last year. I’d rather have Tek than Pudge.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 21, 2009 7:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
For the Tek part, at least.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 21, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have ME than Pudge
He’ll be a bad for anyone that signs him.
I disagree with stocking arms just because we can while not filling another hole. If we find a good deal (without Buch, for that matter) for a good catcher, we should take it.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 21, 2009 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is the consensus here that everyone thinks Tek is washed up?
I know he had a horrible year this year offensively and he couldn’t throw out my grandma if she was trying to steal, but I think that he could have a pretty solid year in ’09. Maybe hit something like .255-.270 and 50 RBIs. If so, we could have him for another couple of seasons while the prospects get their feet wet.
Any thoughts?
by Brad West on Jan 22, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's very optimistic
The odds of a 37-year old catcher bouncing back to add .35 points to his BA aren’t very good—especially with more stringent drug testing in MLB. If you look at the numbers, Tek has been pretty bad for more than just last year. Catchers do not usually age well. While there may be good reasons for bringing Tek back (depending on the money involved), offense really isn’t one of them.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're saying,
but what I really meant, was for him to have a better year (offensively) than he did in ‘08. It’s definitely possible.
by Brad West on Jan 22, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget that in 2007 he was pretty good.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tek had two very good months in 2007
He hit .311 AVG/.416 OBP/.541 SLG in May of ‘07; and .294 AVG/.398 OBP/.368 SLG in July. In no other month that year did Tek’s have an AVG of better than .239 . He had good OBPs in August and September, where he combined for 30 walks. Varitek walked a career high 71 times in 2007, which seems a bit like an outlier as he walked 46 times in ’06 and 51 times in ’08. He averaged 54 walks a year from 2002-2005.
A good year for Tek in 2009 would be around .230-5 AVG/.320-5 OBP/.350-70 SLG. That’s about the best I think you can expect from Tek. More likely, you’ll get something between my optimistic numbers and what he gave you last year. The odds of a 37-year old catcher bouncing back are slim.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His OPS+ was greater than 100 which means he was better than league average. He got on base at .361. Thats a really good year for a catcher and if we can get anyone to put up those kind of numbers at catcher we should be happy.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His OBP (and thus his OPS) was inflated by a career high in BB
I think that was a fluke. Looking at Tek month-by-month that year shows that his overall numbers were bouyed up by two very good hitting months in an otherwise lackluster offensive season.
Here’s Varitek month-by-month in 2007:
April – .239 AVG/.325 OBP/.358 SLG
May – .311 AVG/.416 OBP/.541 SLG
June – .234 AVG/.322 OBP/. 403 SLG
July – .294 AVG/.398 OBP/368 SLG
August – .234 AVG/.352 OBP/.390 SLG
September – .222 AVG/.385 OBP/.458 SLG
In August and September, Tek’s OBP was inflated by walks: 34 H/30 BB. He had a career high in walks in 2007. Tek hit .279 AVG/.367 OBP/.439 SLG before the ASB, and .225 AVG/.366 OBP/.398 SLG after. His second-half stats in 2007 are very similar to the .223 AVG/.333 OBP/.367 SLG he had in the second-half last year. The only difference was his OBP in ’07, which was boosted by his walk totals.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A fluke or not he was good.
As I discussed with Buzzy below, I am not trying to say that I think he will be good, or even average, in 2009. I am only saying that he was a very productive member of this team only one year ago.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go that far
But he was better in 2007 than he was in 2008.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a better-than-league-average hitting catcher is a highly valuable commodity
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I... Can't... Resist
I fail to see how Tek was better than average in 2007. He had a truly good month, with a high BABIP, and all the others were ‘meh’-to-okay.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 23, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
/sarcastically bows down
What’s with the scroll at the bottom?
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 23, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows?
Found it on google, thought it was funny.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 23, 2009 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, even if he had a high BABIP, he was still a valuable player, lucky or not.
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was valuable
But seeing on Fangraphs, he was overpayed for 2 of the last 3 seasons. That’s the thing with Tek, the money he’ll get won’t likely match his production.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 24, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But cumultively,
over the length of his last contract, he played almost exactly to his salary. According to Fangraphs he was worth $37.6 mil over the last four years and he was paid $40 mil. That number also does not include any benefit the pitching staff gets from Varitek, which I bet would cover the difference.
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
He was a bit overpayed, but had a fair salary. He was on the decline, and now he’s pretty much done. So nearly anything we give him would be overpaying.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 24, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what's wierd...
is that even last year Fangraphs values his performance at $5.6 mil. So using their methods, he’s probably a good bet to be worth at least $2 mill this year
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really have a problem with how FG sees the player value in such cases
They’re saying he’s worth that mainly because he’s a catcher. Kottaras is also a catcher, and couldn’t do much worse.
FG seems to give a win above replacement too much money. Tek isn’t worth 5 mil more than any fucking catcher who could take like 400k because he adds a win. That’s bad baseball management.
I think they do that to make every contract seem like a steal and every GM like a genius.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 24, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What they're saying, is Kottaras could do a lot worse...
There were a bunch of catchers last year in the league who did do a lot worse. There were 12 catchers last year who had at least 200 PA’s and a lower (or the same) OPS as ‘Tek. What they’re saying is that Varitek was more than a win better than a replacement level catcher (i.e. Kottaras/Brown). Amazingly Jason Varitek’s performance last year did not hit the bottom of the bin.
Also, its important to remember that their monetary valuation is based on what GM’s on average give players in free agency. Its not how they value win above replacement, but how GM’s do.
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But their way of evaluating value in money is kinda off, I think
A replacement level player isn’t really what’s usually cheap. Guys that come through the system are cheap, and they’re usually good. That’s how some teams win without a big payroll, not giving peanuts to some FA and wait for them to dominate.
But let’s say Kottaras is a replacement level player. He’s young, he has upside. I fail to see how Tek would be worth more 5 mil more than him to add a win.
Rarely do you see a guy getting overpayed with their metrics for value, there’s always something wrong with a system when most GMs in the game are being that smart.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 25, 2009 4:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason GM's look smart...
is that FG’s calculation of what a guy is worth is based on what the GMs pay them. So there are as many guys being overpaid as underpaid through free agency because their definition of dollar value is an average of what GMs pay.
Also, Kottaras might be higher than replacement, and that chance is why I think we should play him. If he is truly replacement level, we will be wishing for Tek.
by BTLove on Jan 25, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"we will be wishing for Tek."
No matter what happens, I seriously doubt that this will ever happen.
I’d like to know how FG calculates the money a guy should get.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 25, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would assume it goes something like this:
Take wins value and multiply by the average cost per win (seems to be about $4.5mil).
Ex: Youk 08 was worth 5.5 wins and $24.8mil, which comes out to $4.51mil per win. DP 08 was worth 6.5 wins and $29.2mil, which is $4.49mil per win. Both had similar “per win” costs, as did Lester 08, who was worth 5.1 wins and $23mil, and cost $4.51mil per win.
It changes from year to year I assume. The average cost is probably calculated by adding every player’s wins together and divide by the total payroll of the MLB. Which means Zito is dragging down values.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 25, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I get that part
I meant how they get the average cost per win. How the fuck did they get that number is beyond me.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 25, 2009 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like this. They add up all the money given to free agents in any given year and divide it by the total wins produced by those players (they use a three year weighted average, not just the previous year). There is a 7-part series on the FanGraphs site in the glossary explaining the entire process they use to create all of their win value numbers.
by BTLove on Jan 25, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The funny thing is
A 98 wins team using their average would be over 200 mil. That’s silly.
I love FG. But this way of seeing value is off, and it’s truly meaningless.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 25, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are valuing guys on the FA market.
That’s it. They are saying what they guy would make on FA market. They understand that most players are not free agents every year, its a fairly limited number. They understand that many players are cost-controlled by their teams. If you look at their valuations for guys who were on the FA market and their predictions of what the players would make, they are very accurate. Read the explanations, you will be convinced of the worth of these numbers.
by BTLove on Jan 25, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll read it
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 26, 2009 5:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But you pay guys for what you think they'll do.
So a lot of those wins could be over performances by underpaid guys. Lester was worth $23mil, but was only paid $400,000.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 27, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is a wierd valuation system.
i’m too lazy to do all the math, but the total “value” of the sox team last year was @ $260m. seems sort of arbitrary.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 27, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So?
The FO is filled w/ geniuses.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 27, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok.
The Royals value @ $160m.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 27, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
It is very arbitrary. FG should stop doing this shit, it’s just a bland ‘stat’.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 27, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not arbitrary at all.
There is an exact system to it. They aren’t just making this shit up. Read the explanations.
by BTLove on Jan 28, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the value In Free Agency
There is a big difference between what teams pay guys who are still under team control and what they guy would make if he were a free agent. Teams pay about $4.5 mil for every win over replacement. FGs did not make that up. Its just what teams do. They are only saying that, given how much teams are paying guys, this is what they “should” have paid him given their own valuation system. Again, it is not FGs valuation, it is their reporting of what teams actually do.
by BTLove on Jan 28, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not fair
For you to stay his stats were inflated by those two months and thus not indicative of his overall performance. It’s not like two months is a tiny sample size, it’s 1/3 of the season, and you can’t discount what he did in those two months. Basically what you’re saying is that he was streaky in 2007.
by Gnick on Jan 22, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If a player is "great" for 1/3 of a season
And fair-to-bad the for the rest, would you call that a good year? Aside from a career high BB total, Tek really wasn’t all that much better in 2007 than he was in 2008. In fact—aside from the BB—he was the same player in the second-half of both years. If you also look at his 2006 stats, Tek has been pretty much the same player for three years.
The 2008 season wasn’t an anomoly, the two good months in 2007 were.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Fair-good"
Great = A = 4.0
Good = B = 3.0
Fair = C = 2.0
Poor = D = 1.0
Terrible = F = 0.0
1/3 Great + 2/3 Fair-Poor comes out to a 2.33 GPA. Fair-Good.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 22, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was very good not great, though
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 23, 2009 7:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So I'll kinda accept the argument that his 2007 was lucky,
but I won’t accept the notion that it wasn’t good. He was almost three wins over replacement, he was one of the best hitting catchers in the league that year. Maybe it was a fluke, but it happened. Years when you win games because of flukes actually count too. He did a lot to help us win the World Series. So even though he sucked last year, pure and simple he didn’t suck in 2007.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fluke and luck count
when you’re trying to guage how good a player will be going forward, which is what we’re talking about. No one would argue that Tek was valuable. The question is: how much value will he have in 2009 (and maybe 2010)?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 23, 2009 7:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed, but thats not what we were talking about.
I’ve been defending Tek’s worth to this team in the past, not promoting his inclusion on the team for the future. The exact quote from above was “I fail to see how Tek was better than average in 2007.” when in fact he was much, much better than the average catcher. This is what I’ve been arguing against. I agree he has nothing left for the future.
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is fair
if you ask the correct question. The question is not “was Tek a valuable player in 2007?” The answer to that question is clearly “yes.” The question is “what can we make of the 2007 Tek in the context of his career that would tell us about future performance?”
Not only is 2 months a small sample, in a sense so is the year. That is why projecting programs look at things like BAPIP, GBP…to try to estimate what will happen in the future. This aspect of the attempt to predict is similar to the question “If we could run the 2007 season an infinite number of independent times, how typical would what actually happened be?” I think from what I have posted below, what his other stats say on closer look, and what Drugs is saying we can conclude that while not a ridiculous outlier, 2007 was not typical, and that all things point to Tek being finished. The moral is:
we should not fool ourselves by looking at 2007 and saying “but just 2 years ago…”
by Buzzy on Jan 23, 2009 9:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree completely.
I was arguing against the seemingly prevalent notion that he has been bad for the last three years. In 2007 he had a much higher LD% than in 2006/8 that led to a higher BABIP, and thus a more productive year. Sure, he was a little luckier, but whatever. Again, I do not believe he will be good in 2009.
by BTLove on Jan 24, 2009 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I concur
BT-as I said on the other thread, Tek was not as good as he looked in 2007. Let me now make the case more compelling:
1)You can break Tek’s career into 3 stages (1997-2000-young and learning); (2001-2005-prime); (2006-2008-done). In the first bracket his BAPIPs were
285
285
282
In his prime years
331
312
300
372
329
In his done years
280
313
276
When you look at this, it is clear you cannot compare the 313 of 07 to his career-it looks like an outlier compared to the period (which is similar to his early period). Now look again at his month-by-month BAPIP in 2007:
275
339
313
365
294
282
If you look at the month-by-month what jumps out is that 4 of the 6 months are clustered with a tight standard deviation of 0.0144. Thus the 2 high months are 3-4 SDs above the mean. Further-in the month where his BAPIP was highest, he didn’t even slug particularly well, further indicating that he was lucky. Take that with the year to year (and the months in those years) and you have to conclude that 2007 looked better than it “should have” and that in 2007 Tek already was a similar player to the 2008 Tek.
by Buzzy on Jan 22, 2009 3:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you to an extent...
but why can’t 2006 be considered the outlier and last year be the real drop off? He was the worst of his career in just about everything last year, but was closer to his career averages in 2007. I do not think he was as good in 2007 as he had been in his prime years, but he certainly was nowhere near as bad in 2007 as he was in 2008. His linedrive% dropped by 5 points from 2007 to 2008 (though admittedly his 2007 was down from the prime years). I just think you should be categorizing 2008 in a whole other category.
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it is a whole other thing
I agree he was worse in 2008 than 2007, but I think the data and experience with aging catchers shows it is just part of the decline phase. The data suggest it, and usually the decline is faster with catchers. I think 2008 is just a continuation from 2006 and a slightly disguised 2007.
by Buzzy on Jan 22, 2009 7:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agree that he's definitely in a steep decline
Really, the fact that he was this effective through 2007 was a major outlier for 36 year old catchers. And I agree that 2007 was a somewhat “lucky” year. I guess the only thing I was really trying to point out was that Varitek had a very productive year (even if it was lucky) only a year ago. People have been talking about him as if he has been a liability for this team for years. Really he played to the value of his contract up until last year, and even last year Fangraphs had him as a $5mil player (which doesn’t include any defensive or game-calling value and actually for Tek may cancel each other out).
by BTLove on Jan 22, 2009 8:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I fully agree
and he could have a somewhat lucky 2009 too. I didn’t want to imply that his 2007 was not helpful, he helped the team far more than he did in 2006/2008. I only wanted to say that I would not bet on anything from Tek, I would expect him to stink.
by Buzzy on Jan 22, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To what extent do you think the mental anguish of going through a divorce weighed on Tek last year?
Didn’t Damon bottom out around his divorce?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jan 22, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He actually did better once he finally got divorced.
And around the time he started dating Miss Heidi, too, IIRC.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it was his divorce that hurt his 2008
What was the excuse in 2006?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting old Drugs?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/08/01/redsox.varitek/index.html?section=si_mlb
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 22, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know he got hurt
But … he was hitting a robust .231 AVG/.326 OBP/.462 SLG when he went on the DL August 1st.
I’ll ask the question again: if one is going to blame personal problems (his divorce) for Tek’s woeful 2008, what’s the excuse for 2006?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 22, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he was injured beforehand, and tried to play through it.
That’s what I remember, anyways.
For those children who claimed they’ve been a fan of their favorite team all their life, or even since they were about four or five years old: bullshit. There’s always that certain event or certain player that draws to the sport and draws you to a team. For me, Nomar Garciaparra was that reason. - Nick Coviello: I Try To See Rocco, But All I Think Is Nomar; 1/9/09
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 23, 2009 10:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He started his decline, and we were all too blind with love to see it?
That’s a good excuse.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Jan 23, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
