Jake

Advanced statistics make baseball better. They help to eliminate gut reactions and misguided assumptions over small sample sizes. It helps us to value different aspects of the game properly. Bill James always says that a statistic is no good if it doesn't surprise you. That's because a given statistic is supposed to tell you something you don't already know. We know Abreu is good. We know he's been phenomenal at the plate. We don't know how to properly value his contributions in comparison with other players that play other positions. To ask whether, based on this season's WAR, you'd trade for someone, is a misuse. It's not a projection - it's a measure. WAR is a way to look at players' contributions and separate them from context so you can make valid comparisons. A guy like Donaldson plays different competition, in different places, with different people batting around him, and at a different position. WAR is a way to look back and disentangle all those confounding factors. When I'm deciding between Abreu and Donaldson, there are several concerns for both players. Abreu, being new, has considerable upside that we just don't know about yet. Could he play even better than this? There's reason to believe so. However, given his newness to the league, maybe he could get dramatically worse. Look at the way Yoenis Cespedes's production fell off after his first year. At 27, Abreu can't punt too many years solving his sophomore slump. He also plays first base, meaning a down year at the plate means he'll be simply valueless. Donaldson plays a more valuable position and defends it extremely well - we have three years of sample size to back up his defense. His year last year, with a 7.7 WAR, is probably better than any year Abreu will ever have. However, he is a year older than Abreu. He's also a guy who wasn't worth a s*** until he was about 27. While "fluke" might not be the right word, there is reason to step back when a guy blooms this late and wonder what's going on. He was never an impressive upper-level MiLB player until he was 26 over 50-some games in AAA. Seems like a candidate for regression, if not a guy who might be thriving only under a particular coach or whatever is going on. So no, I wouldn't pull of that particular deal, money aside. We effectively have a prospect in Abreu, which I think makes him worth the gamble that his position or lack of experience could make us lose the deal.

Baez is a very flawed player. He's a bad defender, strikes out a ton, and doesn't exactly post Dunn-like walk numbers. That doesn't mean he'll be bad, but it means he's very far from a sure bet. I see a lot of Alfonso Soriano in him...the question is whether he'll peak as highly.

Well, if the bullpen's going to suck, it might as well suck in the face of immense talent

So there's two things making Donaldson seem more valuable. First is the defense, like we covered. A third baseman has much more control of run prevention - kind of. A really bad defensive 1B will have more negative value than anybody, because they can screw up just about every infield out. However, each play is measured against the "average" defender. The "average" 1B makes almost all the same plays that a great one does. That's not nearly as true of 3B and really not true of OF. Next is how good hitters are at a given position. The average 1B this year has a 111 wRC+ (was 110 last year). The average 3B this year is 101 wRC+ (was 97 last year). While in the recent past LF was a place to stash your guys with barely better than 1B defensive ability to get their bat in the lineup (average LF batter was as high as 110 wRC+ in early 2000s), today it's a place where the average LF bat is just an average bat (100 wRC+ this year, 99 last). On a side note, it interests me how poor the average DH is this year - 101 wRC+ compared to 110 wRC+ last year and a peak 120 wRC+ in 2002. So even disregarding how good he defends his position, Abreu is graded on a curve. wRC+ presumes that 100 is average. However, 111 is average for 1B. 101 is average at 3B. That means the expectation for Abreu's offense is 10% higher than a 3B and LF. 25% higher than SS! Another way to think about it is to look at it from the perspective of the non-1B. Look at Derek Jeter. His career WAR is 74.3. He's also a career negative value defensively as a shortstop, where usually bad shortstops end up with positive values just because of the position's difficulty. He has a career 120 wRC+. If you took away the positional adjustment to the way we look at his offense, or changed his defensive position to 1B, he's a slightly enhanced Paul Konerko, meaning Jeter becomes more of a 40-45 WAR player. That means not a Hall of Famer. Should Jeter be a Hall of Famer? The answer hinges on whether you think players should be graded on a curve based on their defensive position.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Aug 4, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) I don't see how LF (Gordon) is a more defensive-minded position than 1B? Guys are moved out to LF to hide because they can stick (similar to 1B). If we were talking CF, SS, or C then that's a different animal altogether. None of these guys play a premium defensive position in my mind (3B is probably the closest out of the three) 1B is far and away the least important position. No position compares to it. Since 2000, there has only been one season in which a 1B has contributed a full win above average (it's harder for me to access the WAR value). That was Pujols in 2007. That defensive season was more than twice as valuable than the next closer in those 15 years. Out of all the 1B players to play a qualifying amount since 2000, only 25 times has a 1B had a season in which their defensive contribution was above the average player (of any position). They don't pull this stuff out of thin air. Each play is evaluated for its difficulty and its consequence. Making a very difficult play adds to your defensive value, especially if that play is likely to pay dividends in terms of saving runs. 1B are just not tested defensively nearly as often as any other position and the plays they make tend to be of little consequence. They never throw - that's a big deal. 1B rarely have to make defensive plays in which they throw; that's the big difference between them and a 3B (that, and the amount of RH vs LH hitters). Another way to think about it - how many players are good at a position that isn't 1B but would be bad at 1B? While not ideal, I'd argue that Adam Eaton would be fine at 1B. That's because he's a baseball player who knows how to catch throws. It's nice to have a tall guy, but that's okay because he'd make up for it by actually being mobile. The average CF, SS, or C is going to be far better at 1B than any 1B would be at those positions.

You guys have it. Those guys are kicking absolute ass defensively, not just good but elite defense at positions that are far more consequential defensively than first base. Even a good defensive 1B will struggle to contribute meaningfully at 1B and the expectations are higher offensively. To think about why it is important to move the offensive bar per position, just think about this - if, say, Anthony Rizzo played left field, the Cubs could have had him AND Abreu. If Donaldson played first base, they don't get to play Brandon Moss. If Trout plays 1B, they don't get Pujols. If Trout plays corner OF full time, they might not be able to have Hamilton. When you build around a non-1B, that leaves the option open to you to bring in a 1B to put your offense over the hump. When you have a 1B and nothing else, you have to find guys that both excel defensively and hit. That's harder. And that doesn't mean your 1B is valueless or that we screwed up by getting an amazing 1B, but it means that he has to do with his bat what almost every other position does by combining their bat, glove, and legs.

Just wait for Theo to start handing out contracts.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 1, 2014 -> 08:07 PM) By doing what? First - let's talk about what a war crime is, because it's more than just a feeling one has. War crimes, in this scenario, refer to the way non-combatants are treated in war. The overarching dictum is that nothing "of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination" of civilians is acceptable. More specifically - 1. Collective punishments are war crimes: people cannot be punished for actions they have not personally committed. Cities, towns, neighborhoods, and countries cannot be shelled because their government/military have wronged you. Practices that "strike at guilty and innocent alike" are war crimes. 2. Occupying powers must care for and educate children, avoid damaging private or public property, and provide medical services to all. 3. Military operations must target military targets. A military target is slightly difficult to define, but here's a good look: 4. When determining whether civilian loss of life is innocently incidental or not, the idea of proportionality is necessary. Is the response, which may cause civilian loss of life, proportional to the provoking attack/action? Here's a take on proportionality in this context from the International Criminal Court: 5. You can't kill civilians by proxy via destroying essential services. Water and food being primary, but also denial of medicine and things like this. With that established, how does Israel stack up? We know Hamas is largely a terrorist organization - I'm not going to try to say they are above war crimes. They're not. It's probably in their nature. Of course, and this is a topic we should discuss, Israel has created an environment that would beg for terrorist uprisings to occur. We can look to two incidents from July 30, where UN civilian camps were created at a school and a market. Israel's humanitarian spirit encouraged civilians to go to those places. Israel blew them up. Ban-ki Moon called the bombings "outrageous" and "unjustifiable," indicating an abundance of evidence that demonstrates IDF's responsibility. As for the frequent shelling of places like hospitals where Hamas supposedly has stashed weapons, both parties have committed a war crime. The UN humanitarian chief explains: The general fact that independent aid agencies continue to count the casualties at 10-20 Gazans per 1 Israeli, with 80% of Gazan deaths being civilians per the UN and few enough Israeli civilian casualties to count on one hand, should give an indication as to whether Israel is acting proportionally. Today there was another bombing of a UN location killing several and injuring enough to completely overwhelm the nearest hospital. With the morgue full, they were using freezers to store the bodies of dead children. Even the US State Department termed this "disgraceful" and called for Israel to do "more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties." Israel says they're looking into it but they're pretty sure there was a bad guy on a motorcycle over there. Speaking of hospitals, the UN says a third of all hospitals in this region have been destroyed in the fighting. People cannot access many essential services, including sanitation. A huge portion of people went from being in one of the most densely populated places in the world to hiding in tiny spaces in the one of the most densely populated places in the world. That was right after the cease fire was broken because Hamas "captured" an IDF soldier until Israel realized that, no, he was killed in combat. Nobody batted an eye over that one. Amnesty International is another international organization that claims to have an abundance of evidence regarding Israel war crimes. I wonder why Israel wouldn't sign a 10-year truce document with the Palestinian unified government - its stipulations were essentially that Gaza be treated like a sovereign entity that can go more than three miles from its shore to practice its historically largest trade, fishing, and to be allowed to import materials to build houses for its growing population. Oh, they also wanted permission to visit Jerusalem to pray at their holy places. If convinced that they can't be trusted and would break the truce, let them; you can always do bulls*** like this war when they do that. This isn't a tit-for-tat game. Not liking Hamas is fine. However, if Israel is supposed to be an ally, we should expect better than what we expect from Hamas. But maybe we shouldn't expect this stuff from Benjamin Netanyahu - this statement from a hot mic should make your blood boil as an American: Prominent Israeli journalist Gideon Levy on those statements:

QUOTE (Timmy U @ Aug 2, 2014 -> 09:56 PM) Tekotte sold back to AZ. Mitchell back to Charlotte. If he can keep the approach he had at Birmingham, not taking a lot of fastballs down the middle for strike three, maybe he still has a shot as a 4th outfielder or DeAza who can catch things. I root for him because he seems like an extremely nice guy. Not holding my breath, though, he has teased us before. I don't think we should have promoted him so soon. He's never been any good in AA before so promoting after a ~40 game run down there just doesn't make sense to me. His whole career has been defined by moving up in level before he's ready and as soon as he shows a sign of getting comfortable, we bump him up again

Reed would obviously help this bullpen, but was far from a priority for us when we traded him. I have a feeling the horrible Arizona team probably would just assume not have traded a promising prospect for a meh closer as well. An extreme flyball closer was always going to be a recipe for disaster here. The book isn't closed on Davidson yet. It is also very easy to overstate the importance of bullpen upgrades

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 06:51 PM) If each pitcher in the bullpen was rated by recent performance, track record and potential Thompson would rank last in each category. I'm not really on an anti-Guerra crusade, he's just the guy who screams "DJ Carrasco" in our pen. ie, seems to be over his skis, not great stuff, has been exposed to lots of MLB and MiLB and just doesn't seem that great. But this falls into what I was saying in the game thread, which is that our bullpen isn't stuffed with "worst" pitcher types, it just lacks "best" pitchers. Who do you go to when it matters? After Petricka, there are no obvious answers Thompson isn't exactly a super-duper exciting guy, but has been successful as a closer at every level - seemed like a guy who might have earned a longer shot at creating a valid sample size. With that said, if we're going to send guys down with options rather than cut boring vets like Guerra, Rienzo seems like the better candidate for that...and might be later this week when Putnam returns

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 06:44 PM) What? I'd love to hear this argument. Guerra just being the guy with the least desirable mix of recent performance, track record, and potential development

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) Cleto's last 5 appearances: 7.2 innings 2 hits 1 bb 13 k QUOTE (Lillian @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 06:41 PM) I heard the other night, that he was throwing 99-100. Welp, why the f*** not

Seems like an odd choice over Guerra, at the least. He's no special talent, but I remember looking over the Charlotte roster before his callup and thinking he was the only possible addition

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 06:08 PM) I still like Rienzo. I believe he would be a solid mop up guy in the future. He's just been all over the place as a starter, reliever. I dont think he's the type of guy who should only be pitching an inning to. Same with Surkamp. Problem is, we have too many of those types. As someone pointed out, you can probably name one.. maybe two guys in our pen you can consider locks for next season. I think Rienzo profiles well as a reliever because he has a good heater and generally is too iffy to see a bunch of batters. I think his cutter would play up against righties too (uses it like a slider). He just hasn't really done it before and is so all over the place he probably won't be right until next year. Surkamp is a sinker baller who has historically been better against righties and never relieved before. There were a lot of reasons to think it wouldn't go well. The sinker won't play up out of the pen and he's seeing a ton of lefties. Tough to quantify the effect of learning to be a reliever as well.

Let the dink and dunk parade commence

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 05:00 PM) How do you figure this isn't a terrible pen? It's not that I think they're good, but you can compare to the ERA of the Tigers' pen, for instance and see that they're getting more out of less because they still have some semblance of a hierarchy. Still - in terms of player acquisition, etc - the two best relievers to start the season are both hurt, the next guy to emerge as best is now hurt, and the LOOGY we signed in the offseason who had been one of the most consistent relievers in the game was inexplicably terrible. Not much has gone right and the fact we are very deep into our organization's reliever talent pool is evident.

It's really not so much that it's a terrible pen as much as there are hardly any guys better than others. Petricka is obviously your best guy and then everyone else is "meh." There's no obvious choice when you need to not give up runs

Last night the pen got dinked and dunked and dealt with some bad D. Guerra, though, is just getting pounded

Gotta think Semien is being prepped for MLB 2B with the way the lineup was today

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 3, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) 0-4 with a K. Would have rather seen Thompson get the chance. Neither were ready. The obliviousness to whether hitters are ready for a promotion in our system is becoming tiresome.

good god, why did we call Mitchell up

I'm not sold on Wiggins, but I hope he makes the Cavs regret it

Not including today's game: Leading at start of 7: 38-8 Tied at start of 7: 10-9 Leading at start of 8: 43-7 Tied at start of 8 8: 7-7 Leading at start of 9: 47-6 Tied at start of 9: 4-4 http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-ind...amp;team_id=CHW No good way to compare teams, as far as I can tell, except to just look at each team's page. From a look at about 10 teams, we certainly are at or near worst with lead at start of innings 8 and 9. Ninth is our worst (no big surprise there). We also seem to be a bit better than many teams at winning games when losing late and our performance when tied isn't particularly bad. Last year, we were better with leads in the ninth but no better with leads in the eighth, a bunch worse with lead in the seventh, and a bunch worse in tie games.

Catch a ball in LF and we're probably winners tonight