Paul Maholm Says Pirates Did Not Make Offer
Paul Maholm says that the he discussed coming back to the Pirates, but he received "no offers, no nothing" from them. He also says he assumed his days in Pittsburgh were done once Erik Bedard signed.
Via MLB Trade Rumors.
5 months ago
Charlie Wilmoth
433 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This is disappointing
I’m part of the camp that didn’t mind letting Maholm go after the season because he was a really bad pitcher in ‘09-’10 so I wasn’t going to spend $9M on a guy because of 1 solid injury-shortened season. Having said that, to not even make an offer (like the quite reasonable one the Cubs actually signed him for) for a guy that could have provided a solid innings eater to a shaky staff seems foolish to me.
I won’t truly pass judgement until I see how the rest of the offseason plays out because I think the Pirates can still do some smart things but for now this seems like a missed opportunity and it really makes me wonder if the “mid $50M’s” payroll estimation was bullshit.
i agree entirely
this was pretty much my feeling… i still hope payroll wasn’t a part of it, if the Pirates aren’t planning on making a bigger acquisition, but outside that I agree entirely with your take.
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
If this is true...
…then the diminishing faith I had in the FO just dropped a little more.
If NH didn’t offer Paul Maholm, who actually seemed genuine about staying in Pittsburgh even at a reduced rate, a contract of any kind, I have to question NH’s judgment.
There are three sides to every story, so until NH confirms or denies this claim, I will give him some benefit of doubt, but things don’t look too good for him right now.
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
Hmm.
Again, another FO puzzler that always keeps you thinking…. I don’t know, maybe the Bucs saw something about Maholm’s shoulder they didn’t like? I can’t imagine them not offering Paul anything w/ out a solid reason.
I really want to think it's knowing (strongly suspecting) something re: the shoulder...
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
But they signed Bedard
Unless Maholm fails his Chicago physical, it seems ludicrous to to me that the Pirates would have avoided him because of injury concerns and then signed the most injured pitcher in Major League Baseball. If they know his rotator cuff is made of string cheese, fine… Chicago’s doctors should find that. If it’s suspicion… WHY SIGN ERIK EFFING BEDARD?!?!?
I love the Bedard signing and figure that these MLB lifers may just know a thing or two more than I do about players/assets, but I’ve watched enough GM’s play fiddles while the Pirates burned to not distrust the FO.
I think (hope) the FO already has something else in the works, but is being held up for reasons they can’t control. Ex. They feel confident they win the bid for Cespedes, they have a FA they feel confident signing, or a trade lined up for a bad contract but are waiting for someone to sign, etc.
Hopefully the FO isn’t sitting around holding the money necessary to resign DLee, then if he signs elsewhere, throw it at the next best available.
by Danatural08 on Jan 11, 2012 10:03 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I have to believe...
…the FO has moved on from DLee and are content with Jones/McGehee/Evans/Fox/whoever at 1B.
Huntington has said himself the Pirates are all but out on Cespedes.
Until I see otherwise, I’m siding with WTM’s view: they’re done except for minor league deals. All actions point to exactly that.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Nothing to see here.
Maybe our bats can enjoy the success the rest of the division has had against him. Oh wait, we don’t have any of those. Carry on.
Stupidity should be painful.
@elwreckingball
I think it’s been clear since they signed Bedard that they were looking only at minor league deals, and this helps confirm that. And that confirms my view that they’re just running in place, satisfied with replacement-level-Correia and not trying to upgrade a part of the team that badly needed upgrading.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
My thoughts exactly
I continue to be disappointed with the actions taken by this FO. I have supported them totally over the past few years and feel that they are really just treading water waiting for the next wave to arrive. Hoping that the swell will lift them instead of drowning them.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
speculation
i could also speculate that they saw his velocity sinking like a stone and it was a red flag to them and they did not want to resign him simply because of that. IT IS JAN 11TH! no one has ANY idea what moves the Bucs are and aren’t going to make or are making. I’m surprised to hear you guys say that
This is the most discouraging off-season yet with this FO. The Plan clearly is to sit back and wait for Cole, Taillon, etc., to arrive and in the meantime don’t commit any money to anybody except second- and third-tier stopgaps. There’s little reason for the fans to do anything except tune out and then check back in 2-3 years from now.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
by WTM on Jan 11, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i think you should be the first to "hold out" for a better team
see you in about 3 years, right?
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
Tanking is for the NBA
Tanking in MLB (keeping payroll flexibility, keeping costs down; basically just not acquiring the best players available) is just plain stupid. There’s too much uncertainty in baseball to wait for the next wave of talent… haven’t we just watched the A’s do this for almost a decade, finally get some of that talent, and trade it all for more in-3-years lottery tickets?
And for all the trading the A's have done this offseason...
…for all the crying they’re doing about needing a new ballpark…combined with the A’s finishing last in MLB in attendance for 2011, and are the frontrunners to finish last in attendance again in 2012…they’re still on pace to outspend the Pirates in team payroll for the 2012 season. By $10M.
Think about THAt for a minute.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 12, 2012 2:20 AM EST up reply actions
the pirates are the least valuable team in MLB, even less than the A's, per Forbes...
think about that while youre at it
Chicken or the Egg
Is the value low because we don’t spend, or do we not spend because the value is low?
I would love to see the team spend $80MM, and believe we are capable of supporting that much, but I don’t have much faith that the team will ever think about spending that much.
…Maybe if we didn’t sign old overpayed-underproducing players via FA every year, we could, you know, save up for a larger payroll. That’s Lemonade-Stand financial advice right there.
by H2O on Jan 14, 2012 10:40 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Hypothetically
Someone here (I think) charted mid-market payrolls and there was usually an increase in quality before the sharp increase in payroll. Teams like Tampa or Minnesota built a core of their own guys, when raised payroll to add pieces or sign those guys to extensions. Pittsburgh’s not building and has balked thusfar at signing their first test case (McCutchen) to a meaningful extension.
it confirms nothing
no offense, but none of us have any clue what the FO has done this offseason when it comes to the free agent market.
maybe the FO sees Lincoln/Locke/Owens as first options in case Correia struggles again.
maybe the FO has made bids on other players but were shot down/out bid.
we have no idea whats going on.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
Wrong
We know one thing for certain: they have not upgraded a 90-loss team.
I do agree, though, that you have no clue what they’ve done this off-season.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
by WTM on Jan 11, 2012 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Not entirely true
They may already have upgraded it marginally, with Barmes, Barajas and Bedard. There may be more to come. And there’s the possibility that they expect internal options to be able to step up.
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
how anyone is this bent out of shape from PAUL fricken MAHOLM not being offered a contract is beyond me
the same nonsense was spewed by other nameless peeps in here when Duke was let go.
lighten up people, your heart cant take it.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
My issues is this:
Who else do the Pirates have or are likely to have to fill that rotation spot that can suck up 175-200 innings and put up ~2 WAR in doing so?
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
i have no idea
plus i wouldnt ask a guy who thinks WAR is a band with Eric Burden
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
sacrilege
Like saying Van Halen is a band with Sammy Hagar.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
I'm just saying, compare War with and without Burden
On the one hand you have “Low Rider,” which is a song about cars.
On the other hand you have “Spill the Wine,” which is a song about gnomes.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
BurdOn
You people are killing me. It’s Eric Burdon.
I’ve got to get out of this place, if it’s the last thing I ever do.
by JRoth95 on Jan 11, 2012 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is a house in New Orleans
I mean if you’re looking for a better life, y’know…
by crusty on Jan 11, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm a Brad Lincoln believer
But as you say, the crux of the matter is…we don’t know. If Lincoln can even give 1.5 WAR over the course of 170 innings, that’s HUGE.
But can he? That’s another question mark to go along with the many on this team right now.
If 2012 isn’t a punt, then it seems it’s built on almost entirely on hope and things breaking perfectly. That’s rarely a winning—or even .500—strategy
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
Lincoln believer
without looking up these numbers again
i believe he put up a 3.03 FIP at AAA last year in like 120 innings and then like 4.02 xFIP in 60 innings here
Those numbers if duplicated again and would maybe even prove to be BETTER than what Maholm could do and why should we NOT take that chance? Lincoln – first round draft pick in his prime. Maholm is first rounder too but is now a veteran and will not take us to the next level. Why should we not take a risk like that?
A good point..
….but giving Lincoln a shot didn’t necessarily involve dumping Maholm.
Re-signing Maholm and DFAing Correia or trading him for a sack of potatoes could open up a spot for Lincoln and adds a steadying presence to a rotation that is, to put it charitably, rather wobbly.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
you wont DFA a guy at the beginning of a season where he is owed $4MM
want to DFA? probably. but in reality? not yet.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
It's already a sunk cost
Correia is getting that money whether he’s in the Pirates’s rotation or sipping drinks on a beach in St. Lucia.
So if that money is going out the door anyway, accept it and move on from him and sign a guy like Paul who can actually help the team rather than keeping a guy around who is likely to not help the team and is standing in the way of a guy like Brad Lincoln rather than admit signing him was a mistake.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
okay, good point, but what if
he pitches fairly well like he did the first couple months. if the team is playing poorly, we may get a prospect out of dealing him.
and saying signing him was a mistake is kind of harsh. hes been in one more allstar game than maholm.
he pitches fairly well like he did the first couple months. if the team is playing poorly, we may get a prospect out of dealing him.
Given how terrible he was in 2010 and 2011, I’m skeptical that he’d have any trade value in 2012, no matter how well he pitched.
My thinking, too
He probably would have had some in mid-2011 – his peripherals were fine, change of scenery, there was the backstory with the brother – but after how 2011 ended, no one will trade anything of value for him, not even if we cover his salary.
There are surgeries in Germany now
Maybe Correija takes an urlaub to Deutschland and Pittsburgh sees some ROI?
Can they give him an invincible robot arm?
Or the severed hand of an executed murderer with a really good curveball?
Or...
.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 9:04 AM EST up reply actions
But, knowing the Pirates' luck,
it would turn out more like this:
.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 9:07 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
the same nonsense was spewed by other nameless peeps in here when Duke was let go.
And then the guy we brought in on an equally expensive two-year deal put up a replacement-level performance, and we ended up giving starts to Brian Burres down the stretch. That sure turned out great, didn’t it?
gotta start somewhere
an improvement is an improvement, no?
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
or
did we expect this team to magically jump from worst to first?
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
"did we expect this team to magically jump from worst to first?"
It’s happened before, you know. On a number of different occasions.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 11, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
an improvement is an improvement, no?
Replacing Duke with Correia didn’t have anything to do with that particular “improvement”. Both were replacement-level performers in 2011. We just ended up with the guy who was under contract for another year at an excessive figure, rather than the one with whom we could’ve painlessly cut ties this offseason.
thats not what i was asking
in the WL column did we improve or not?
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
we also improved pitching and defense, some of the best of that in a decade
hitting, not so much.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
BFD...
we improved from a 105 loss team. The AVERAGE improvement from a 105 loss team is 17 games. We did NOTHING special. Quit trying to act like we are a step away from winning the division.
by Thunder on Jan 11, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The article...
was with respect to 105 or more loss teams, specifically because losing 105 games is extremely difficult to do.
Since 1965, 20 teams have lost 105 games (did not count the 2011 Astros, since they don’t have a following season to compare.
One team, the 2002 Tigers had a worse record the following season (but improved 29 games in 2004 from a 119 loss team). Of the other 19, only 6 failed to win at least 15 more games the following season. Nine improved at least 20 games, with 1989 Orioles improving 33 wins over their previous season (54-107).
Avg. improvement
Good point. It’s REALLY hard to lose 105 games. Seeing a 72-90 record as some sort of achievement is a distorted point of view.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
by WTM on Jan 11, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Again
Why didn’t they win 72 games in 2010, if that’s the norm for years after 62-win seasons?
This is treating baseball orgs like some sort of natural phenomenon. The Pirates have already broken the rules of physics that said that no team could go more than 16 years without a winning season. 72 wins in 2011 was far from foreordained.
Worth noting here that 99 losses in 2009 and 100+ losses in 2010 were both outcomes derided as incredibly unlikely by regulars on this board.
It takes not only extremely poor talent, but a lot of bad luck to lose 105 games. The Pirates were a very bad team in 2010, but the 105 losses were probably an outlier for their talent level. Their 2011 record, in part, was probably regression to the mean. That’s probably true of most 100+ loss teams, which explains the large average “improvement.”
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
But this is what Vlad and Charlie said about the 99-loss team
And I don’t recall who else.
My point is that it was a given that 2009 wouldn’t lose 99 (should have been 100, there was a rainout) because it takes bad luck and bad talent to do that. And then it was a given that 2010 wouldn’t lose 105 because it takes bad luck and bad talent to do that.
I think it’s a crap argument to keep saying “X won’t happen, it’s unlikely” and then, when it finally comes true, claiming vindication. It’s a bit like Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” If your prognostication is simply to predict a common result over and over until it happens, you haven’t prognosticated (if I say “it will be sunny tomorrow” every day, I will eventually be proven right; this will say nothing about my meteorological savvy).
To extend the argument
We actually can explain why the 2009 and 2010 teams lost so much: DL left a wrecked system, NH had some flawed theories (TJ Beam!) and some flawed execution (Brandon Moss!). The trouble is that, at the time, a lot of people looked at the situation and said, this team won’t lose more than ~95 games (in August of 2009, I was mocked on this board for calling the team a 100-game loser).
The flaws in those teams were apparent – this wasn’t a playoff team going sour, and Pythag agreed that they were ~.350 teams. So I have a lot of trouble with hand-waving away those flaws and essentially saying, “superbad teams are flukes that always revert to merely bad .450 teams, and therefore nothing happened.” That presumption couldn’t have been more wrong in 2010, and so I don’t give it any credence in 2011.
Except that there’s all kinds of data that says you’re wrong. Teams at the extremes of performance tend to regress to the mean. The facts may not fit your world view, but they’re still facts.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
I don't understand you
You’re not even hand-waving the fact that the 62-win Pirates got 5 games worse. You’re literally pretending it doesn’t exist.
There’s a tendency, sure. Tendencies aren’t facts. Tendencies tell you what the facts are likely to be. But tendencies got their asses kicked pretty badly by the Pirates, especially in the NH era.
And this is just extraordinary:
The facts may not fit your world view, but they’re still facts.OK, so your worldview is that a 99-loss team will see a 10-15 game improvement the next year, pretty much no matter what. What actually happened, here on planet Earth, in what I like to call reality, is that they lost 5 more games. So you simply pretend that a fact that doesn’t fit your worldview didn’t occur, and then claim that your worldview is fact-driven. It’s Orwellian. If they’d lost 100 games every year for a decade, then won 72 in the eleventh year, you’d claim to have been proven fucking right.
And I want to remind you: Vlad and Charlie (and for all I know, you – I don’t recall if you were in on these particular discussions) used this exact same logic to “prove” that the 2009 team would never lose 100 and that the 2010 team would never lose 100 either. Exactly same, proven wrong, and now acting as if vindicated by events. Sounds more faith-based than fact-based to me.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here, except that you seem to be creating some straw man where people are saying you can somehow “prove” what a team’s record will be in the coming year. I don’t know of anybody ever saying that here. But “tendencies” are facts, whether you like it or not. It’s a fact that a team that loses well over 100 games is much more likely than not to improve its record significantly the next year. And that makes it a good deal less than a significant achievement when it happens.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
Here's the point
It’s a fallacy to think that teams rebound due to some law of nature. Teams rebound for a variety of reasons; reversion to mean is one of them (a .333 team probably had some bad luck, and the odds are that they’ll have even, or even good, luck the next year), but that’s hardly the main reason.
Most terrible teams are rebuilding, and the 100-loss season tends to be the nadir of the process – all of the competent veterans have been traded, none of the high draft picks are ready, and there’s no reason to add talented/expensive FAs.
That perfectly describes the 2009 Pirates. So where was the 15-win rebound in 2010? It didn’t happen, and it needs analysis to figure out why. Were the wrong players retained or let go? Were bad new players brought in? Was there bad luck? Did prospects fail to arrive, or to achieve?
Then, once we’ve established that God doesn’t just give every 100-game loser an extra 15 wins in the following season, we realize that there’s also analysis to be done on what happened between 2010 and 2011. Was it primarily roster turnover? Did bad luck from ’10 get replaced by good luck in ’11? Did NH get better at aspects of his job?
None of those questions get asked if we just treat a 15-win gain as “a fact”. It’s not a given. People need to do their jobs to make it happen. And you can’t – or won’t – figure out if the jobs have been done if you just assume the wins will arrive, as surely as rain after a drought.
Maybe you mistook me to be saying that a 15-win improvement is amazing, when it’s actually common, and that’s what you’re arguing against. But that was never my claim, nor my point.
Assuming I can get a response past SBNation’s technical issues . . .
You’re undermining your own point here. You don’t get a magical 15-win improvement when you lose 105 games. As you yourself acknowledge, luck, both good and bad, is a big player. That many losses is so incredibly bad that it’s very likely that bad luck played a significant role, hence the high likelihood of significant improvement.
The 2010-11 Pirates are a good example, especially because the other possibilities you mention don’t hold up. The prospects arrived in 2010 and played very well, so that can’t be it. And NH’s performance hardly explains it. His most significant moves were Overbay, Correia and Diaz, which made things worse, not better. It almost certainly was more luck than anything else.
The fact that they had three terrible seasons in a row doesn’t change anything. It just shows atrocious management (whether you blame DL or NH) of such a degree as to defeat the laws of chance. It does not change the fact that teams that lose well over 100 games have a demonstrable tendency to win significantly more the following year.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
So are you saying
That every Pirates team from ‘09 to ’11 was equally likely to win 72, and equally likely to win 57? I’m not being facetious: that looks like what you’re saying in your middle paragraph.
I do understand that the human tendency is to create analysis/explanations/rationalizations for events that are actually chance. But if we don’t attempt to tease out causality from chance, then what the hell are we talking about the team for?
More or less, yes, as to your first question.
Think about all the guys NH acquired who didn’t work out. Andy, Milledge, etc, etc. I thought the majority wouldn’t, but I didn’t believe going in that things would be that bad. Could be incompetence was the operative factor, but when you run through that many guys who clearly have at least some talent, somebody should have come through.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
I agree with that aspect
If you asked me the #1 reason the 09/10 teams lost 99+, I’d say that it was the failures of all NH’s initial acquisitions to pan out. Andy provided some value in ‘09, and Karstens and Ohlie stabilized the rotation relative to ’07 and ’08, but they got close to zero total value from guys NH brought in (excepting the bullpen, which became a strength in ’10) until Tabata and Pedro arrived in mid-10. I suppose Jones was an exception – without him, the ’09 team loses 100+ easily. He’s arguably the only true good luck we’ve had in the NH era – not even an upside guy working out, but a nobody providing value for 2.5 seasons now.
That said, I don’t actually think that, on a true talent basis, 2009=2010=2011. There was a lot of roster turnover, so it’s hard to define who, exactly, comprised the 09 and 10 teams, but the teams were pretty uniformly bad both years, so I’m not sure that matters. What Opening Day 2009 starters would you have preferred to see in the lineupª on April 1, 2011? Maybe Andy, maybe Jack, but I don’t see anyone else, do you? Same deal with the starting rotation and the bullpen. And the same can be said of Opening Day 2010 – there’s no one you’d pick over the 2011 group.
Which is why I’m so resistant to your “2011 was 100% regression” thesis. If it was the same 25 guys winning 72 after winning 62 and 57, I’d say sure, regression. But it was a group of manifestly more talented players winning 72. That’s a weird thing to ascribe to chance/distribution.
ª arriving by time travel – I’m not talking about aging
I’m not saying 2011 was 100% regression, because there’s no way to be sure of that. I’m saying it’s very likely regression was a substantial component in it, so I don’t regard 2011 as a big feather in NH’s cap.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
That I agree with 100%
I’ve never viewed 2011 as being primarily about NH’s success. I mean, he found some better players (Morton, J-Mac), but a lot of the wins came from players he inherited, and he made several signings that were, at best, unhelpful.
unfair
“(should have been 100, there was a rainout)”
The Pirates were up 3-0 after three innings in that game, which — OK, I’m not quite nerdy enough to calculate their win probability at that point, but it was pretty high.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
OK
But we were a .350 team playing a .460 team in their home field. I’d call odds even at best.
Did you really remember that off the top of your head? Because that’s kind of sick.
Had to look up the score, but remembered the Pirates were winning.
The Cubs were a lot better than that in 2009, and the Pirates a little better — I think you have the 2010 standings. But the Cubs were starting Jeff Samardzija, so I think it evens out.
(Aside: It annoys me when people call guys like Rzepczynski or Szczur “Scrabble.” There’s only one z in Scrabble! Samardzija would be a better play, and if you’re going to blow your blank on a z you should play Vazquez.)
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, right
I couldn’t figure out why the records were so close, because that was part of my memory – that the Cubs were a significantly better team, which made the odds excellent that the Pirates would have lost that 100th game.
I’ll try to remember your Scrabble advice.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
sorry
i thought you were accusing angus of being bfd, ya know smizicks rhm.
by karreemofwheat on Jan 14, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
in the WL column did we improve or not?
We did. But we were talking about replacing Duke with Correia, and that particular decision didn’t help us improve at all.
You might as well say that the Overbay signing was a good move in retrospect, because the team played better.
as far as i know, MLB is a team game
the wins and losses are a team stat, yet sabre puts it entirely on the players. i can understand it to a point, but sabre people think sports are 100% stats, but they are not.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
the wins and losses are a team stat, yet sabre puts it entirely on the players.
Yes. We’re fortunate that baseball, unlike football or soccer, say, has a series of discrete events that are fairly easily separated into individual players’ responsibility.
sabre people think sports are 100% stats
Wins and losses are stats, just like WAR. You aren’t arguing against stats – stats are nothing but the record of what happened in the games. You’re just arguing against stats that you don’t like, because you don’t agree with the conclusions that they suggest.
by Vlad on Jan 11, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This:
We’re fortunate that baseball, unlike football or soccer, say, has a series of discrete events that are fairly easily separated into individual players’ responsibility.
Is one of the many reasons I love baseball.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
no way
1. i believe most metrics are a waste of time. you dont need WAR to know that Kemp had the best statistic season in the game.
2. i actually like some stats, and some are fairly “new”, like WHIP. Why? Cuz its basic and makes sense and actually is useful. Plus its a combo of 2 established stats and not something opinionated like UZR
3. im not against stats, i just dont base everything in the godamn game on them. a player is not useless if hes replacement level, for instance. if so, he wouldnt have a job.
4. stats are what we all looked at when we were kids. batting average, era, K’s, slugging, etc…
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH STATS!!!
my problem is that stat guys totally base a players value on them, which is completely wrong. it doesnt really matter what the sabre guys think about maholm’s value when the real world proved that it was, indeed, less than the average starter. i dont need a metric for that. just watch him pitch. just watch anyone of our players and you could tell the value of his performance.
sucked in again, dangit!!!
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
you dont need WAR to know that Kemp had the best statistic season in the game.
No, but something like WAR can help you understand exactly how good Kemp’s season was. Or make an accurate comparison between good (but very different) seasons put up by different types of players, like Kemp’s 2011 and Justin Verlander’s.
i actually like some stats, and some are fairly "new", like WHIP. Why? Cuz its basic and makes sense and actually is useful. Plus its a combo of 2 established stats and not something opinionated like UZR
The “W” in WHIP stands for walks, and what’s more opinion-based than ball and strike calls?
a player is not useless if hes replacement level, for instance. if so, he wouldnt have a job.
Replacement-level talents should have jobs. Specifically, they should have jobs commensurate to their abilities: at AAA.
just watch anyone of our players and you could tell the value of his performance.
Evidently not, or you wouldn’t be fighting the idea that Maholm is a mid-rotation starter who was hurt by his defense. If it were just as easy as “watching the games”, no two fans would ever disagree about anything.
by Vlad on Jan 11, 2012 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i said best season in 7 years, and you made it sound like i was settling for that improvement
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
I said that the “best season in 7 years” wasn’t a particularly impressive accomplishment, given what we did in those other six years. Which it isn’t.
why not?
pretty good for a team predicted to finish last by almost every baseball writer/outlet on the planet!
booyahhhh!!!!!
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
Well played
But be fair: after 99 and 105 losses, 90 really isn’t that bad.
What’s bad is saying that 90 (or 87) losses in 2012 is also not bad. IMO, gaining another 10 wins in 2012 should have been an affirmative (if internal) goal. Not because 10 + 72 = 82, but because we need to make up ground rapidly, and 10 more wins in 2012 was (probably) within our grasp without mortgaging the future. Take 82 wins in 2012, and then add Marte, Sanchez, and Cole (and Locke/McPherson/whoever) in 2013, and you’ve got a contender. Add them to 75 wins, and you’ve got an also-ran.
and
pre July Correia was pretty good. Who’s to say he can’t do it again?
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
His entire career in MLB? He doesn’t have the stamina to succeed in a ML rotation for a full season.
maybe they plan on
a half season of Correia plus a half season of someone from AAA (they expect at least one to be ready?)
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
maybe they plan on a half season of Correia plus a half season of someone from AAA (they expect at least one to be ready?)
Correia doesn’t magically pitch better in the first half every year. That just happens to be the way he did it in 2011. If they plan on getting a half-season out of him, then odds are that they’ll get a half season of replacement-level performance.
this is true
i was responding to the thought (without checking) that your point about his stamina led to a downgrade in the second half as opposed to the first.
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
Angus:
At what point do you think we will have enough information to analyze the approach the FO has taken? At what point is is safe to surmise – without risk of getting the same shitty, hollow response from you – that since the Bucs repeatedly do not make and are not mentioned in rumors of acquisitions of a certain type that they are not interested in making that type of move?
Just ask’n.
Good day?
Angus’ arguments remind me of a development plan that went through abou ten years ago to put a huge mall in the congested, densely populated neighborhood where I live. The residents naturally were irate abou the traffic impact, among other things. So the developers bought a few local politicians/scumbags, who told people, “it’s too soon to worry about traffic. The traffic study hasn’t been done yet. We can address traffic solutions then.”
So eventually the traffic study gets done and, of course, it concludes that every key intersection, all of which were already graded “F” for congestion, would become much worse. The answer from the shills? “Oh well, it’s too far in the process to make any changes. People will get used to it.” Luckily the whole project died from foolishness before building started.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
by WTM on Jan 11, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
im not going to stop anyone from analyzing anthing or anyones job that they are doing
but at least I wont belittle others by saying their comments are shitty.
im not on here to call people names or make snide remarks about them personally, which aparently not all of you agree with.
speaking of agreeing with, why is it important for me to agree with what you/they are saying? this post is buzzing today because people like myself got it going!!!
indeed!
some really take it personally that someone disagrees with something they said. why does it matter that I think Maholm is not an average pitcher? why should it matter to, for example Vlad, that I think metrics are for the most part useless?
its nothing personal so keep the personal remarks to yourself unless youre man enough to do it face to face.
that is all?
im all for a good arguement on here
so dont get me wrong, its fun to debate, but sometimes we need to just let it go
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
I don’t see those as upgrades, not when you take age, injury risk, and the likely effect of PNC on Barmes and Barajas into account.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
you may be right
but its at least even odds, in my view
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
Which is another way of saying they’re really just treading water here.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
no
there are many other things that could be going on here:
— maybe the FO believes Correia could deliver a half season as strong as Maholm. Then he could be moved into relief, and his spot taken over by one of Locke/McPherson/Owens/Wilson.
—maybe they still have trades they are working on.
— maybe they expect Barmes and Barajas and Bedard to be worth a full win over their replacement (this is asking for things to go right on the injury front, but aside from that, it’s fairly realistic)
—maybe they still expect to get Pena/Lee, and even if not, expect McGehee to be able to deliver 2WAR from 1B/3B?
—maybe they expect Pedro will have an OK season (2WAR)
that’s about 7 wins over 2011
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
easy people
but yeah WTM – there’s no way to know what their plan is
Bedard should be > Maholm and is same cost. Maybe that was their plan there
Bedard is better than Maholm...when healthy
Problem here is that Maholm hasn’t gone less than 176 innings since he started full time in 2006 with the exception of last year….and that injury required no surgery.
Meanwhile Bedard has spent about as much time flat on his back on an operating table as he has standing on a pitcher’s mound.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
My guess...
…is that, with the exception of trades and getting Pena/Lee, you’ve pretty much nailed the front office’s thinking.
The problem here is that it involves a lot of praying, throwing coins into wishing wells and carving ceremonial protection runes around PNC Park.
Yes, Correia could put up .5-1 WAR, The 3 B’s could stay healthy and productive, Pedro snaps out of his funk and McGehee/Jones surprises everyone as an effective 1B platoon…but it requires a LOT of hope, fairy dust and wishful thinking to see all those things working out.
About the only player I have faith in to live up to expectations is Barmes. And Barajas, too, I suppose, but more by default than anything else.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
right
so lets take your last para, and add mine.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Barmes outperformed Cedeno by a full WAR, and Barajas plus backups produced 2011 C performance. Bedard, if he survives a half season, should put up Maholm’s annual production.
The rest of the things are the kind of projections that low budget teams have to make. Is it so unrealistic to think that their scouts believe Casey McGehee could be a 2WAR player at true value, esp when used wisely? Is it too unrealistic to think that they feel/expect Pedro will make adjustments enough to be an average ML player? That one of the pitchers at Indy could provide Maholm value for a half season?
That’s essentiallymy idea of what the fo is thinking, and while there is some wishcasting, it seems like the kind of wishcasting that teams like the Pirates would be doing (e.g. Pedro being league average wouldnt have sounded strange to anyone last offseason, would it?)
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I will say...
…that the Pirates have pretty much been reduced to a situation wherein, as you say, a hopeful season forecast comes via a lot of wishcasting.
As it relates to Paul Maholm, my problem here is that Maholm was a pretty known quantity who, as it turns out, could’ve been had at a reasonable rate. Instead, one more question mark was added to a rotation already full of them.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
the way i feel about the known quantity part is
if you know what the quantity is and that is a 2WAR innings eater, then its worth the cost of risking those 2 WAR to see if someone might turn a corner given more PT, that could pr9ovide higher value in 2 years time (Lincoln/Owens, whatever)
by BurgherKing on Jan 12, 2012 12:29 AM EST up reply actions
depends on what its the plan for
its not the plan to contention, but it could well be a plan to outperform 2011 while waiting on the imp prospects making their way up…
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Ideally, a plan should be based on assumptions that are likely to be true.
Those are not. Ergo, it’s not a good plan.
i disagree
[ A ] You didnt really suggest what they are planning for— I expect that the best case they are looking at is .500, and the worst, 2011. In that light, my expected result for this roster is slightly over 2011 performance.
[ B ] I’d argue McGehee might well provide 2 WAR, based purely off an improvement in BABIP
[ C ] I don’t know why you think none of the AAA pitchers will be ready to contribute in 2012, but it seems entirely possible to me that that’s likely to be true.
[ D ] I expect SS and 0.5 season of Bedard + 0.5 season of replacement to outperform SS, 2011 and Maholm.
Ergo, it seems plenty of those assumptions are at least as likely to be true as to not be true.
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
It’s likely that one or more of the assumptions will be true. It’s unlikely that all of them will be. And we need for all of them to be likely to be true for a plan that relies on all of them to be considered a viable plan.
What this all adds up to is a “plan” to try to luck into a 2-3 game improvement while waIting for a wave. Seems llike treading water to me.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
an improvement from Cutch, Pedro, Tabs and Walker
would get those extra wins you mention all by themselves. Even if the newly aquired players all equal the ones departed, which is wrong because McGehee replaced no one, the team “should be” improved over 2011
Assuming that nobody else declines, or gets hurt unexpectedly.
by Vlad on Jan 11, 2012 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Damnit, Vlad...
What could possibly go wrong? I can’t think of a single scenario whereby everything doesn’t go exactly as planned by the above posters. Among other things, I think we can rule out injuries since the team has trainers. If something – by chance – were to go wrong I’m sure that the team’s winning heritage will smooth out any bumps in the road.
Please relax. This team will realize it’s reasonable ceiling and just miss winning the weakest division in baseball after injuries and unexpected poor performance ravage everybody else. If history has taught us anything, there is no reason to be skeptical about the Pirates.
Good day.
cute
but isnt it funny they we just come to expect nothing will go our way. While many argue things will go wrong, players wont reach certain skill levels, milestones, etc, whats not to say things can’t go right?
it happened the first half of 2011, with more experience and skill, and yes some good luck again, we can be a much improved team.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
You need to plan as though nothing’s going to go your way, because then you’re prepared no matter what DOES actually go wrong.
yes of course, plan for the worst, hope for the best.
unfortunately i think we just always expect the worst here and nothing more.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
i think we thrive on the worst
the blogs were downright stagnant when the pirates were in first place. too much joy in one place.
What I think a lot of people here are forgetting is that Dave Littlefield’s theory of team building was that you try to improve a little bit each year. He aimed at marginal upgrades every winter and pretty quickly started going backward. You can’t succeed, or even improve usually, by aiming at 75 wins. The basket-case teams that turn things around tend to do it all of a sudden, not 2-3 games a year.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
were not at the point yet
where we can somewhat even see this team coming out of nowhere to be a contender all of a sudden…thats the point.
they are in fact waiting on Cole, Taillon, Marte, Sanchez etc. And I agree with them (FO) that this should be the plan. We can’t turn this around without front line starting and were not going to get any of that in FA, so until we get Cole and Taillon, were not going too far anyways
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
i didnt say the season was lost. to throw in the towel. do i think this team is a contender? NO. do i think this team can improve on last season? ABSOLUTELY.
i think were all realistic here and to think that this team can improve upon 72 wins is certainly in the fold. I have them at 76 wins this year with the roster they have now
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
I’ve only skimmed the above conversation so far, but one of the key things here is that baseball players tend to decline in value as assets. They might improve for a few years once drafted, and if you’re very lucky, they’ll improve for seven or eight years. After that, they tend to enter a sort of stairstep of decline. That’s the pattern most major leaguers are in at any given time. That’s why it’s hard to improve much by making what appear to be marginal upgrades – you probably haven’t done enough to offset the natural decline of the rest of your roster. Not to mention the fact that the new acquisitions, who tend to be older, are likely declining themselves.
This is probably a very sad way of looking at things, but when you think about the hundreds of rookies making their debuts each year, and the fact that they’re all replacing someone else, it’s clear that all of MLB is constantly upgrading itself, because its assets are in a perpetual state of decline.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 11, 2012 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
This is probably a very sad way of looking at things…when you think about the hundreds of rookies making their debuts each year
The minor league transaction log is a very grim place at the end of spring training (and again in the week or two immediately following the draft).
Only a finite number of jobs out there, and for every fresh-faced kid who signs his first contract, someone else’s baseball dream is coming to an end.
Not to mention the fact that the new acquisitions, who tend to be older, are likely declining themselves.
This, of course, is a major issue with Barajas and Bedard, partly since they’re both injury-prone, and also an issue with Barmes. The consistent assumption I’m seeing is that these guys can be expected to continue to produce at 2011 levels, which is a very poor assumption.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
This seems like a weird argument
implicitly in favor of having kept Maholm and Cedeno. Right? Am I missing something?
I mean, I get what you’re arguing against – that a couple marginal wins plus player development will equal lots of wins – but I don’t see any non-fatalistic conclusion to draw from your overall statement.
oooh, such cute snark
i mean, i never alluded to the fact that there may be more AAA depth this year than before that might help us deal with the injuries better than last year?
And, of course, I claimed that “realizing it’s reasonable ceiling” will lead to nearly winning the “weakest division”.
But, oh, when there’s reasonable arguments for a point of view, let’s just respond in broad strokes and snark. Suit yourself.
by BurgherKing on Jan 12, 2012 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
I'd classify Nate's post...
…as more sarcasm, than snark.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 12, 2012 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
which i understand
but you cant get it through your head that not everyone agrees with you.
hell, im used to it!!! hahaaaaa
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
maybe the FO sees Lincoln/Locke/Owens as first options in case Correia struggles again.
I could buy Lincoln in the rotation, but neither Locke nor Owens is ready yet. And if we use Lincoln right off the bat, that puts us on Martis as a SP in the event that Morton’s not ready to go, or Karstens turns back into the pre-2011 Karstens, etc.
I like Martis, but I like him more as a pleasant surprise if he performs well than as an integral piece of the plan right up front.
unless Locke or Owens takes off in AAA.
both are on the 40 man, Martis is not.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
unless Locke or Owens takes off in AAA.
Both could improve in the future, of course, but as of right now neither one is ready.
you think Martis would jump over them?
i think not.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
and i know Locke isnt ready, or he wasnt last season.
doesnt mean he and/or owens cant come through.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
It's not a matter of him "jumping over" anybody.
Martis is ready to deliver a respectable performance in a ML rotation, if necessary, at the start of the season, and Locke and Owens are not. If Morton’s not healthy this spring, we aren’t going to need to replace him in late July after Locke and/or Owens have hypothetically proven themselves – we’re going to need to do it right away.
so if an injury doesnt happen, whom gets bumped for Martis on the 40/25?
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
whom gets bumped for Martis on the 40/25?
My guess would be Harrison, as scouts don’t love him, McGehee does basically the same job, and we have other AAA IFs on the 40-man if we need one.
pitching Vlad, pitching
whom gets the bump if NO injuries are reported? do we DFA correia in april? that aint gonna happen
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
whom gets the bump if NO injuries are reported?
Since the scenario we were discussing is one where Morton started the year on the DL and Lincoln deservedly displaced Correia in spring training, I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at here.
by Vlad on Jan 11, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
im talking about Martis making some starts, Vlad
Lincoln has first shot, we all know this, and probably for Morton if hes not ready.
but since correia stinks so badly, do we go ahead and drop him and give martis a shot?
before you answer, take out your spite for correia and remember that he is owed $4MM. do you DFA him quickly or do you ride him for a while?
i already know your answer, but go ahead
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
but since correia stinks so badly, do we go ahead and drop him and give martis a shot?
Under the scenario we were discussing, we already got rid of Correia. That’s how Lincoln made it into the rotation.
You have to figure that Correia probably clears waivers, given his salary and crappy production the last two years. If so, choosing between him and Martis for a Bedard/Morton injury replacement becomes a much fairer fight, since neither one’s on the 40-man at that point.
I'm still confused
how you see Martis getting any starts. If the season started today and Morton is DL’d, wouldn’t the rotation be Bedard, J-Mac, Karstens, Lincoln, Correia? When Morton comes back, one of those back three would be bumped from the rotation. The depth for the rotation would come from the bumped starter, Owens, Locke, and McPherson…and maybe Vincente Padilla (ugh).
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
because Martis was a signing that he approved of, maybe?
even though I think alot would have to happen for him to be put on the 40man
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I’m still confused how you see Martis getting any starts
Timeline works like this:
*Lincoln beats out Correia for 5th starter’s job, Correia gets bumped off 40-man roster (because he’s out of options and isn’t good enough to have a bullpen spot).
*Morton isn’t ready for the start of the year OR Bedard injures himself
*The Morton/Bedard SP slot goes to Martis, because he’s the best rotation candidate who’s ML-ready
Lincoln isnt in competition for Correia's job though
we have to wait for Correia to lose it. By the time this happens, IF it happens, Locke/Owens may get the first look IF they are pitching well in AAA.
Martis? i can see why you say he’ll get an early shot. youve been relatively high on him since he signed
Lincoln isnt in competition for Correia’s job though
In a fair world, he would be, because he’s a better player. I agree that the FO will probably just hand the job to Correia for another year, though, unfortunately.
I think Lincoln can win it
He needs to pitch to his ceiling, but NH has been willing to cut bait before. If Correia looks like, well, Correia, and Lincoln is pitching his best, he may force his way into the rotation.
Ideally it would be an open competition (hell, with Martis included), even if those are mostly bogus.
nitpick
If Morton isn’t ready for the start of the year, wouldn’t they just keep Correia on in his spot till he comes back?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
If Morton isn’t ready for the start of the year, wouldn’t they just keep Correia on in his spot till he comes back?
Due to the way the schedule breaks out, we only need a fifth starter a couple of times in March/April. Thus, there’s less incentive not to make a move, if Lincoln substantially outplays Correia.
Since
they’d have to pay Correia even if they cut him, I still see no reason to keep Martis over Correia (or Lincoln depending on who you see winning that ST battle) unless you believe that Martis is the better pitcher than KC. That seems like setting the bar awfully high for a guy that spent all of last year in AA and hasn’t pitched in the bigs since 2009.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
If by some grace of the baseball Gods...
Lincoln or Locke, or Owens, or Tom, Dick, and Harry force their way into the rotation, I think Neal would be more inclined to make Correia a long reliever/spot starter versus outrighting him.
D.Cutch has an option, and Correia could handle that job. Remember, cutting SP is dumb, even if they are replacement level.
This is a team that Burress and Aaron Thompson started for not so long ago, and if 2011 taught us anything it’s that we need as much depth as humanly possible.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
-Earl Weaver
*Burres
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
-Earl Weaver
This is a team that Burress and Aaron Thompson started for not so long ago, and if 2011 taught us anything it’s that we need as much depth as humanly possible.
Only because Huntington was lax and sloppy when bringing in minor league free agents. The lesson to be learned from the past isn’t that you need to hang onto every possible SP arm, no matter how marginal. It’s that a stitch in time saves nine: Get a few decent NRIs up-front like Martis, and you don’t need to scramble and throw shit at the wall later.
I still see no reason to keep Martis over Correia (or Lincoln depending on who you see winning that ST battle) unless you believe that Martis is the better pitcher than KC
You would be keeping Lincoln over Correia because Lincoln is a significantly better player then Correia. And once Correia’s lost that particular battle, he’s off the 40-man, and you can pick the best available SP from the system the next time you need one, rather than turning to Correia just because he’s convenient.
If we need that extra starter early, it’s likely to be Martis. If we need him later, it’s more likely to be whichever of the upper-minors SPs performs best in the first half of the year.
syntactic ambiguity again
When KP said “I still see no reason to keep Martis over Correia (or Lincoln depending on who you see winning that ST battle)”, it didn’t mean “keep Martis (or Lincoln) over Correia,” it meant “keep Martis over (Lincoln or) Correia” — if Correia wins the fifth starter battle, we’d keep Lincoln instead of giving his spot to Martis.
Anyway, I think KP and Nate W. are right; if Lincoln gets the fifth-starter job, use Correia as the swingman (spot starter till Morton returns) unless you think Martis is better right now. As you yourself said, you should hang on to every SP arm, and it’s not like Correia is JVB out there. Are we going to have such a screaming need for a spot on the 25-man that we have to DFA Correia?
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 12, 2012 9:39 AM EST up reply actions
As you yourself said, you should hang on to every SP arm…
No, I didn’t. I said the opposite, in fact: that having sufficient NRI depth gives you the option of cutting dead weight when the opportunity presents itself.
Are we going to have such a screaming need for a spot on the 25-man that we have to DFA Correia?
I would like to see at least some effort toward putting the best 25 players on the season-opening roster. If that sets me apart from the rest of the board, so be it.
You misread
Vlad specifically said that the lesson isn’t that you need to hang onto every possibly SP arm. [on preview: slow down, Vlad!]
I have no brief either way for Martis, so I have no strong opinion about him vs. Correia. Correia’s a sunk cost, and depending on what happens to him after a DFA, he could be cheaper for the Pirates than Martisª, but that’s kind of moot; it’s entirely about who’s likely to be better in 2012 plus a dash of likely value beyond that.
ª $4M goes to Correia regardless of whether he throws a pitch for us; we only pay Martis $450k if he does pitch for us. But if I’m not mistaken, our $4M gets reduced by $450k if he pitches for someone else, so…. Anyway, $450k either way shouldn’t factor into the decision
Getting back into the swing of Pirates things
And it’s good to see you still completely deferential to everyone in an authority position, white angus. It’s like coming home.
Please just remember that Dave Littlefield used to the be the Pirates GM, until he wasn’t.
glad to have you back
and its called “getting a blog going”…
i could care less if NH keeps his job, or if Maholm was offered a contract or not.
would you go on a blog where everyone agreed with everyone??? thats not a blog,
thats a church.
if anyone is offended by anything I say, tough noogies. I dont insult anyone on here so i dont see a problem with what im posting.
if you guys want a boring blog where everyone thinks Correia stinks and you can pat yourselves on the back because you predicted Maholm would not get paid $9MM, then thats fine with me.
wait, that last one was me.
(patting myself on the back with a shit eating grin)
On the other hand
Nothing new is brought to the blog by having the same arguments over and over again. Not saying that this particularly is one of those instances, but they seem to happen fairly often on here.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
yep, and im part of the reason for this.
but what else are we going to argue about? the parrot wearing dreads is racist? is mckenry’s thighs bigger than Hurdle’s gut???
I don’t see why you think it’s so clear. They have the payroll space for more than that, and there have consistently been rumors of their interest in guys who would require MLB deals (Chen, Maholm, Lee, Francis, Cespedes). The only thing to suggest that they’re only interested in minor league deals from here on out is the blog post by DK, which may or may not end up being true.
I also don’t think this confirms anything about anything one way or another. We shouldn’t just take Maholm at his word. Maybe there was no firm contract offer, but it’s because every time the Pirates talked to Maholm he said “I’m not going to sign with you for less guaranteed money than the option you declined.” There are plenty of reasonable explanations for the Pirates not making an offer, and plenty of reasonable eplanations for Paulie to say they didn’t even if they did.
I don’t like that they didn’t bring back Maholm, but I wouldn’t be passing judgment on the offseason in early January. They just need to sign another innings eater for this to be the best offseason under NH (though that’s not saying much), and if they can somehow do that and convince Lee to resign, they’ll have done a pretty good job.
I think they'd have a better chance...
…of hiring a voodoo priest to bring back Zombie Honus Wagner than they do getting Lee to re-sign barring a DRASTIC overpay.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
by Raybin on Jan 11, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with that. To be clear, I don’t think letting Maholm go was a good idea, and I doubt they’ll be going into 2012 with a roster significantly better than the 2011 version. My only quibble here is that I don’t think it’s fair to say they’re not trying anymore, or that they’re content with “punting.” They made a mistake declining Maholm’s option, but that doesn’t mean they’re not trying to improve the team.
They made a mistake declining Maholm’s option, but that doesn’t mean they’re not trying to improve the team.
Disagree. He signed for half of what the option was worth, and to think any team could offer him a contract and bid his contract up, yet he still signs for half the money. Good deal FO.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Good deal FO.
And if he provides $9M or more in surplus value, as he has in each of the last three years, and his replacement does not?
how come no team values Maholm as $9MM, just a few pirates fans think this?
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
how come no team values Maholm as $9MM, just a few pirates fans think this?
A good question.
Perhaps they do value him that way, but thought (correctly, in the Cubs’ case) that they could get him signed for less than that?
or, more than likely, that maholm is overpriced in the eyes of some pirates fans
remember that this statement is coming from a guy who wanted the FO to bring maholm BACK… but im not going to lose any sleep that hes wearing blue pinstripes now.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
or, more than likely, that maholm is overpriced in the eyes of some pirates fans
He provided >2 WAR worth of value in each of the past three years. That’s a fact. It’s not open to dispute.
The only question is why teams would be willing to pay market price per marginal win for other players, and not Maholm.
its a fact only to sabre guys
when in reality, he just signed a deal for HALF that!
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
its a fact only to sabre guys
No, it’s a fact for everybody. You can run the numbers through the WAR formula yourself, if you believe that it was calculated incorrectly.
You aren’t disputing whether or not it’s a fact. You’re disputing whether or not WAR has value in evaluating players – which is a separate thing entirely.
The ~$4.5M per marginal win is an average. Some guys are going to be above that average, and some below it, because MLB isn’t a perfectly efficient market.
wilson betemit had a big year per sabre this past season...
better than ARod even. would you take him over ARod if payroll wasnt a problem???
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
wilson betemit had a big year per sabre this past season…better than ARod even. would you take him over ARod if payroll wasnt a problem???
Not sure what you mean by “per sabre”. By Fangraphs WAR, the metric we were discussing, A-Rod was worth 4.2 WAR last year, and Betemit was only worth 1.0, mostly due to his terrible glove. A-Rod had a slight edge in playing time, but even after accounting for that, he was clearly the better player of the two.
actually i was talking about OPS+, which i believe had betemit in the top 20 of infielders in the game
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Oh my goodness
Are you seriously disputing the usefulness of OPS+ right now? Wow.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
and no im not slamming OPS+
i asked a simple question about a metric that came out questionable. Is Betemit better than ARod?
Did Betemit have a better season?
Is Betemit actually more valuable than ARod?
OPS+ says ARod is declining fast, yet WAR has him far ahead of Betemit
OPS+
measures hitting only. If you say “Last year Betemit was a better hitter than AROD” then I agree. OPS+ says nothing of fielding, or base-running. When you use a metric incorrectly, of course you aren’t going to get the correct results.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Hitting only, and fairly poorly...
compared to pretty much every other modern offensive metric.
ARod was much better by better metrics (wOBA*/wRC+) and Betemit’s number was aided by being relatively protected from PAs v LHP. But he is a DAMN fine bat v. RHP.
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
WAR incorporates UZR, does it not?
if so, you know my answer will always be negative to it
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
not for pitchers
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
I dispute this
No, it’s a fact for everybody. You can run the numbers through the WAR formula yourself, if you believe that it was calculated incorrectly.
You aren’t disputing whether or not it’s a fact. You’re disputing whether or not WAR has value in evaluating players – which is a separate thing entirely.
as being “fact.” Maholm has not definitively been worth more than 2 WAR each of the past 3 seasons. In 2010, he was worth 0.4 bWAR and in 2009 he was worth 1.5 bWAR. I know that you are using the FanGraphs WAR calculation that does have Maholm at 2+ WAR but Baseball-Reference does not so it’s completely and totally untrue to say that “it’s a fact for everybody,” or that “it’s not open to dispute.” Those two statements just struck me as your trying to bully people into your position by ignoring another viewpoint that I’m sure you were aware was out there.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
I know that you are using the FanGraphs WAR calculation that does have Maholm at 2+ WAR but Baseball-Reference does not so it’s completely and totally untrue to say that "it’s a fact for everybody," or that "it’s not open to dispute."
Given that it’s obvious within context that I was talking about FanGraphs WAR, how is it open for dispute? The number is what it is.
Fangraphs WAR and B-R WAR are two separate metrics. They just happen to have similar names.
One of which...
uses some modern research to determine value (fWAR) and one of which ignores modern research to determine value (bWAR). I like things that don’t ignore new information.
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
As explained in depth below
Baseball-Reference doesn’t ignore modern research, it uses a different method (by trying to normalize for a pitcher’s team’s defense) to adjust the numbers than fWAR. Since I don’t think anybody has ever definitively proven that either is a more accurate calculation of how many wins a player is actually worth, you can’t just dismiss one as inaccurate.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
It uses RA.
It just tries to fix it. Using Total Zone, which is a GREAT tool for eras where you have no better information, and a far less interesting tool for modern eras. And it still does nothing to correct for sequencing, stranding, etc.
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Either way
You’re still talking about a statistic that is calculated using several other statistics that need to be calculated. Who is to say that fWAR doesn’t put too much importance on FIP? I’m not trying to say that one stat is good or another is bad. All I am saying is that these calculations were created, they aren’t just a running tally. I have never seen a study that definitively proves that either one is especially accurate or inaccurate. Both of them are tools that can be valuable when used in conjunction with other stats. Neither one is something that can be considered dispositive evidence of a player’s value.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Until players wear their WAR on their uniform...
I suppose there won’t be dispositive evidence, but I know what goes into fWAR and why (FIP and innings) and I know the (solid) rationale behind those things – I know likely skill component of strikeout and walk and home run rates – and I know what goes into bWAR (RA [which involves lots and lots of things with minimal year-to-year (i.e. skill) correlation like strand rate and BABIP] along with a correction using a defensive metric devised to be a stand-in when nothing better was available) and why (because RA isn’t a remotely fair measure and needs fixed).
I guess I don’t KNOW definitively, but I know which really smells like it tells me how well and for how long a pitcher did his job over the course of a season. I wouldn’t begin to call fWAR perfect or bWAR worthless. I’d rather have there be multiple WARs based on FIP, xFIP and SIERA as well, so depending on what I’m using it for I can pick the one I want, but since it’s imprecise anyway I can pretty easily say “you know, this guy’s SIERA is a bit better than the other numbers, which are in turn a bit better than his ERA, so I think he’s likely to be a bit more valuable than the WARs say he was.”
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It is open for dispute
because your belief that Fangraph’s WAR is better doesn’t invalidate baseball-reference’s WAR as a statistic. If somebody wanted to roughly calculate surplus value by using equating $5M to each additional WAR, they could use fWAR as you suggest or they could use bWAR. Just because you like one stat better, it doesn’t mean the other side is wrong.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
It is open for dispute because your belief that Fangraph’s WAR is better doesn’t invalidate baseball-reference’s WAR as a statistic
But if it is obviously clear from context that I was talking about fWAR, as you yourself admit, then your argument is nothing but petty semantics.
If I said “WAR is a good thing,” would you object on the grounds that the letters W-A-R can also stand for an armed conflict between nations, which leads to suffering and death for many of the participants? That makes about as much sense as your argument does.
Just because you like one stat better, it doesn’t mean the other side is wrong.
Even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that bWAR were the more appropriate metric to use in this situation (which it isn’t, but never mind that), Maholm’s fWAR total, the subject under discussion, would still be exactly what I said it was. Even if fWAR were the stupidest statistic in creation, right up there with GWRBI and Productive Outs, none of that would change. The number would continue to be what it is: An indisputable fact.
The "armed conflict" analogy
is absurd because not only is it clear that it is not being discussed here (as was the bWAR/fWAR difference) it also has no bearing on the discussion at all.
The issue here is not whether one stat is wrong or one stat is right. The issue is that you are using one of two possible calculations (WAR x $4.5/$5M =surplus value) and then dismissing the other perfectly legitimate calculation and saying that your conclusion can’t be disputed. Using 2010 as an example (and $5M/WAR for simplicity’s sake) Maholm’s “value” using bWAR would be only $2M, but if you used his fWAR it would be $10.5M. Since you were flatly saying that Maholm’s value was more than his $9M option and that it can’t be disputed, you were just ignoring the other calculation as if it doesn’t exist. Since it is quite apparent that teams have their own calculations for “internal value” it’s ridiculous for you to say that nobody could dispute your calculation (that you are perfectly justified in using since you prefer fWAR) by using another calculation that attempts to arrive at the same end.
At no point was I trying to argue that your calculation was wrong or that either version of WAR was more accurate. All I was ever contesting was your claim that Maholm produced at least $9M in surplus value each of the past three years. It’s possible that this was an unfair argument since I combined your statements from two nearby posts (that Maholm produced $9M in value AND that it can’t be disputed that he produced 2+ WAR) instead of statements in the same comment. However, since your claim that he was worth 9 mil only holds up if he does produce that much-a 0.4 WAR player isn’t worth $9M-I felt comfortable making that logical leap. While I have no problem agreeing that Maholm’s WAR is indisputable since it’s clear which version you were talking about, my contention remains that his value is absolutely not definitive.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 12, 2012 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
The “armed conflict” analogy is absurd because not only is it clear that it is not being discussed here (as was the bWAR/fWAR difference) it also has no bearing on the discussion at all.
Nor does bWAR. Nobody in this conversational thread was talking about bWAR until you yourself brought it up to deliberately muddy the water, for reasons that remain obscure.
Using 2010 as an example (and $5M/WAR for simplicity’s sake) Maholm’s "value" using bWAR would be only $2M…
No, it wouldn’t, because the exchange rate from dollars to bWAR isn’t ~$4.5M per marginal win. Which should be yet another clue that nobody in the discussion was talking about bWAR until you brought it up.
The issue is that you are using one of two possible calculations (WAR x $4.5/$5M =surplus value) and then dismissing the other perfectly legitimate calculation and saying that your conclusion can’t be disputed.
I’m not “dismissing” bWAR. I’m not talking about bWAR in this thread at all. Nobody here is talking about bWAR but you.
Well, I guess I am now, technically, but only because you brought it up, and then tried to hit me over the head with it.
Since it is quite apparent that teams have their own calculations for "internal value" it’s ridiculous for you to say that nobody could dispute your calculation
The formula for fWAR is the same for all teams (and indeed, all outside observers of any kind). Whether they believe in the value of fWAR or not. Whether they have the same methods of placing values on players or not. It. Is. The. Same. Formula. And. Therefore. Anyone. Putting. The. Same. Numbers. Into. That. Formula. Will. Get. The. Same. Result.
It’s possible that this was an unfair argument…
Gee, you think?
At this point
I don’t know if you’re ignoring what I’m saying intentionally or if I’m somehow being unclear but I’ll try one more time and them I’m just done.
I am not, in any way shape or form, trying to dispute the validity of fWAR or compare the relative values of fWAR and bWAR. I am also aware that you chose to focus on fWAR. I emphasize that it was a choice because even if you believe it to be the more accurate statistic, the use of that stat over bWAR is a choice as both are aimed at calculating a player’s value.
In debating the FO’s decision to decline Maholm’s option you said:
And if he provides $9M or more in surplus value, as he has in each of the last three years
Six minutes later, after white angus suggested that Maholm may be overpriced at $9M, you responded by saying:
He provided >2 WAR worth of value in each of the past three years. That’s a fact. It’s not open to dispute.
The only question is why teams would be willing to pay market price per marginal win for other players, and not Maholm.
Since you are wondering why Maholm couldn’t get “market price per marginal win” and since you mentioned that he was worth >2 (f)WAR each of the past three seasons, it is clear that you are trying to establish the average market value for Maholm by using ~$4.5M per marginal win. You go on to essentially set this as the way to calculate average market value 8 minutes later.
The ~$4.5M per marginal win is an average
I will say this one last time, I am NOT trying to say that you were using anything but fWAR or that you could have been misunderstood to have been using anything but fWAR. I’m also not trying to say that bWAR is better or more accurate.
What I am saying is that the impetus of this entire conversation was that you told angus that Maholm had produced $9M in surplus value each of the last three years. Then, six minutes after that initial comment, you justified that calculation by using Maholm’s fWAR and the market average of ~$4.5M per marginal win and said your conclusions were beyond dispute.
I was disputing the conclusions that you reached in those two, clearly related, comments. I was not trying to somehow debate whether or not fWAR exists or is valid or anything else. My only contention was that Maholm’s surplus value (which can’t be perfectly calculated anyway) is not definitive and that the numbers vary so wildly based on which WAR calculation that somebody uses, his deal with the Cubs could be an overpay (if one is using his ’10 bWAR) or a discount (using fWAR).
As I admitted above, maybe it was somehow unfair to look at two different comments you made and look at them as one. Given the proximity and the fact that you were speaking to the same person about the same point, I’m not really sure how. Maybe I was unclear in my earlier comments which is why you fought so hard against what I was trying to say. Hopefully this post was less ambiguous. If I was being clear, then I don’t see how any of your responses were anything other than what I put in my first message; your trying to bully somebody into your way of thinking by ignoring a side of the argument that you were obviously aware of.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 12, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know if you’re ignoring what I’m saying intentionally or if I’m somehow being unclear but I’ll try one more time and them I’m just done.
That’s funny, because I could ask you exactly the same question. If you knew I was talking about fWAR, as you already admitted, then this entire discussion is pointless. And yet you keep talking…
Then, six minutes after that initial comment, you justified that calculation by using Maholm’s fWAR and the market average of ~$4.5M per marginal win and said your conclusions were beyond dispute.
No, I didn’t. I said, and here’s a direct quote, “He provided >2 WAR worth of value in each of the past three years. That’s a fact. It’s not open to dispute.” By fWAR, the system you have admitted it was obvious within context that I was using, Maholm did “provide >2 WAR worth of value in each of the past three years”. As such, it’s a verifiable fact, just as I said.
If you want to argue with something totally different, which I did not say, specifically that I “justified that calculation by using Maholm’s fWAR and the market average of ~$4.5M per marginal win and said your conclusions were beyond dispute,” then you can damn well do that without my participation, just as you did when you made that opinion up out of whole cloth in the first place.
My only contention was that Maholm’s surplus value (which can’t be perfectly calculated anyway) is not definitive and that the numbers vary so wildly based on which WAR calculation that somebody uses, his deal with the Cubs could be an overpay (if one is using his ’10 bWAR) or a discount (using fWAR).
Which is something I had already implicitly acknowledged when I said to Angus (prior to your involvement in the discussion), “You aren’t disputing whether or not it’s a fact. You’re disputing whether or not WAR has value in evaluating players – which is a separate thing entirely.” Angus doesn’t accept fWAR as a legitimate means of assessing a player’s contribution, which is the source of his disagreement with me on Maholm’s value.
So why did you have to subsequently drag bWAR into it?
As I admitted above, maybe it was somehow unfair to look at two different comments you made and look at them as one.
For the record, and for your future edification: If I say that Thing A is beyond dispute, and elsewhere on the page say that I believe that Thing B is true, it does not therefore follow that I believe that Thing B is also beyond dispute. If I wanted to say that Thing B was beyond dispute, I would INDICATE THAT BY SAYING THAT THING B IS BEYOND DISPUTE.
Of course, I would never say that $4.5M per marginal win (from fWAR) is beyond dispute. That’s a stupid position. It’s a moving average – it changes every year (almost always increasing). And since this year’s free agent season hasn’t even ended yet, having an actual beyond-dispute number for marginal wins on the 2011 FA market won’t be possible for at least several months. $4.5M was a conservative estimate based on the 2010 cost for marginal wins – and as an estimate (even an educated one), it is inherently open for dispute.
Criminy.
Fine
You’re right, I’m wrong and I bow down to your incontestable wisdom.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 12, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
For me, it’s not a matter of whether the option was more than market price or whatever. The crux of the matter is: would Maholm improve the team, and do they have space in the payroll. The answer to both questions is yes. Even if $9M is more than he’s worth, it’s only an overpay by a couple million, and he’s the best pitcher they could sign for that price on a one-year deal. As I’ve said before, if they can sign Francis and Lee for that money, I’ll admit I was wrong. I just don’t see that happening at this point.
correction; its an overpay by $4.25 MM
Unless he pitches the way he always does, in which case it’s fair value.
LOL
I meant, “and you are the guy paying his salary?”
I see now that I should have been clearer.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 12, 2012 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
with me, you definately have to be.
and yes, im Bob Nutting. care for a mint?
by white angus on Jan 13, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks a lot.
Now you got me hungry for a mint. A pepermint patty, to be precise. And it’s snowing sideways, out there. I’m not going out in that just for a g.d. peppermint patty. So, I guess it’s a craving that will go unfulfilled, for now.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 13, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
As a Pirates' fan,
you should be used to this sort of thing by now, I would think…
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 13, 2012 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
says the guy not paying his salary
If you get $9M worth of product in exchange for $9M worth of salary, that is, by definition, fair value.
except maholm isnt worth $9MM
he was on sale for 1/2 off. hopefully he doesnt end up in the clearance bin with zach duke
except maholm isnt worth $9MM
His production was. For Maholm to be worth less than that next year, you need to assume a substantial dropoff from the relatively constant results he’s achieved throughout his career.
Which is certainly possible, but not (if I’m understanding you correctly) the argument that you’re trying to make.
your right, its not the argument i am making
im saying he never WAS worth the $9MM.
but remember i have said in the recent weeks that $6-7MM felt more accurate for Maholm, at least for Bucs purposes.
the $4.75 is low, and this option year will only be picked up if he pitches well.
my point is this: MLB teams dont think Maholm is worth as much as the WAR/Sabre guys think.
by white angus on Jan 12, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
So let's get this straight.
Say there’s a guy who plays for the pitiful, much maligned, running-joke-for-nigh-on-2-decades Pirates. His final batting lines have been down for a few years now, but the SABR guys on bucsdugout are fascinated with him. Even non-SABR types will admit he does seem to hit the ball hard all the time – he just hits it AT people, and he’s been doing that for a couple years, so you can’t just pretend his low batting average doesn’t mean something! Another weird thing, though: on maddeningly frequent occasions he hits his high, deep fly balls on days with stiff, 20 mph breezes and they end up caught at the very base of the wall. His line drives find gloves ALL the time. Why, the SABR guys point out for a couple years running he hit a combined .550 on his line drives, while the league hits .750-ish. They say this isn’t sustainable. Disproportionate numbers of his gappers seem to be tracked down by the Carlos Gomezs of the world. Sure, his control of the strike zone is solid. But for a few years running he hits .250/.340./.420, say, and only posts 60-70 RBI.
He plays right field. The SABR guys say UZR says he’s easily above average, but conventional wisdom says his arm isn’t the greatest and he rarely makes the Web Gems.
SABR people insist: this dude is WAY better than that line. He’s getting terrible luck on balls in play.
Then, in 2011, his BABIP shoots up 45 points to .320, his HR/FB jumps up and he hits .295/.400/.510. But he only gets 85 RBIs, to boot, which is terrible if you’re hitting .295 with 33 jacks, isn’t it? He must not be clutch.
So the Pirates let him go – the weight of those low-BABIP driven career numbers and the fact that he’s 30 and the fact that they’re not going to contend makes them turn down his $13m option. The Cubs sign him for $9m with an option for $12m. He goes on to have a season that looks a lot more like his 2011 than his 2009-2010 by traditional numbers. Maybe his RBIs shoot to 125 because he hits behind two high OBP guys. I mean, because now he’s clutch.
But he was only “worth” $9m because that’s all the market said he was worth, right?
The sabr-devotees yammering on bucsdugout just weren’t in touch with the reality of market value. Batting average is clear: he wasn’t that good except for that one flukey 2011 year. How could anyone know he was more likely to post numbers in line with his career 22.3% LD rate than his .265 career BA?
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
Are you talking about
this guy?
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 11, 2012 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
posting that pic is cruel
" I think this is probably the best team ever assembled. They talk about the Vince Lombardi Era, but I think the Chuck Noll Era is even greater. " - Mel Blount
I could have used that one,
but was feeling all sunshine-y n’at.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 7:55 AM EST up reply actions
I don't follow how he's in any sense the sort of player
(valued by and projected to be better by SABR, crapped on by trad.)
by tobynotjason on Jan 12, 2012 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
also
using bWAR, his past 3 years are 1.5, .4 , 2.6
I would have to say only one of those seasons he was worth the 9M and he got injured so theres that to think about.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
using bWAR, his past 3 years are 1.5, .4 , 2.6
fWAR is better, because it accounts for defensive support, and our defense during Maholm’s time with the team has generally been very poor.
not a fan of fangraphs, i think bbref is easier to follow, personal opinion i suppose
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
not a fan of fangraphs, i think bbref is easier to follow, personal opinion i suppose
It is easier to follow – largely because it doesn’t include some of the additional adjustments that make the Fangraphs numbers more accurate.
fWAR isn’t necessarily more accurate. It’s just a different theoretical base. rWAR accounts for defense, too.
i do too
but i spell if with a capital F
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
This statement is the same as saying:
ERA is better for evaluating a pitcher’s performance than FIP.
Because bWAR uses ERA, with all the defense and luck that entails, and fWAR uses FIP.
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
bWAR also accounts for defensive support
although the way it does it is rather quixotic. To get extremely semantical, I think it’s more true to say that bWAR accounts for defensive support (since it compares runs given up to the number of runs a replacement pitcher would’ve given up with the same defense) while fWAR simply abstracts away from the defense (since it uses defense-independent statistics). bWAR takes defense-dependent stats and corrects for defensive support, fWAR just uses stats where defensive support doesn’t matter.
Maybe more relevant, I think bWAR usually gives lower values than fWAR, so the value per WAR should be higher than when you’re considering fWAR.
Anyway, on the main point, I’m very disappointed that the FO didn’t seem to try harder with Maholm.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But the corrections are per Total Zone, which is inferential...
and it’s still rooted in actual RA, so fundamentally it still seems way more luck-dependent than fWAR, which values a pitcher according to precisely the things he more-or-less controls.
by tobynotjason on Jan 11, 2012 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
They have the payroll space for more than that, and there have consistently been rumors of their interest in guys who would require MLB deals (Chen, Maholm, Lee, Francis, Cespedes).
Chen and Maholm have signed with other people, Lee isn’t interested in coming back, and there have been reports that we aren’t serious bidders on Cespedes given his reported price tag.
The fact that we were at one time willing to think about spending money on people who are no longer available to us does not in any way indicate that we’re currently willing to spend significant further money on the roster.
Well, Francis, Cespedes, and Lee are still available to us. Whether we can sign them or not is another matter. The point isn’t that we will sign someone else; it’s just that there’s not much evidence that we’re not interested in signing anyone else. In fact, there’s evidence to the contrary.
Well, Francis, Cespedes, and Lee are still available to us. Whether we can sign them or not is another matter.
If we aren’t able to sign them, then in what way are they “available” to us?
Not being able to get something
doesn’t mean it wasn’t available. If I go to buy a house and offer $150K, the seller says, ‘No I will only sell it for $200K’ and I decline in what way does that make it unavailable to me? The product (house, baseball player, whatever) was still available, but it was available at a price that I chose not to pay.
by KentuckyPirate on Jan 11, 2012 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
If I go to buy a house and offer $150K, the seller says, ‘No I will only sell it for $200K’ and I decline in what way does that make it unavailable to me?
The Lee situation is more properly analogous to offering to buy a house, and having the seller tell you they won’t sell it to you at any price, because they don’t like the cut of your jib.
Aye
Matey.
"Don Mossi was the complete five-tool ugly player. He could run ugly, hit ugly, throw ugly, field ugly and ugly for power.
Starting pitchers
I keep seeing more and more reports saying there are still a number of “established” starters on the market and the pool of teams who are still actively looking for pitchers like that is drying up. Maybe NH & co figure they can get a very good bargain by waiting it out. Let’s face it, the talent level of the “big name” guys still on the market is all pretty much in the same ballpark.
I am kinda baffled
that Jackson is still on the market. Fielder, too, for that matter.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
lots of low balling i guess
and no, not a starling castro joke
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
I think you are right
Teams are looking for bargains. Not sure that’s the real issue with Fielder. I think his problem is the demand for a 10 year deal. He just isn’t the physical specimen that Pujols is. I don’t Prince can hold up another 10 seasons.
Fielder wont get 10 years
if he gets 8, he should be falling over the food to sign…
by BurgherKing on Jan 11, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
fielder
also – seems to me like the market really isnt there for a 1B like him. Mariners? Nats? Those aren’t usually top tier destinations. I sincerely thought the ol’ Cubbies were gonna swoop in late and sign Fielder to a massive deal but that ain’t happenin.
Every other big FA market is already clogged at 1B
could be back to Milwaukee on a 1 year deal?
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
No way
There is no way he takes a 1 year deal. I think Boras would quit before he let that happen.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not saying it would be the wost idea for PF Flier to take a 1 year
It just won’t happen. I can’t imagine his vlaue getting higher, and it could easily nosedive with an injury. I would think something like a 8 year with a mutual option or opt our after 5 would save face for Boras, ans still give teams the flexibility to get out of a back-loaded contract.
I forsee something like the Vick contract fiasco. He signed a $100 million contract, but the last year (at $20 million) was voided if he played 35% of the snaps in any year. It was built to be voided, but Vick wanted to sign a $100 million contract. I think Fielder does something similar.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
I would just like to point out, for no particular reason, that the term is seppuku. At least in this sense. It has only even been seppuku in writing, which is the more formal term. Harakiri is a vulgarism used in colloquial speech.
by thecheeseisblue on Jan 12, 2012 12:59 AM EST up reply actions
Vulgarism?
I’ve always understood it to be a more commonly recognized ambiguation of seppuku; akin to 20th century hula dancing (or having to call my lumpia “egg rolls” for people to understand what they are). Most of my Japanese cultural knowledge comes from being raised Filipino-American and Criterion Colleciton films (Kobayashi in this case), so “lacking” is an accurate description. I also fail to grasp the Japanese (or Chinese, for that matter) written language and the subsequent nuances between written and spoken (I thought “harikiri” was basically a spoken version of “seppuku”?)
Either way: apologies if offended. Such was never my intention and any resulting offense is a direct result of my ignorance and neglect.
by SuperBaes on Jan 12, 2012 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Your apology, while sincere, is not enough.
Now you must commit suppukiri, or however it’s written/spoken.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 7:57 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Oh no, definitely did not offend. It was just more of a useless trivia fact of the day for everyone.
by thecheeseisblue on Jan 12, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
Scott Boras factor
He’s more than content to have his guys wait until late January to sign when teams start getting fidgety and are more willing to pay.
The Yankees need rotation help and have done squat. Suddenly it’s January 31st and Edwin Jackson is just sitting there and the only thing standing in the way is $15MM per. Seems a lot more reasonable all of a sudden if you’re Brian Cashman with an agitated fanbase & front office breathing down your neck.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
The team has made marginal improvements this offseason IMO. Nothing too great. The reason why I don’t have a serious issue with it is because no offseason additions (aside from Pujols, Reyes, etc) it turning this team into a contender this year. The best this team can hope for is that all the young guns improve upon there 2011 season. Namely Pedro. But we need McCutchen not to fall off the map in the second half and the likes of Tabata, Presley and Walker to also improve (while I don’t expect much improvement from those 3).
Without improvement from those guys, no FA signing is turning us into a “substantially better” team. Yes, we still need pitching, but to those of you who have said we have made lateral moves and have not upgraded, what type of signing of a “Maholm esq” pitcher would you say that is. Not an upgrade if you ask me. The offseason isn’t over yet, yes Maholm eats innings, but isn’t much more than replacement level to begin with, so I’m sure that Bedard and a combo of any other qualified pitcher can do better than that.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
plus like ive said in the past week, other teams in the central not named the Reds have "slipped" this offseason
that, IMO, is big for the bucs in 2012.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
right
we can possibly pick up a few wins just from those teams not making strides forward.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
and, fingers crossed, the young guys put it together like you have said repeatedly for weeks
they are the key to this team, not guys like correia or even maholm. having correia be average would be huge.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
yeah
which is why i dont understand how many can get their panties in a bunch over a replacement level pitcher who has no barring on the future of this team and won’t/shouldn’t be around 2013+
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
because they pretty much didnt want him in the first place
many on here thought the Correia signing was just as bad as the overbay. technically, it was worse because overbay was a last option but Correia was sought out by our GM.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
I was gearing that
more towards the Maholm tirade. But the pont still stands, Correia won’t be around either
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
I was gearing that more towards the Maholm tirade.
Then why did you describe him as a “replacement level pitcher”, which he isn’t?
If he actually were a replacement-level pitcher, nobody would have a problem with letting him go.
here we go, and this comes down to nuts and bolts. I use bWAR you dont. By bWAR Maholm has 11.1 WAR over 7 seasons or about 1.59 WAR/yr
Now correct me if I’m wrong but 2 WAR is replacement level, no? Thus, I can refer to him as a replacement level pitcher
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
sorry
checking my sources here, fangraphs helps me out this time, 2 WAR is average. My mistake.
Thus Maholm is at best, average
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
and thats AT his best... his "ceiling" is average, if you will
the fact that his ceiling is touching the button on his cap probably has alot to do with the fact that he signed so cheaply.
that and hes not worth the so called average starting pitchers salary
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Thus Maholm is at best, average
Yes, he is average. And an average SP is providing about $9M worth of surplus value, give or take a bit.
surplus value is not what he, or anyone like maholm, is getting
That doesn’t make any sense. What are you trying to say?
by Vlad on Jan 12, 2012 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
what are you trying to say?
youre determined to explain why you believe Maholm is worth the $9MM as an “average MLB pitcher” when his new contract proves he is not.
If the average MLB pitcher is worth $5MM, then you would be spot on.
what are you trying to say?
That in pretty much every year of his career, Maholm has provided run/win value equivalent to that of a mid-rotation starter, and that at current prices those number of runs/wins typically cost about $9M on the FA market.
If he got less than that in his contract, that just means that the Cubs got a bargain, for whatever reason. Runs are runs.
good grief
youre back on the WAR thing again.
the cubs signed maholm because he was affordable. why? because hes not that good a pitcher. his biggest asset was his ability to throw alot of innings. any team that signs him HAS to have a good defense because he doesnt have good stuff and he wont be getting any better.
if maholm truly had that value, he would have gotten more than that from someone. a LHP who eats innings should be more in demand, dontcha think?
and i thought maholm would get more than 4.75 too!!!
My $0.02
While I agree with Vlad about Maholm’s likely productivity, I don’t think we can ignore the market entirely. Yes, $5M/win is an average, and some guys will get paid less for whatever reason (being an ex-Pirate may be one of those reasons), but a salary half of what we consider to be his value suggests that our valuation may have been high. Doesn’t seem to me that a lot of guys without obvious risk/personality issues get undercut by 50%, so maybe the GMs see something we don’t.
Or maybe there’s collusion again.
because hes not that good a pitcher.
Your premise is flawed.
any team that signs him HAS to have a good defense…
Or an average defense. Or a defense that’s less below-average than ours has been throughout his career.
a LHP who eats innings should be more in demand, dontcha think?
In theory, yes. As such, the Cubs got a good deal. That happens in baseball sometimes.
"your premise is flawed"
are you trying to push buttons, vlad? I could easily say your opinion of your opinions are flawed. but do i? no.
and make no mistake, its just an opinon that you are stating.
by white angus on Jan 12, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Your habit of saying, “I could say X but I won’t” is . . . interesting. But I doubt it’s fooling anybody.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
its kinda true though
its all opinion based at this point. one think Maholm is worth X, while another thinks he is worth Y dollars. So calling one another opinions flawed is really doing nothing for the good.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Take your pick...
.
.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 13, 2012 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
The second one
fits this comment “Your habit of saying, "I could say X but I won’t" is . . . interesting”
Do you just utterly dismiss...
the value of groundballs?
by tobynotjason on Jan 12, 2012 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
That's incorrect
Replacement level is 0, (Wins above replacement)
You are thinking, I surmise, about average. An average player is a 2 WAR player.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
he shouldnt have said replacement level
thats an argument that no one can win
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
yes well, to me a replacement level player is in a sense “average”. If you are average at something, you are clearly replaceable
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
not easily
Average major leaguers don’t grown on trees. The idea behind a replacement level player is that he’s supposed to be someone who grows on trees — someone you can get on a NRI or a waiver-wire pickup or who is just sitting around in AAA.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
in theory, yes i get it
but these replacement level players are EVERYWHERE!!! if they had no value, then they would be gone the first time they were let go. they wouldnt keep popping up every spring on someones roster.
by white angus on Jan 11, 2012 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Somebody has to..
…be around to fill out AAA rosters and be injury callups. That’s the value of the replacement player.
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
also, being a replacement-level player still means you're very very good at baseball
Easy to lose sight of that sometimes. Replacement-level players are valuable to have at AAA, so you don’t find yourself having to play someone who really can’t hack it.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
but from the opinions of the majority on here, replacement level players have no business being on the field, even though they know its inevitable
but i also know that you cant settle for them either. thats why guys like Cedeno are gone. Thats why Pearce and Wood are gone. And Bowker.
But they all still have value.
That is a ridiculous strawman
and you know it. Everything to that effect mentioned on this board is in the context of Major League baseball. There was a 100 comment post on this a couple of months back. You always fall back to this and its bullsh!t. No one hates these people. No one thinks they are worthless. Seriously, how many times does this conversation need to be had before you stop bringing this up?
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
whats ridiculous is that youre getting bent out of shape over something you dont agree with
and yes, the next time someone talks smack about a particular pirate player, I will defend that player’s ability.
if you dont like it, go read Pineapplepete’s posts. he could use the hits.
and yes, the next time someone talks smack about a particular pirate player, I will defend that player’s ability.
Even if he has no more ability than a random AAA player.
You are intentionally taking things out of context
and over personalizing comments, then complaining about them.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
The platonic ideal of a replacement-level talent is the guy you’d bring in if you had a game in 12 hours and your starter just slipped on a banana peel and broke his leg. The best guy you could find if you had in your pocket a minimum-salary contract and a bus ticket to Pittsburgh.
FWIW
The trouble with this model – and I know that “platonic ideal” explicitly means “not real life” – is that a given org won’t actually have replacement level players at all positions, and they’re not always available for trade. Which results in an analytical undervaluing of replacement players.
Put it this way: if we’d acquired McKenry last winter, it would have been treated as essentially a worthless acquisition, because he’s replacement level (or close enough). But in reality, what we had on hand, not very far down the depth chart, was sub-replacement shun, and it took a couple weeks to find McKenry.
This was always part of my defense of Karstens – he appeared replacement level (or a touch above), but he was the replacement level player in the hand, not the replacement guy you assume is in the bush, in case someone gets hurt. There might be 20 guys just like Karstens floating around, but unless you have one of the other ones on the roster, they might as well not exist. We’ve seen many times in the NH era that apparently replacement level SPs often can’t even achieve 0.0 WAR, so I’m willing to set aside some budget to “overpay” roughly replacement level players to ensure we don’t end up with sub-replacement performance.
Actually, NoRelation might embody this, although FG says he’s been sub-replacement. He was a wreck in August, after the Meals game, so that might be unfair – for 5 months he was above replacement, and the other month he was pitching with a hunk of bruised meat (look at his K/BB in particular).
Put it this way: if we’d acquired McKenry last winter, it would have been treated as essentially a worthless acquisition, because he’s replacement level (or close enough).
Not by me, FWIW – I liked him at least a little, going back to his time with the Rockies.
I think he might have some more bat than he showed last year, too, though he’ll never be a big masher.
There might be 20 guys just like Karstens floating around, but unless you have one of the other ones on the roster, they might as well not exist.
There is absolutely no excuse for a MLB GM who’s been on the job for a decent amount of time not having at least two or three of those guys on hand at all times. None. The fact that Littlefield didn’t should be, in and of itself, a fireable offense.
Who replaces NH?
I’m not quite on the “Fire NH” bandwagon (though he’s looking more and more like the same bs we’ve seen for 20 years, just more polished). But it seems like every respected baseball guy absolutely shuns the Pirates… who is out there with the talent, experience, and cache to turn that around?
There's plently of room on the Fire NH bandwagon
Whenever you’re ready to jump on.
To answer your question, I think Paul DePodesta is the best available potential GM. I think he got a raw deal in LA. And he’s a known SARB-head, so most of this board should love him.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 12, 2012 2:50 AM EST up reply actions
I think Paul DePodesta is the best available potential GM
He’s probably in line to get the Mets’ job, if he wants it, once Alderson steps down after the inevitable bankruptcy and sale.
Why does no one like Alderson?
I remember hearing rumors that his hire in New York was to stem wraith from the commish’s office (couldn’t find anywhere I might have seen that in my 30-second Google search just now)… am I making that up?
I like the guy, but the “fanbase” is already unhappy with the spending level. I was worried the Coonelly hire was a bad omen for signings; Coonelly/Alderson would be an even stricter market value tandem (though I suppose overslot draft spending isn’t really much of an issue anymore).
I like Alderson just fine, but I’ve had the impression that he only took the Mets job as a favor to Bud, and that he’d just as soon go back into semi-retirement once they finish getting their house in order. He’s there to be Bud’s eyes and ears during the change of ownership, more or less.
On the merits, Alderson is of course very well qualified to be a GM.
He’s also 3 years older than Jack Zduriencik, who is currently (I think) the oldest GM in MLB.
Doesn’t matter to me; hire the old man if he can still do it. It’s not popular, though, and I’ve just been flattened by “Is he too young for this job?!?!?” by local Tampa people in regards to Rakeem Morris. Have we hit the tipping point of the hire-the-young-up-and-comer movement? Is the response to skew older?
NH is a known metrics guy
you think a different GM is going to make a difference? Theo Epstein wouldnt make a difference.
Honestly not sure if Theo would be a fit
His “game” is still based on haveing a large budget, and spending it wisely. Development and drafting under Theo have been ok, but not great. Someone like Andrew Friedman, OTOH, would be perfect.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 12, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
why Friedman?
he has benefited mostly from players whom were there before he was even hired. NH could have done the same thing if he inherited guys like Crawford, Shields, Kazmir while also taking advantage of having numerous #1 overall pics.
he took Tim Beckham, by the way.
by white angus on Jan 12, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Egads, stop this
You’ve said this before and it’s simply not true. The following guys were all drafted/signed/traded for by Friedman:
Jeremy Hellickson
Desmond Jennings
Matt Joyce
Evan Longoria
Matt Moore
David Price
Ben Zobrist
Jose Tabata is the truth
The following is a list of everything Darren McFadden is bad at: 1) Giving birth. End of list.
whatever
i said he benefited greatly from the Rays being awful and a nice core was already growing in Tampa. Nothing I said was wrong at all.
pretty funny that i cant question an opposing GM but im required to do so with our own.
by white angus on Jan 13, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
"you think a different GM is going to make a difference?"
Well, I have no way of predicting the future, of course. But I think if the Pirates go, let’s say, 67-95 for the 2012 season…or look to be on pace to finish with that sort of record, midway through the 2012 season…a change will need to be made at GM, for change’s sake. Based on obvious stagnation.
How much of the Pirates 15 game improvement from 2010 to 2011 is attributable to the change in field manager, from Russell to Hurdle? We plainly have no way of quatifying exacly how many extra games the Pirates won because Hurdle was in the dugout, in 2011. But I think it’s pretty obvious that he had SOMETHING to do with the improvement.
In much the same fashion, a different GM will need to take the reins, should the Pirates regress in 2012.
Look at it this way…is Theo Epstien a bad GM? I don’t think there’s a person on this board who would answer that question “yes”. But yet, after their historic collapse to miss the 2011 playoffs, Epstein was asked to step down in Boston.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 12, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
now thats a good answer
and if the team regresses, a change could be made.
but will it matter?
by white angus on Jan 13, 2012 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
We have no way of knowing...
if it will matter. The change will still need to be made, though.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 13, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
You and me JRoth -
WE are the only two people on this board who love Karstens.
Anyone else who says they do is lying.
And I can prove it.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 11, 2012 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
I have a picture of Jeff Karstens in my wallet
by SuperBaes on Jan 12, 2012 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That's a rec.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 7:59 AM EST up reply actions
If that is your definition of replacement
then you need to adjust how you look at WAR. WAR works off a certain definition of the word replacement. If you choose to define that word differently, then you need to adjust how you look at WAR. This is not a problem with WAR, this is an instance where two people use different definitions of the same word and then, base arguments on their own definition. If you are using different starting points, then, of course, your conclusions are going to be different.
Look at this page, specifically the graph in the middle. It should be helpful in showing why the 0 in WAR is where it is. If you choose to place your 0 at what they call 2 WAR, then fine, but different starting points will lead the direction in different directions.
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 11, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
caution about the graph
It includes batting WAR for pitchers, which means a whole ton of the guys at or below replacement really shouldn’t be on the graph.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 11, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
that about sums it up
" I think this is probably the best team ever assembled. They talk about the Vince Lombardi Era, but I think the Chuck Noll Era is even greater. " - Mel Blount
by michaelbro8 on Jan 11, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
no offer at all??? very disappointing, Neal
there’s an old saying that “if you don’t weigh in, you can’t wrassle”. who knows, maybe the injury scared you, or maybe you didn’t want to be seen as lowballing Maholm. but before Andrew McCutchen files for free agency, at least make a fucking offer, please?
This is disappointing. I thought Maholm would be a good sign for one more year.
I just saw the Taiwanese lefty Chen signed with Baltimore.
I still think we need more SP. I guess the FO feels differently, though.
WVU destroys Clemson in the Orange Bowl, 70-33. I was wrong. I'm glad I didn't put any money on the game.
bah
we lost 90 games with maholm, we’ll lose 90 games without him
As I mentioned in a previous topic...
as soon as Neal starts mentioning “internal value” about a player…we can count that player gone. The FACT that NH didn’t even place ANY type of offer out there, even below market value, for Maholm, means he didn’t want Maholm back under ANY circumstances. Yet he thought Maholm was good enough in January 2009 to pay him $5+M in 2011 and offer an almost $10M option for 2013.
Talent evaluation failed in there somewhere. Either in 2009 (didn’t deserve to be paid as he was) or in 2011-12.
I've always liked Maholm
more than most that post on this site… I think with a good ‘D’ behind him he’s a solid # 4 or 5. But I seriously doubt his statements here. If he really wanted to come back, he easily could have went to NH and said the Cubs offered $4.5, will the Bucs match it ? And I’m sure the Bucs were open to at least discussing offers if Paulie was. Should they have made an offer first ? Probably not… if they offered $ 4.5 mil instead of $9 mil, he probably would have been insulted and pissed off.
" I think this is probably the best team ever assembled. They talk about the Vince Lombardi Era, but I think the Chuck Noll Era is even greater. " - Mel Blount
no, its not.
his option was declined, he himself said that he knew he was gone once Bedard signed. if he felt insulted so badly he could join Pujols’ wife therapy group.
or his church could
… if he truly was insulted, he needs to get over it. mclouth certainly did.
by white angus on Jan 13, 2012 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
Maholm was not offered a 9 million deal
I think it would be more insulting to offer him 4 mil. They simply said thanks for your time and best of luck in the future. Why does everyone have a problem with that?
Hey Angus
by the way welcome to China. I wrote a post this morning intended to be worthy of a chuckle. The title read.: WhiteAngus Defeats Vlad. It went on how you posted nearly 25 percent of the comments, defeating Vlad 73-52. Nothing vulgar at all. It’s January 12th. Many posters have posted articles about stuff alot dumber than that. Yet Vlad or someone deleted it. So much for freedom of speech.
by pineapplepete on Jan 12, 2012 9:58 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Yet Vlad or someone deleted it.
I have certain administrative tools, but deleting articles isn’t one of them. To the best of my knowledge, only Charlie can do that.
by Vlad on Jan 12, 2012 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
okay Vlad
I’ll take your word for it. Must say though I feel like Bert Reynolds in the longest yard when he decides to come back in the game and knowone will block for him.
by pineapplepete on Jan 12, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
I deleted it. It arguably didn’t need to be said at all — it was borderline trolling — and certainly didn’t require its own fanpost.
Banned, by the way — just checked pineapplepete’s profile and saw that he has admitted to being banned before. There’s some communism for you! Bai hua qi fang, bai jia zheng ming!
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 12, 2012 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
pirate21/primtetime99/fatbastard/senatorblutarsky/pineapplepete/andwhatwillbenext
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Wow. Wish I’d been around for that. A lot of live videos of them are just breathtaking.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 13, 2012 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
Even in ’93 they were pretty kick-ass.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 13, 2012 8:03 AM EST up reply actions
Phenomonal band.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 13, 2012 6:51 AM EST up reply actions
It was kinda funny though. 73 posts? Angus = blogger version of innings eater.
Occupy MLB! Down with Seligula!
Not worth $9MM though.
His contract with Bleed Cubbie Blue proves that.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 12, 2012 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
To quote the man himself
his biggest asset was his ability to throw alot of innings
Think that about sums it up
by Wizard of Woz on Jan 12, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
A theory
It’s been noted a few times this offseason that guys NH has gotten rid of have (with one glaring, but outlying, exception) pretty consistently gone straight to hell upon leaving the Pirates. Bay had 8 excellent months with the Sox, but his woes with the Mets have made everyone forget that. Just about everyone else has produced worse than they did in Pittsburgh or not produced at all.
So maybe other GMs are being entirely rational to discount Pirates castoffs. Not because anyone who’s worn a Pirates jersey must suck, but because, whatever his flaws in evaluating other teams’ players, he sure seems to know when his own players are done.
Unless someone convinces me otherwise, this will be my operative theory.
Me too. I mean, that’s possible, but it seems less like Huntington being clairvoyant about his own guys and more about him having only aging and/or crappy players to get rid of in the first place.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 12, 2012 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
I don't entirely disagree
But, setting aside Bautista, is there a single player who’s been better post-Pirates than he was as a Pirate? Even briefly? Bay is a marginal call. Gorzo was better than his previous season, but it was still below his best Pirate year, and in 2011 he regressed to 0.7 fWAR.
Nyjer Morgan? Hmm. Maybe the outcomes are noisier than I was thinking. Players I had in mind:
Off a Cliff:
McLouth
Nady
Wilson
Sanchez
Paulino
Snell
Grabow
Burnett
Duke(?)
Luigi
Chavez
Church/Crosby
Milledge
Less Production:
Gorzo
Mario
Nyjer?
Counterexamples:
Matt Capps
Bay(?)
Torres
Dotel
Bautista
Note that, especially for relievers, the “cliff” often wasn’t high. But a guy like Chavez had positive value for us in ’09, but has never done that again, and is -1.4 bWAR in 3 seasons since.
The big question is what happens to guys who are traded from or released/non-tendered by other teams. Has Beane given up a lot of players who had gas left in the tank? Has Theo? Hendry? But what struck me was that Matt Capps might be the only player (again, other than outlier JB) NH has sent away that we could even plausibly regret (before this offseason, anyway). Which suggests that, if nothing else, he knows how to cull. Not every single player NH has had has been bad, but nearly every one he gave up on was, in fact, toast.
I remember thinking this
In the 90’s (as a kid with no empirical evidence) about Pirate pitchers once they left Pittsburgh. Looking at it quickly now: Smiley left after 91 (age 26, pitched well, just never won 20 games again), Drabek after 92 (had some really good years, but never won more than 12 games), Tomlin fell apart some time in 93 (at 27) and never really recovered, and Stan Belinda was traded in 93 (for Lieber, whom I always loved; Belinda pitched well for Boston and Cincy, but was never any kind of dominant closer again).
Most likely: I just never saw these guys on SportsCenter too much after that. I wonder whatever happened to that Tim Wakefield kid…
On subject
Can’t argue with any of these arguments too passionately, but I think the answer is somewhere closer to Charlie’s thought; I think Cutch is going to be the first huge test case. Conversely, what kind of value do the extensions NH hands out have?
well, whom were they?
Maholm, Doumit, McLouth, Tabata… isnt that all he has dished out or am I missing someone?
disputing some of your assessments
Paulino was actually OK for two years with the Marlins, putting up 2.5 wins in 610 PAs. He was better than his last year with the Pirates.
Burnett had a good year in 2010, but otherwise was as bad as with the Pirates.
Freddy has been decent when he plays… but since that’s only been about half the time since the trade (assuming I remember correctly that he barely played after immediately after the trade), that’s still a point for you. Not as good as his Pirate peak, definitely.
Nyjer really was better since the trade, if you count his excellent play in Washington in the part of the 2009 season. But the Nats still wound up trading him for not much, IIRC.
Mario collapsed last year after a mediocre 2010, so he might be edging toward the cliff (after the Sox flipped him to the Braves he had an excellent end of the season, but that’s only to be expected).
Javier Lopez is another counterexample (partly because the Bucs insisted in using him in the wrong role).
Damaso Marte was off a cliff if you look at ERA, less so if you look at walk and K rate though he started giving up HRs the year after the trade.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Jan 12, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Forgot to look at Marte
I was scanning old rosters, and just missed him somehow. I thought about looking at Lopez, but I actually forgot what he did in SF – I was thinking he was a marginal RP, but of course he was a stud for them.
OK, and I’ll fess up: it never occurred to me that Paulino was any good after he left, so I didn’t check.
That said, it seems that there’s enough counterexamples that, at least on a strict accounting, NH doesn’t seem especially good at dumping guys right before they crater. There might still be a perception that NH doesn’t (often) give up value, but there’s no particular reason to believe that there would be (except for the inference from Maholm’s and Cedeno’s apparently below-market contracts, which was really my starting point: Are GMs saying, “Well, if Neal won’t keep them, they must be toast”?).
This just occurred to me
Doesn’t really matter whether, statistically, NH is significantly more likely to offload players who are toast; what matter is whether other GMs perceive this.
Now, obviously, they wouldn’t perceive this if NH were exactly as likely as everyone else – there’d be no apparent trend to start the perception. But it seems to me that there are enough high profile examples to feed a perception.
In particular, look at McLouth and Wilson. Wilson was worth 2.7, 1.2, and 1.8 WAR in his final 2.5 seasons as a Pirate. Since then, he’s produced 0.1 WAR in 170-odd games over 2.5 seasons. McLouth, in his last 1.25 seasons as a Pirate, created a win every 35 games; since then, in 250 games, he hasn’t produced a net win yet (0.7 total). Even in the second half of 2009, it took him twice as many games to reach 1.7 WAR as a Brave as it had when he was a Pirate.
Point being, these weren’t fading players who were already done when they left – they played like decent MLBers in black and gold, and like Bixler or Chris Duffy in other uniformsª. If I were a GM for another team, that might catch my eye.
All that said, Freddy screws up my argument more than I knew – he hasn’t been healthy, but he still hits around 100 OPS+ when he’s in the lineup – his health has declined, but not his productivity.
ª I understand that Jack’s decline was predictable; I’m just saying it didn’t actually start until he left. He was on pace for his second best season when he was traded.
Actually...
most of the guys that NH has gotten rid of have gone to hell…either before they got to Pittsburgh, or while they were here.
400+ comments on Paul Maholm
On this thread alone… I’m sure it eclipses 1,000 in the past 2 weeks alone!! Evidence that we desperately need some actual baseball to talk about; why can’t one of the winter leagues be extensively covered and televised on MLB Network?!?!?
I think it's evidence
that the Pirates desperately need SP help, more than we need baseball to talk about. I think if NH would have signed Roy Oswalt or Joe Saunders a few weeks ago, this thread would be 1/8 of it’s current size, and chock full of posts like “Good luck, Paul, and thanks for the last 6+ seasons.”
But because the team so needs SP help, while an average SP was just subtracted from and already paper-thin rotation, much gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes ensued.
by Midnight Moose on Jan 13, 2012 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
they would not be talking about the bucs anyway
by karreemofwheat on Jan 13, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
Moment of clarity.
I realized sometime yesterday how legtimately angry (in my opinion) this offseason’s mismanagement of assets has been. Then, I started listing them and felt like the guy who envies someone else’s K car. It’s a crappy team. They could be marginally less crappy, but while other teams’ fans are debating whether or not to re-sign Jose Reyes/Albert Pujols or fill a hole by actually buying a top tier free agent, we’re resigned to bicker about Paul Maholm. Don’t get me wrong: I LOVE Paulie… he’s probably my 3rd-favorite Pirate of the last 20 years (behind Walker and A-Ram)… but he’s not worth all the dust we’ve kicked up recently. We’re starting to get mean and turn on each other, too.
my buddy got the steeler edition of the k car
i was jealous, until the wheel feel off.
by karreemofwheat on Jan 14, 2012 8:16 AM EST up reply actions
Gremlin!
.
________________________________
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 14, 2012 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
