Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) The one thing Ricky also said is that he won't "Spend money just to spend money", which if true is exactly the way he should be thinking. Amen to that.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 08:00 AM) Nope. Just repeating what was said to me. That was before his WS performance. SF's 2015 interest in Peavy prob depends on what they expect out of Cain and Lincecum. I'm sure Peavy likes pitchhing in that ballpark. I was just making a Levine joke

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 24, 2014 -> 07:17 AM) I hear from my SF based research staff that Peavy will re-sign with Giants. But are you willing to stake your reputation on it?

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 28, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Viciedo to Seattle for Montero. I can't believe I'm saying it, but I think I'd rather have Viciedo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) Trying to fit Buerhle's salary in gets much tougher when a realistic salary threshold for the team next year is used. We are sitting at $46 million before any of the arb guys have been signed. Realistically, if Viciedo is brought back, and Bellisario isn't, I'd say somewhere around $60 million is a realistic floor if you assume normal arb numbers for the rest of the guys (Viciedo $5 million, Flowers $2 million, Jones and Noesi $1 mil each) along with $500k holding slots for the rest of the roster (12ish open spots = $6 million). We spent $90 million last year, and all revenue streams probably fell again last year, which is offset and then some by the extra $25 million from the new TV deal. Realistically, I would bet on the $90-95 million range, which means we have more like $30 to $35 million to spend, not 40 to 50. That is a huge difference. And market-rate dollars for a solid 3/4 starter is a terribly inefficient way to spend those dollars. $15m would be every penny that Buerhle would be worth, and there's a good chance you could duplicate his production (or reasonably close) with a couple pillow contracts and/or young up-and-comers that also come with substantial upside potential. EDIT: This is also why the $14m we owe to Danks is a terrible albatross.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 26, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) I certainly don't think Wilkins' stock went up. I put him about the same place as J Mitchell, whom I don't think made your list. Probably a career minor leaguer. Hawkins' stock probably went back up to where it was before his terrible 2013. I agree -- Wilkins looked nothing short of hopeless in his cup of coffee. Hopefully it was just nerves or something.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) At Wrigley does it contain more urine? And it costs more.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 28, 2014 -> 08:26 AM) I trade Eminor3d to the New York Yankees minor leagues for whomever they deem fit to send back. I'm all in favor if it gets us a decent catching prospect. They'd probably just send you a ticket sales rep, though. The irony though, is that I literally already work for a Yankees affiliate.

I don't drink ANYTHING unless it's park-adjusted.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 11:36 PM) November 10- Heyward to the White Sox for Tank & 2 prospects That's like saying the Rays sent James Shields to the Royals for Patrick Leonard and two prospects

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 03:55 PM) I like your point but I disagree with the analogy. The checkbook is the single most important thing to American business Haha, it didn't feel like a bulletproof analogy even as I was typing it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 01:53 PM) Someday, just like they told us the old stats were stupid, we will be told all of these are dumb too. Always a by-product of progress. The key is being more interested in the truth than you are in the metric.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) Assuming that you meant only presumed clean player, because Palmeiro/Sheffield/ManRam/others might never get in, I think boo-ing and age just started to wear him out and he had enough money. Yes, that is indeed what I meant.

It should be noted that Buerhle, along with all of his short-lived Marlins alumni, most definitely received several millions of dollars extra in place of their no-trade clauses.

Another thing about Dunn that I've thought about in regards to his decision to retire: Do you think he was afraid of being the only player with 500 homers to NOT be in the Hall of Fame? If I were him, I might rather just ride off into the sunset than to have my career murdered by media pundits in five years.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 11:02 AM) In a related article http://www.fangraphs.com/not/dangerous-exp...-25-adam-dunns/ One of the craziest funnest articles ever. That's one of the best articles in the history of the soon-to-be-nonexistant NotGraphs, IMO.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 01:26 PM) One issue I have is with ballpark adjustments. IMO, you are just taking someone's word those adjustments are accurate, and as been pointed out, I think that varies greatly from player to player. Jim Thome had no problem with Target Field. Target Field freaks Joe Mauer out. Well, in terms of their on-field performance, this is exactly why we NEED ballpark adjustments. Both players turn out fine -- homers are hard to hit there, so they are worth more for both players. Thome gets extra credit for being a monster that no park can contain, and Mauer gets padded for not being able to hit as many out. As far as the mental aspect goes: that's one thing that statistics cannot account for across the board. You'll always have to make that subjective adjustment, regardless of whether or not a park adjustment is applied statistically.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) You can make a case for every statistic being a flawed statistic. One thing I really like about OPS isn't necessarily the number, although if you are getting into the low 700s, obviously, there is diminishing returns. But it can also be used as a gauge as to what direction a hitter is heading. But you can do the same thing, but better, with wOBA or wRC+. The thing I hate so much about OPS is that it's simply obsolete. It actually has NO use anymore. Like even RBI is a better stat because it still answers a simple question better than any other stat. There's no "sabermetric equivalent" of RBI. The SABR problem with RBI wasn't that it was inaccurate (it's extremely accurate, in fact), but rather that it was being used as a proxy to answer the wrong questions (i.e. who is the best hitter?). Analogy: wRC+ is an ATM card, OPS is a checkbook, RBI is coins. The checkbook is completely obsolete compared to the ATM card; the checkbook is a hindrance. But while the ATM is much more useful than coins, there are still a handful of situations where you need coins instead.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) I agree that OPS is flawed because OBP is a bit more valuable than SLG, but I also think that is context dependent on how you are trying to fit a guy in with the rest of the team. If you already have a team with decent OBP but lacking pop, you might favor SLG even though OBP is generally move valuable. Also, I'm not sure OBP points ARE more valuable than SLG points at this juncture. At the very least, they're much closer. Which is part of the issue. Check out this table, noting that run values for HR have steadily increased since the steroid era, whereas run values for singles have decreased: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:49 PM) I get what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with it. A right-handed Yankee getting the same park adjustment as a left-handed Yankee is getting f***ed right up the ass. Maybe by a percentage point or two, and really only if you're a homerun hitter. here's the table with handedness park factors: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=pf...amp;season=2014 Regardless, it's substantially MORE accurate than OPS and OPS+. And if you think the park factors throw it off, you can always cite wOBA, like shysocks said. But even then, you're guessing as to the adjustment that's proper. In cases of extreme handedness advantages, such as homers in Yankee stadium, the overall park adjustment is still much closer to the truth than any other number out there. I could see it being an issue if there was some park where any particular offensive event was substantially above average from one side and substantially below average from the other, but like in Yankee Stadium, it's homer-happy from both sides, it's just extra homer-happy from the left side.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 25, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) I wonder if after a few weeks off Dunn has already changed his mind. There's no reason for him to quit if some team is willing to pay him and I'd suspect he could still get a contract. The guy is going to hit 20 homers again if he gets similar amount of at bats to this year. Of course he's going to do all the other things Dunn does. I think he's content to be rich and hang out with his family. MLB is one of those things you have to be 150% committed to -- I think if there's any doubt, you hang it up. I think he made the right decision. It's not like he needs more money.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) Cancel the rant. Actually the Top 10 MLB players in WRC are the same top 10 in OPS. Guys like Eaton, DV, amd Conor all fall into the same range in both categories. I am sure there are some odd instances both ways but quick look tells you both stats are very similiar. OPS has no adjustment for context and inaccurately assumes that a point of OBP is equally as valuable as a point of SLG. Case in point: GreenSox cited Heyward's OPS to display that he was a mediocre hitter in 2014, when in reality he was an above-average hitter over that span.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) Seems like it should go in the reverse order. Parks can definitely affect types of hits differently, and can affect left/right handed hitters differently. Triples are clearly harder to come by in the Cell than at Comerica, and homers are clearly much easier to come by at Yankee Stadium for lefties than righties. If we are just blanketly saying that the Cell inflates offense by 4%, then that doesn't give me much confidence in that system. Seems pretty lazy to me. But you have to remember that the whole system sits on linear weights, so any blanket run change you make automatically affects all events in proportion to their value. Also, remember what question we're trying to answer. wRC+ is the answer to: How valuable was player x's overall contribution, at the plate, in comparison to those of his peers? This only works if you take steps to equalize the difference between things like triples/stolen bases and homers/walks. A common denominator is essential to this; you wouldn't want it any other way. If you were trying to decide how a player will FIT in a particular ballpark, or how his contributions will translate, you definitely need to dig into the park factors for different offensive events. But if you want to measure how VALUABLE a player was in comparison to another, who might have played in a different park or league, you want to reduce your measurement as much as possible. EDIT: I feel like I'm not explaining myself well. Maybe someone else can try.

Meh

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 08:22 AM) Eminor3rd, since you're the wRC+ guru, can you please explain how the park adjustments work in the metric? While I'm a huge fan of what the statistic is attempting to do and use it frequently, I can't help but be skeptical that adjusting for park factors is that simple/clean of a process. Not all players benefit the same from playing in a given park, so if the park adjustments are applied equally to all players then I would have to consider the stat somewhat flawed. Looking forward to your response, as this has been a question bothering me for quite some time. The park adjustment that is made is crude and is based on adding or subtracting runs rather than adjusting for each offensive component. This ends up being okay because the stat is based on linear weights, so even though it won't factor that a guy has, say, a couple more triples than he normally would in a neutral park, it DOES factor in the runs that those triples represent. From FG: So for example, in 2014, a triple was worth ~1.65 runs on average, so every triple that someone hits gets them that much credit. All of that adds up to a player's Runs Created, and THEN an overall run scoring coefficient gets thrown on. For the Cell, it was 104 this year, which means that the park si expected to produce 4% more runs, so everyone's performances there get a 4% hit. So the TL;DR answer is this: all offensive events get converted to runs first, then the park factors are added. This works out because each type of event is naturally weighted, by runs, in the system to begin with.