MLB Off-season Thread

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

David Gassko of The Hardball Times did a chat on Sons of Sam Horn today. Some of it is a little Red Sox heavy, but there is a ton of interesting stuff in there. I've posted the link below and encourage you take a look if you have an extra 30 minutes, particularly if you're sabermetrically inclined.

 

Gassko touches on the subject of player projections, the future of defensive metrics, pitcher durability, assessing overall value (and why Coco Crisp is more valuable than Manny... really), the misunderstanding of park effects and the need for good pitch by pitch data, among other topics.

 

Chat Link

[Bored 0]

What do the A's fans think of Haren being on the trade block?

He and Joe Blanton have been on the block all offseason just now it appears the rumors are picking up in terms of teams looking at Haren as an alternative if they can't get Johan Santana. I would be very shocked if both are with the A's on Opening Day as they must beef up their farm system and with such a weak free agent market for pitchers they are their most valuable commodities on the market. Unless some team lets them absolutely fleece their system I don't see the positives in trading their 26 year old ace who has no injury history, who they have locked up for another three years at only $16.25 million. Trading Haren would pretty much be sending the message that "Hey we don't give a fuck until we get the new ballpark built." Blanton on the other hand I'd be okay with trading with as I don't think he has as high a ceiling as Haren and his trade value is probably as high as it's going to get at the moment. I don't think anything will happen though until the Santana sweepstakes are over.

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

What do the A's fans think of Haren being on the trade block?

He and Joe Blanton have been on the block all offseason just now it appears the rumors are picking up in terms of teams looking at Haren as an alternative if they can't get Johan Santana. I would be very shocked if both are with the A's on Opening Day as they must beef up their farm system and with such a weak free agent market for pitchers they are their most valuable commodities on the market. Unless some team lets them absolutely fleece their system I don't see the positives in trading their 26 year old ace who has no injury history, who they have locked up for another three years at only $16.25 million. Trading Haren would pretty much be sending the message that "Hey we don't give a fuck until we get the new ballpark built." Blanton on the other hand I'd be okay with trading with as I don't think he has as high a ceiling as Haren and his trade value is probably as high as it's going to get at the moment. I don't think anything will happen though until the Santana sweepstakes are over.

 

I like the A's. I wish they were moving them to Charlotte instead of Fremont. Oh well. Would have to change divisions if so.

 

AL East:

 

Boston

New York

Baltimore

Charlotte

Tampa Bay

 

AL Central:

 

Cleveland

Detroit

Minnesota

Chicago

Toronto

 

AL West:

 

Los Angeles

Seattle

Texas

Kansas City

 

Oh well. An individual is entitled to his dreams. Never going to happen though.

 

Next up: Florida Marlins!

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

"The Yankees have decided to include Phil Hughes in their proposal for Johan Santana, the New York Daily News reports."

 

Rotoworld.com.

[Brett Favre 0]

They should be more patient. The Twins really don't seem like they have major suitors.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

They should be more patient. The Twins really don't seem like they have major suitors.

The problem is that the Twins don't have to move, they can wait until free agency and take the draft picks.

[Brett Favre 0]

Exactly, so why not just sign him for just money next year?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Exactly, so why not just sign him for just money next year?

Primarily because the Twins could turn and trade him to Boston, who might then sign him to an extension.

[Brett Favre 0]

If they decide to part with Buccholz, that's their problem.

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

Exactly, so why not just sign him for just money next year?

 

Same reason I said before. They're worried the Red Sox will pull the trigger.

 

The Red Sox know they can't outbid the Yankees for Santana on an open market. They also know that if the Yankees get him, they will have to face him many times over the course of his contract. So the Red Sox are the team that needs to try to create a trade market for him so, at the very least, if the Yankees ARE going to get him, they will give up other good players to make it happen.

 

You have to think that the Red Sox consider Papelbon and Ellsbury their "untouchable" players like Chamberlain and Cano (for reasons I don't understand on the latter) seem to be for the Yankees. So when the Red Sox are building packages around Buchholz, Crisp, and so on, the Yankees are going to have to get real and put Hughes into their package if they want to prevent the Twins from agreeing to a deal that'll send Santana to Boston.

 

Frankly it's pretty nice when you have a guy like Phil Hughes that actually is available in trades because you have a guy like Chamberlain who's even better and a guy like Kennedy who's not quite in the same league but still quite good as well.

[Brett Favre 0]

I wouldn't say Chamberlain is better than Hughes. IMO the Red Sox won't go that far in offering Buccholz. If they Get Santana, they give him 150 million, and you think they want to do the same for Beckett who will ask for more money as well? That'd be two guys with like 20+ million in the rotation.

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

I wouldn't say Chamberlain is better than Hughes. IMO the Red Sox won't go that far in offering Buccholz. If they Get Santana, they give him 150 million, and you think they want to do the same for Beckett who will ask for more money as well? That'd be two guys with like 20+ million in the rotation.

 

It'd be worth it. It's weird seeing a Yankee fan talking about tying up too much money in the rotation. You guys wouldn't mind putting $200 million out next year to bring in Santana, and if Beckett became a free agent shortly thereafter, y'all wouldn't mind putting ANOTHER $200 million out to bring him in too. So why can't the Red Sox do it?

 

The Red Sox might have to go cheap in some other places and not do things like sign Mike Lowell and J.D. Drew to big contracts. They are more or less a Moneyball franchise, they just don't mind spending a lot of money on players who are valued in that system (like J.D. Drew) whereas other Moneyball teams like the Athletics would rather not.

 

I'm sure they can make something work. I don't see why the Yankees can have ridiculous amounts of money tied up in their rotation but it doesn't make sense for the Red Sox to do that too if they have two guys who are incredible like Santana and Beckett. Maybe they shouldn't have put so much money into Matsuzaka, but oh well.

 

[Brett Favre 0]

It doesn't make sense for them when they're fine without Santana, they already have Buccholz, and Santana isn't even that good in Fenway to begin with. He's an unnecessary acquisition.

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

It doesn't make sense for them when they're fine without Santana, they already have Buccholz, and Santana isn't even that good in Fenway to begin with. He's an unnecessary acquisition.

 

If Santana's not that good in Fenway, why do you want him? So he will lose when he plays the Red Sox on the road?

 

Also, where in the world did you get your Santana vs. Red Sox stats? Because I'm seeing that he pitched one game against them last season. I don't suspect he pitched more than a few games against them in any season, which means we're talking about a sample size of, I don't know, 20 games over his career?

 

How many of those were even played at Fenway? Half, if lucky? He didn't pitch at Fenway this past season, for example.

 

Finally, why does a team that has the following pitchers in potentially contention for a rotation spot and currently on the 40-man roster need Johan Santana either: Joba Chamberlain, Tyler Clippard, Phil Hughes, Kei Igawa, Ian Kennedy, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, and Chien-Ming Wang.

[Brett Favre 0]

It's not Santana vs. Red Sox as much as Santana vs. Red Sox in Fenway. His career ERA in Fenway is 6.89. He doesn't have to pitch in Fenway to be good for the Yankees. He's unstoppable in Yankee stadium.

 

Clippard isn't good enough right now. Neither is Igawa. Mussina is old. Pavano is done.

 

You can't be serious.

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

It's not Santana vs. Red Sox as much as Santana vs. Red Sox in Fenway. His career ERA in Fenway is 6.89. He doesn't have to pitch in Fenway to be good for the Yankees. He's unstoppable in Yankee stadium.

 

Clippard isn't good enough right now. Neither is Igawa. Mussina is old. Pavano is done.

 

You can't be serious.

 

How many games is your sample size? I'll be surprised if it's even double digits.

 

Johan Santana is unnecessary for your favorite team's biggest rival, but "unstoppable" and a perfect fit for your team. Go figure.

 

Of course you pick on Mussina, who is old but still being paid a lot of money by the Yankees because that's the way you guys do things. Pavano sucks, but he's being paid a lot of money because that's the way you guys do things. And so does Igawa, but he too is being paid a lot of money because that's the way you guys do things. But let's acknowledge a potential problem with the Red Sox having 2 players at $20mil/year in their rotation!

 

Naturally, you ignore the excellent players on the list.

 

They aren't getting Hughes.

 

 

Explain to me why anyone should take you seriously on this, especially when you're the one who swore the Yankees would not be offering Hughes when, yep, they just did.

[Brett Favre 0]

1) If you can't understand that Yankee Stadium is a pitching haven for lefties because of left field, and Fenway sucks ass for lefties because of the green monster then that's not my problem.

 

2) Mussina has 1 year left. He'll most likely be a spot starter here and there.

 

3) Pavano is hurt. He's not pitching. One year left. Out for the year. Get it?

 

4) The excellent players on the list only make up 3 starters in the rotation. Gee, lets go for a 3 man rotation.

 

5) Hughes hasn't been traded yet. And if the Twins get him it's not because it was Brian Cashman's idea.

[Failed Bridge 0]

If they decide to part with Buccholz, that's their problem.

they don't have to part with Bucholz if Hughes isn't being offered up. As much as Yankees fans refuse to see it Lester is a solid pitching prospect and probably has a great upside. Lefties that throw in the mid 90s with a plus curve, and fairly good change-up don't go grow on trees. He has command issues at the moment but he's only 23 and coming back from the whole cancer thing. I actually thought of Andy Pettite when I first saw Lester pitch.

[Brett Favre 0]

Yeah he's definitely like Pettitte. The thing is though, Kennedy is just as good as prospect as Lester. It's the same thing over here. We don't want to include Hughes unless the Sox include Buccholz. Who knows what the real offers are.

[geniusMoment 0]

Reds GM Wayne Krivsky was on the radio in cincy today. He said the Reds are aggresively after a starting pitcher, and that owner Bob Castellini has given the ok to spend whatever is necessary to compete in the market. Josh Hamilton, Edwin Encarnacion, Joey Votto and Johnny Cueto could all be had in deals for a number 2 type starter. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 are packaged together, along with a few lower ranking prospects for one of the pitchers on the market. Reports in Cincy are that the Reds are really serious about competing, and even though you don't hear them mentioned in the national media, they are after a lot of the same names others are after, and may be willing to deal more prospects to get a starter.

 

and Bill James must have stopped sniffing glue, as he know believes what real fans have known all along, clutch hitting exists. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/base...utch/index.html

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Reds GM Wayne Krivsky was on the radio in cincy today. He said the Reds are aggresively after a starting pitcher, and that owner Bob Castellini has given the ok to spend whatever is necessary to compete in the market. Josh Hamilton, Edwin Encarnacion, Joey Votto and Johnny Cueto could all be had in deals for a number 2 type starter. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 are packaged together, along with a few lower ranking prospects for one of the pitchers on the market. Reports in Cincy are that the Reds are really serious about competing, and even though you don't hear them mentioned in the national media, they are after a lot of the same names others are after, and may be willing to deal more prospects to get a starter.

 

and Bill James must have stopped sniffing glue, as he know believes what real fans have known all along, clutch hitting exists. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/base...utch/index.html

Johnny Cueto? Geez, if the Reds just wait a year he could BE that #2 starter. This is the wrong market to aggressively pursue starting pitching.

 

As for the clutch hitting stuff, if you read James he never claimed that clutch hitting did not exist. Never. He always claimed the same thing he does in this article, that you can't prove its non-existence. I think he believes it does, but is cautious to really tout it because you then get endless arguments with fans who say "yeah but he's CLUTCH~!" and you have nowhere to go in the argument. Clutch hitting as an argument has been a way to state your player is better than another's in the absence of evidence.

 

Clutch hitting in general is a bad thing to research. You have a million ways to define it and when you do, you don't have enough data to make anything of it. Give a hundred .250 hitters a hundred at bats, and 14 of them will hit .300 simply as a result of random variation. 15 will hit .200 or lower. So if you do have a few clutch hitters or unclutch hitters when you define the data, it proves nothing because you are supposed to have outliers.

 

 

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Cano is untouchable because:

 

1) He's awesome.

 

2) He's getting much, much better in the field.

 

3) He speaks softly and carries a big stick. (For a non-traditional offensive position)

 

4) He's 24 years old, and a product of the system.

 

5) He's basically playing for free.

 

6) He is the only starting Yankee position player that will be under 33 years old in 2008.

 

See?

 

Edit: Also, Cano (and Melky) idolize Alex Rodriguez, and have adopted his pregame regimine, and they show up earlier than anybody else to the Stadium to workout together.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

and Bill James must have stopped sniffing glue, as he know believes what real fans have known all along, clutch hitting exists. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/base...utch/index.html

 

I like how you assert that Bill James has stopped "sniffing glue" when the article you cited presented the exact same stance he's always had and the work he shows, as much as I love Bill, is miles behind some of the other stuff that has been done on the subject (most notably in Tom Tango's The Book).

 

The problem with measuring clutch hitting is a) how do you define it and b) once defined, how do you ever compile enough data to prove it? Look at what he has presented here. Pujols, Chipper and Papi hit well in the clutch? Pierre doesn't? Well, no shit. You just presented three of the best hitters in baseball. How does the performance compare to non-clutch situations? What was the platoon advantage? Did they control for park effects? The quality of pitcher faced? What's the correlation coefficient of the data? What's the standard deviation? There's not information here to figure out if we've proven anything at all.

 

We already know clutch hitting exists. Fangraphs.com measures it and posts updates everyday on their website (using WPA - win probability added). Factoring in the leverage of the situation, how much did your at bat change the expected outcome of the game? That's simple to measure, but does it mean anything?

 

The white whale for all statisticians is finding out if clutch ability exists. Do some players, in fact, possess a special skill set that allows them to recognize the situation they are in and change their approach to become better than they are at all other times they play the game. I think that's a ridiculous notion, but I don't know for sure because I can't test it.

 

Until then, it's easier to say that clutch hitting ability doesn't exist. And when I say that, I don't mean to imply that there is no chance that it out's there, just that the probability of finding it is so small that it would be foolish for a manager to make any moves based on it and ever more foolish for writers/fans to pretend like they know it and use it to judge the quality of the player.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

There is no doubt that some guys are just cool under pressure, and others fold up. Can I back that up with any hard evidence or some kind of number? No, but from playing sports myself I can tell you there's something to be said about being able to handle pressure of a big time situation when it's all riding on you. Of course many times your 'clutch' success is riding on your teammates; if you are down 3 in the ninth inning and hit a two run homer, your team loses, you did all that you could and probably won't be remembered for it. It isn't your fault you lost, and it doesn't mean you're 'not clutch.' That's a concept that people have yet to grasp. I was having this argument with a friend yesterday over the this past postseason and A-Rod's performance, when I simply stated that nobody hit and it was a team fallout (he had a late inning solo homer in Game 4, it didn't mean anything but if the guys in front of him would have done their jobs like the way he did his, it certainly would have). It always seems to go nowhere, but I digress.

 

Hope that made sense.

[geniusMoment 0]

and Bill James must have stopped sniffing glue, as he know believes what real fans have known all along, clutch hitting exists. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/base...utch/index.html

 

I like how you assert that Bill James has stopped "sniffing glue" when the article you cited presented the exact same stance he's always had and the work he shows, as much as I love Bill, is miles behind some of the other stuff that has been done on the subject (most notably in Tom Tango's The Book).

 

The problem with measuring clutch hitting is a) how do you define it and b) once defined, how do you ever compile enough data to prove it? Look at what he has presented here. Pujols, Chipper and Papi hit well in the clutch? Pierre doesn't? Well, no shit. You just presented three of the best hitters in baseball. How does the performance compare to non-clutch situations? What was the platoon advantage? Did they control for park effects? The quality of pitcher faced? What's the correlation coefficient of the data? What's the standard deviation? There's not information here to figure out if we've proven anything at all.

 

We already know clutch hitting exists. Fangraphs.com measures it and posts updates everyday on their website (using WPA - win probability added). Factoring in the leverage of the situation, how much did your at bat change the expected outcome of the game? That's simple to measure, but does it mean anything?

 

The white whale for all statisticians is finding out if clutch ability exists. Do some players, in fact, possess a special skill set that allows them to recognize the situation they are in and change their approach to become better than they are at all other times they play the game. I think that's a ridiculous notion, but I don't know for sure because I can't test it.

 

Until then, it's easier to say that clutch hitting ability doesn't exist. And when I say that, I don't mean to imply that there is no chance that it out's there, just that the probability of finding it is so small that it would be foolish for a manager to make any moves based on it and ever more foolish for writers/fans to pretend like they know it and use it to judge the quality of the player.

 

I was just joking, I figured the "sniffing glue" line would get a rise out of someone here

 

[KingPK 0]

Buccholz

 

Bucholz

 

Ok, I'm getting a headache. It's Buchholz.

 

EDIT: Might as well bring something to the discussion.

 

I am flexible in including Buchholz in the deal. I really don't want to, but I will understand if he goes. I will NOT like it if Ellisbury goes as well. After watching him since his call-up, I'm salivating to see what he can do in a full season. Also, any trade with Santana has to include some sort of extension soon after as it is moronic to send off all this potential for one year of service.

Edited December 1, 2007 by KingPK

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

Curt Henning and Matt Leinhart beg to differ!

 

[Guest RyechnaiaSobaka]

Cano is untouchable because:

 

1) He's awesome.

 

2) He's getting much, much better in the field.

 

3) He speaks softly and carries a big stick. (For a non-traditional offensive position)

 

4) He's 24 years old, and a product of the system.

 

5) He's basically playing for free.

 

6) He is the only starting Yankee position player that will be under 33 years old in 2008.

 

See?

 

Edit: Also, Cano (and Melky) idolize Alex Rodriguez, and have adopted his pregame regimine, and they show up earlier than anybody else to the Stadium to workout together.

 

1. 9.2 WARP1 last season. I agree. He is pretty awesome at baseball.

 

2. FRAR of 31 in 2006, up to 50 in 2007. Seems to make sense.

 

3. I guess this means he can hit for power. Translated slugging of .552 and .528 the past two seasons. 44 homers combined. I agree again.

 

4. Him being 24 years old is good. Him being a product of the Yankees system is less relevant to me.

 

5. Cheap and awesome is a good combination.

 

6. Melky Cabrera is 23 years old, and he is supposed to be the starting center fielder. I think it's good that the Yankees are trying to keep some good young players around instead of collecting highly-paid veterans when they become free agents.

 

Your six points tell me something I already believe: Robinson Cano is a pretty awesome baseball player.

 

Would he be just as good on the Twins? Maybe. He wouldn't have as many awesome players in the lineup in front of and behind him to get on base, get him good pitches to hit, and so on.

 

I wouldn't consider him untouchable, though. I think he should be available for a really awesome offer. I think they should consider making him available for Santana, especially if they want to keep Phil Hughes. But that's just me. I don't actually know if other teams value Cano as much as the Yankees do, to tell you the truth.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

While I thank you for validating my points, how can somebody who at 24 is considered one of the best players at his position not be thought of that highly? This I don't understand.

 

[i don't consider Melky a true regular because on any given night, he may not be in the lineup, whereas Cano plays every single game]

[Brett Favre 0]

The Twins don't want him cause he's about to be paid soon.