Eminor3rd

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) The steroid lines is a huge part of that story. There is no doubt that guys careers were prolonged and altered by that stuff. Same with Amphetamines. With those gone, I think we aren't going to see the soft declines that characterized the last generation of baseball, and instead we will see quicker breakdowns with age. The historical stuff is very undependable because the samples are poisoned by the steroid era and it is impossible to know which data is accurate and which was enhanced by PED's. I just realized I misquoted the article -- it's a 30 year sample, not 15.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) That article specifically relates to offense, and I don't think any of us are really in disagreement about his offense. What I'd like to see, basically, is that same curve but expressed as a year-over-year change in percentage of games played at primary position instead of offensive runs. I don't know if that exists, but my guess is that it would look significantly different for catchers against the league average. To your point though, there are plenty of examples of catchers staying catchers well past the innings total that Martin has racked up. The stat they used, though, was a counting stat, so playing time would theoretically be baked in. However, it isn't clear whether or not the sample is comprised of "player stats who were primarily catchers" or "stats derived from the catching position." In the latter case, you wouldn't know if some guys got hurt and disappeared, thus leaving the sample skewed only to those who remained (or became) healthy and productive. So, similar to what Dick Allen said, if it's the latter, then you may not have a representative sample. Good observation.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 12:20 PM) The last 15 years has been dominated by steroids. Also, only the better guys even catch much after 34 or 35. The numbers on that graph showed regular position players declining every year, but catchers actually improving at age 33 after several years of decline before declining again, which to me indicates a sample size problem or something else a little out of whack. Maybe that is the year the elite guys still catch and the back ups and not so good guys move on to other things. Aside from the random steroids line, that's an excellent criticism of the piece. Potentially skewed sample.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) Nagging stuff. It's harder to stay healthy at 32 years old. Catcher is the most physically demanding position. I don't think I'm stretching here. I don't think so either, intuitively, but that's why I was pointing to that article to show that over the last 15 years or so, that HASN'T been the case on the aggregate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) Interestingly, it was also noted above that "improving pitch framing" is one thing that can help a catcher age well with time, so that might be a skill Flowers could make up some ground on as well. That said, Martin's been really good at that for a long time, but it is probably worth asking how much we really believe the numbers on how big a difference it makes at this time. Yes, I accidentally ignored that part of your argument a couple posts ago. I think that "Tyler Flowers having a bunch of upside" is a better case against Martin than the inherent risk that comes along with Martin.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) I know you were referring to specific parts of catcher defense. I was specifically referring to catchers being forced out of position. I saw your data, but there are enough anecdotes that my point still applies here. Martin's high WAR is tied to him catching, and if he can't do that as often - which is not an outlandish claim to make - then he's a bad signing. But why would he be forced out of catching? Other than an unforeseeable injury.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) One other thing worth adding is a Martin/Flowers comparison. Martin is having a spectacular season, no doubt. For the last 6 years prior to this one, he's put up a combined .718 OPS (95 OPS+). Tyler Flowers this year put up a .693 OPS, that when park adjusted, comes to a 95 OPS+. Tyler Flowers was just about as productive with the bat last year as Russell Martin has been for the last 6 years of his career. Now maybe you're convinced that Martin is raking this year because he took on a new weight training routine (he did), and he'll be an 800+ OPS guy for the next 3 years, and maybe you're convinced that Tyler Flowers will never match what he put up again this year, I can believe both of those if you had a person with enough experience in player evaluation telling me so. But the downside risk on Russell Martin appears to me that he'll be Tyler Flowers/2014 with the bat for the next 4 years, maybe with a slightly better glove, for a much higher price. And on the other hand, Flowers is trending the right direction...which is something that isn't uncommon with catchers and happened to Martin himself. So there's a case to be made that its a large upgrade that hangs on Martin repeating his best year of the last 7 and Flowers no longer improving, and that's compared with a case that to me seems stronger that it would be a small upgrade at a high cost. Two things: 1. While I do not believe that Russell Martin will ever sniff 140 wRC+ again, I do think that the fact that recency provides important context for the way his performance is trending. He's spent the last two years over 100 wRC+, which is something Flowers has never really sniffed. While I think you're right to point out that Martin probably isn't a tremenoudlsy better hitter than Flowers, I do think it's safe to say he's a significantly better hitter. It would not be replacing Jeff Mathis with Mike Piazza, but it would be a clear and noticeable upgrade. 2. While I do believe reports that Flowers has improved defensively, I think there's a lot of evidence that the upgrade from Flowers to martin would be more than "slight." Here's Statcorner's pitch framing leaderboard for 2014: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php. Martin is 10th in the league; Flowers didn't crack the top 100. By FanGraph's total defensive metrics, Martin ranks 4th in the Majors,; Flowers is 18th. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=20,d I do not think Martin needs to repeat next year to be a substantial upgrade.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) Free Agent X is not just as likely to break down as a catcher over 30. Isn't that the reason we talk about age at all with free agents? It's not the only justification not to sign him - I pointed out paying for a career year and current roster construction and needs. Read my post above (and the linked articles), you're arguing that he's more likely to decline rapidly because he's a catcher, but that's not true at all.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) His skillset is that he's a catcher, which doesn't age well. What happens if he can only catch 80 games a year from age 32-36? 50 games? It's been known to happen. Then you're paying $60 million for half a catcher and a DH with a career wRC+ of 106 that is greatly boosted by a career year at age 31, when you already have a 1-2 WAR catcher on the roster. If we splurge this offseason it should be on pitching or in the outfield. I would be infinitely happier with a Russell Martin signing than a V-Mart one though. But there's a chance Martin will get more per year, given his position I just want to clarify that you're arguing that he'll be hurt a lot because he's a catcher, which is different than what I'm saying when I'm arguing that his skillset ages well. I'm talking specifically about his game-calling and pitch-framing, which studies have shown improve with age. When it comes to the things that decline with age, the difference between a good and bad catcher's throwing arm has been pretty convincingly argued as overrated (because pitcher behavior and catcher footwork more strongly correlate with CS% than catcher pop times: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-overrat...throwing-arms/), and catcher offense has actually occupied a substantially softer aging curve than that exhibited by other position players under the current offensive environment: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/catcher-agi...ve-not-a-cliff/ Finally: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) The important thing is Lyle Mouton.

QUOTE (spiderman @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) How old is Russell Martin? This seems like a horrible idea to me. The White Sox finally have payroll flexibility after having 7 or 8 players taking close to $90M or so several seasons. No Rios, Dunn, Konerko, Peavy, and Danks is probably their last big/bad deal. They made a commitment last off-season of adding MLB ready younger players. I don't mind spending on free agency, I just prefer not to make rash moves. I'd be much happier with a quiet(er) off-season where Hahn makes moves that will help now ,and for the future, even if there is a gamble involved (see Matt Davidson for one that probably isn't going to work). Russell Martin is currently 31 years old. The bolded line sounds a lot like signing Russell Martin. The case for Martin is that he is tremendously valuable on defense, and specifically in ways that actually IMPROVE with age. And, regarding his skills that are expected to decline with age, he has a long way to fall before he would ever be considered problematic. If you go into the contract expecting a 100-110 wRC+ and high-end defense for ~120 games a year, you're very likely going to get exactly what you want. For reference, he did all that but with 140 wRC+ this year. The case against Martin is that you're paying him after a career year, so even if you (correctly) don't expect him to repeat 2014, it's still going to drive his price up. But to where? $15m per year? If so, you're paying a guy coming off a 5 win season (and a 4 win season before that) to be a 3 win player. Even at $15m per year, his production could decline 40% and you still just be paying a market rate asset. And his skillset ages well. I can understand the argument for signing nobody at all, but Martin is a much safer bet to produce than Victor Martinez (who is five years older, more injury prone, and whose contributions rely on bat speed, which is something that often DOES fall off a cliff suddenly for guys in their mid to upper thirties) and looks like he's probably going to come in the same price range. I could be wrong about Martin's ultimate price, but to me, I'd feel really good about paying him up to $15m for each of the next four years. He makes the team substantially better immediately and is among the safest bets in this FA class to continue to contribute surplus value throughout the life of the contract.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) I think that package is right around what would be worthwhile, but I think I'd prefer to deal Beck over Danish right now. Just my belief, but I think with another good, healthy season, Danish is a guy who could be a top 3 prospect in the system and possibly a top 100 guy overall. There are going to be some who still view him as a reliever, but it's a worthwhile gamble in my mind. I'd look to deal someone like Beck instead, even though I really like Beck as a prospect. I'd definitely rather send Beck, but I don't think Beck gets it done.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 12:33 PM) Are you guys just not high on Danish and Hawkins??? That seems like an awful lot for a guy coming off an injured/down year. I love Danish and am hopeful for Hawkins, but let's be honest -- you're giving up a potential #3 starter who might be a good reliever instead plus a guy who you'd be happy with IF he becomes what Belt is today. Sure, both those guys COULD become stars, but they both very likely won't. That's worth it for a solid left-handed corner OF with solid pop that is controllable for 3 more years.

QUOTE (onedude @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) <!--quoteo(post=3058307:date=Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:41 AM:name=Eminor3rd)-->QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) <!--quotec-->2005 was 2005, but my favorite moment, the moment when I felt the proudest of Paul Konerko as a player and representative of our team, was the first pitch, no-doubt homerun after he got hit in the face by Carl Pavano in 2010. Can anyone find video? Your browser does not support iframes. Thanks!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 12:17 PM) From our side, that would be a whole helluva lot to give up for a guy who missed most of the year and has only 1 career season with a >800 OPS. I'm not sure if I'd do that or not, and I'd probably have the same response if it were done. "Wow that's a big gamble they must be really sure he can be healthy next year". He's got a 122 career wRC+, though, and has been jerked around a lot because of guys like Aubrey Huff. I think he's a "young" 27 because of that, and that there is some real upside there. I'd love to have Belt, so long as his medicals check out. I'd consider Danish/Hawkins/Sanchez for sure. He was raking before he got hurt early in the year, which I only know because he was on one of my fantasy teams.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) Not to mention if Nate Jones didn't get hurt, he probably would have had at least 60 saves, and had an ERA around 0.00. Lindstrom could have been the set up man, and probably would have made the rest of the set up men in baseball pale in comparison. I am thinking 145-17 or 150-12. Minimum.

2005 was 2005, but my favorite moment, the moment when I felt the proudest of Paul Konerko as a player and representative of our team, was the first pitch, no-doubt homerun after he got hit in the face by Carl Pavano in 2010. Can anyone find video?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) I think the Tigers have another year or two, but who knows if age and weight are catching up to Miggy or if he's been banged up. Victor Martinez is not going to do this again and he may leave for greener pastures anyways. JD Martinez has been a revelation for them, but how likely is he to even come close to repeating the year he's had? There are a lot of question marks for them moving forward, you're correct. Still, I don't even worry about that. Depending on the moves made, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Sox to be a team projected to win 85 games next year prior to the season and at that level, it's only 4 or 5 breaks over the course of a year that can push you up to 90 wins. QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) A bullpen that could hold leads and I think we're +10 games over this season. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:58 AM) And add back the 30 games that Robin has lost us this year... This is a 110 win team, easy. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) Plus all the players who had DL time, so they were really a 120 win team. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) Minimum. Add in some lineup protection for Jose Abreu, and all his intentional walks would have been homers. This is a 130-140 win team if you add Victor Martinez.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 07:50 AM) That's not very exciting, but FYI, Dustin Ackley's second half: .270/.307/.474/.781, .341 wOBA, 122 wRC+. Ackley's versatility is exciting though. I am not high on Billy Butler. I like that he's a buy low candidate, but there's not a ton about his game that excites me. There's also a storied history of fat guys declining sharply around 30. His performance this year might make a ton of sense, actually.

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 05:42 AM) not if it mean getting burden with a longer contract with a possible player who may or may not rebound. I see. Well. it's only one extra season. I believe Ethier has a 2018 option, but that's a no-brainer decline.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 07:04 AM) Wade Davis only has 3 saves this year, what a lousy reliever. Don't even get me started on Dellin Betances in NY, only 1 save??? You're falling on deaf ears

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) if you have to remember that the sox has way better scouts and medical people at their disposal. with that, the idea as some posters have said, Ethier may be on the tail end of his career. so they have to pony up. but lets be reasonable, why would the sox do the deal???? not to just get rid of Danks and his contract, I don't understand, why wouldn't they do that deal? If you could just cancel the Danks contract today, wouldn't you do it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 02:01 PM) Miquel Cabrera, MVP each of the last 2 years, generally regarded as the best hitter in baseball, has 17 fewer intention passes than a guy you don't want the White Sox to have any part of. 27 times Victor Martinez didn't get to hit because JD Martinez was protecting him. 10 times, Miquel Cabrera didn't get to hit. Assuming Victor was in the line up each of those 10 times, it is a significant difference. As I stated, Victor has a far better reputation and total resume than JD. Do you really truly think if Cabrera and Victor were flip flopped, Victor would still have 27 IBB if the next guy up was Miquel Cabrera? Your argument only makes sense if you assume teams are actually scared off by name value only, and not by actual performance. I give the teams more credit than that. Victor Martinez has been the best hitter on that team, by far, all year. Right now, yes, I would rather walk Martinez and face Cabrera if there was a good situation for an intentional walk. Also, the fact the VMart is a switch hitter is a HUGE factor. You can have the platoon advantage with him, but you can get past him to someone where you DO have the platoon advantage. If VMart has twice as many IBBs as Cabrera in a year where Cabrera is substantially better, then I can see where you'd have an argument. EDIT: Once again, I'm open to the idea of finding evidence for lineup protection, but pointing out that a team's best hitter has more IBB than the team's other hitters does not qualify as said evidence.

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 01:18 PM) I like that, the only problem I have is to acquire Ethier with a trade off for Danks. nah, the only way is if dodgers will sweeten the deal with dodgers sending a prospect. ok but don't get me wrong, we all know that the dodgers will not include Pederson nor Seager. Ethier is more useful than Danks, and costs about $20m more. I'd ask the Dodgers to split the difference in cash and make the deal today. A platoon partner for Viciedo is way more valuable to us than 200 more innings of 5.00 - 5.50 ERA ball, IMO.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Scott Downs had a positive WAR? QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) ...enough said. All that means is he performed slightly better than a random minor league scrub would have been expected to perform. And when I say slightly, I mean effectively exactly the same. He had a 0.1 fWAR.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 12:48 PM) Hawk and Stone mentioned Cabrera has been intentionally walked 10 times this season. Victor has been intentionally walked 27 coming into today's game. A case against the protection doesn't mean a thing crowd. And that is with JD Martinez putting up numbers probably close to equal to Miggy's. Reputations matter as well. How does the fact that the guy that leads the league in IBB bats in FRONT of a guy having an awesome season support the idea of protection? Doesn't that simply support the idea that the best hitters get mroe IBBs regardless of who hits behind them?