Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Really think that $48M is going to make a difference between outspending the top tier or not? I don't, but if it did that is the definition of albatross contract. Maybe or maybe not alone. But combined with a couple similar deals, and yes. And the problem with building through free agency is that you have to keep paying those prices. So if Santana adds 2 wins for us in 2015 at that price, where are you going to get the rest? You can only pay market rate for talent so many times before you're bogged down. 31 year-old 3 starters just aren't it for us right now. Maybe they will be in a year or two. But even if we bought now to prepare for a year or two, we're then buying the decline years at the price of the prime years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) I am really concerned about the international signing period. The Yankees are supposed to break the bank this summer, go way over their limit and take the penalties that go with it. I read where they basically have already agreed to contracts with 4 or 5 of the top guys. Hopefully that is just rumor, but if true, that is punch to the gut of the White Sox. This concerns me too. Hopefully the Sox will at least be able to focus on one or two guys and leverage their relationships.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) Now younger pitchers on the market are going to cost a lot more than that. It's doubtful that the Sox can outbid the big spenders for that type of pitcher. Made much MORE doubtful if the Sox spend the money they do have on mediocre guys just for the sake of spending it. That's what I mean when I say that $48m alone won't sink us, but we'll sure wish that $48m was available when we want to get a guy that will really move the needle.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) What pitcher do you think is worth $48M over the next 4 years to the Sox? None that are available. Theoretically, younger guys with a balance of some established track record and enough upside to mitigate risk.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) Don't use El Duque. He was pretty awful as a White Sox. He did have one incredible inning. And Freddy when he came back was mediocre at best. If Santana put up the numbers these guys did, if the Sox signed him, you would point out how awful he was. I like Jimenez better than Santana, but Santana eats innings. One thing your saber cohort ripped me for was valuing IP, but a guy that gives you 200 IP near the bottom of your rotation does wonders for your bullpen. IP is a critical input for fWAR. I don't think any SABR-apologists would rip you for valuing it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) I've said it countless times because the prices are likely to go up. Be proactive and in the process save money. If Abreau had signed a 6y/$68M deal somewhere else, I'm convinced people would have been happy about it. Some of the same people who think it was a great signing by the Sox. It's not the idea of signing a guy now because he won't be available later that is giving us problems, it's the guys that are available. Abreu is 26 and fills a huge organizational hole at 1B. Santana is 30 and represents a slight short-term upgrade and a very likely long-term problem. I think for the right guy, we wouldn't have issue at $48m + draft pick for a pitcher, but the guys on the market are just not the right guys. If they're the best available over the next few years, then we need a different strategy. If you needed a bullet proof vest but there was no kevlar around, you wouldn't use toilet paper just because it was the best option available for a vest -- you'd try to find a different way to avoid getting shot.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:50 PM) Rienzo is going to be in the pen. Paulino, Surkamp are not as good as Santana. We've already established a $48M contract for the Sox is not an issue. But what you HAVEN'T established is why the best use of the $48m (plus an extremely early 2nd round pick) is an aging, inconsistent pitcher on a 99 loss team.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) Tell me more about the Rays and their success in spending in the draft. It's a damn shame when the Sox can't afford to outspend the Rays . . . As far as the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers go, pay no attention to the money they spend on payroll. Also pay no attention to the trades they make or the fact that a lot of that international money IS part of the payroll. I'm not understanding what argument you're trying to make here.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) Lol. Why so angry? Who the f*** is John McDonald? I like the "towards the end of his career" lay down. So, you're saying Griffey regressed as he aged and was riddled with injuries? Brilliant. What else? My original Yankees post specifically was in regard to the "last decade," and I said as much. You know who I would take over Jeter? Ozzie Smith. A premium defender, at a the most premium position that could also hit a little. Griffey fluctuated between "below average" and "horrendous" defensively for the last THIRTEEN YEARS of his career. Jeter vs. Smith is an interesting debate. Jeter wins by fWAR, but only by 6-8ish after this year, and defensive wins are much less reliable pre-UZR, so there's a good chance Smith defense was either under or overvalued.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:33 PM) E) None of the above. This. Keep your draft pick, overspend on the draft/international markets, and put the $35m+ toward a better player when you're closer to contending

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) Griffey wasn't a top defender? Arod wasn't a top defender? They were both among the most complete players of all time. Those are awful examples. Jeter's rings are mostly from when he was a decent defender, back when the Yankees weren't building teams on a calculator. Griffey was a top defender from about 94 - 97. After that he was a liability.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) Can't win a game without scoring. One player effects a game on offense far greater than he ever could on defense and players have a hell of a better chance sticking in the majors by being an all bat, no glove player instead of an all glove, no bat player. I mean honestly, how many HOFers are there because of their defense? Even the ones that are, most were solid with the bat. Many, many HOFers are there solely because of their bat with no regards to their defense. While I'm not a Jeter fan, his bat was far more beneficial to the Yankees than his defense was detrimental and that's not even debatable. Hence the 73 career fWAR. That's one of the beautiful things about linear weights-based stats: they give us a common denominator for offense and defense. That's why it's so interesting to see Frank and Jeter almost identical with all of that applied.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) Has anyone ever added up a team's individual WARs at the end of a season and posted the actual WAR standings? To me that would be the most interesting and would show how truly accurate WAR is as a major tool. I refer to it myself, but if it truly is accurate, the numbers should add up pretty close to actual results. No, it wouldn't work, because that ISN'T what it's trying to do. The purpose of WAR and its components are to strip context to get to something that resembles "true talent" for the purpose of finding a number that is more predictive. Actual records are (and should be) heavily context-dependent. The best way to compare and actual record with a WAR record would be to roughly identify who overplayed or underplayed their "true talent." This could imply either luck or something like poor roster construction, poor management, etc.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:52 AM) Absolutely. My biggest problem with sabermetrics is how/when they are applied. Alright, I'll work on that tonight. The biggest thing to look into, IMO, is the concept of linear weights used to measure context-neutral events, as that is at the root of everything that goes into WAR.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:46 AM) 1.) Thats a whole lot of garbage and the one or two who may come out of that won't be blocked by a free-agent pitcher. 2.) Ok, so we've established a $48M contract is not an albatross to the Sox going forward, great. As far as the type of pitcher on the market, that's what $48M buys you. 1. You're the only one that thinks so 2. If $48m buys you a garbage pitcher, then why not save it and put it toward a decent one?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all. Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch. If I actually spend the time compiling information for you to read, will you read it?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) Let me guess critical debate involves Wins Above Replacement or some such. Oftentimes, yes. For example, if you think WAR and its components are wrong, then you should make a case for why you think that. You don't, though, you simply dismiss them by saying you don't care as if that makes facts go away. We're all open to it being wrong, but you have to show it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) 1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats. 2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem. 1. Andre Rienzo (25), Erik Johnson (24), Eric Surkamp (26), Charlie Leesman (26), Scott Snodgress (24), Chris Beck (23), Nestor Molina (25), Chris Bassitt (24) 2. The $48m alone isn't the issue, it's committing to paying it to an inconsistent pitcher into his mid-30's. This type of player is MUCH more likely to be bad than good going forward, especially a couple years down the road.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:40 AM) This is true, but I just can't say anybody that spent their entire career at SS is an awful defender. Like, Michael Young was not a good defensive player ever, but he's not an awful defender. Frank Thomas was an awful defender. Basically, put Frank Thomas at SS and see what happens. In the same light, put Derek Jeter at 1B and see what happens too. Troof

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) Don't forget The Ultimate Champion. Now we're at about 95%. The Ultimate GregMart Nah, TUC is a different person. I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before. TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) It was f***ing 2 paragraphs, how is that ever a teal deer? And no, not awful. A -25.7 career UZR over 17 years is -1.5 per season. That's below average, not "awful." If you want to see an awful defender, you look towards guys like Adam Dunn. It's not -25.7 UZR, of -25.7 Defensive Runs above average. The UZR is like -150. So I think it's most accurate to say "awful shortstop" while acknowledging that anyone who can even fake SS isn't an "awful defender." Being a bad SS is much better than being an average 1B, for example, and that is reflected in fWAR (although I personally have some issues with the accuracy of 'set in stone' positional adjustments).

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says. Sometimes Marty signs on as greg775, so it's more like 85%

So what's your stance on it, wite? Is he a top 10 player or a top 50 player to you?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 10:20 PM) My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per. 1. They have to give their young pitchers innings in order to let them develop and "see what they have." Singing declining veterans hinders this. You are arguing this vehemently in another thread AS WE SPEAK regarding Adam Dunn taking PT away from young players. 2. $48m IS an albatross because it is $48m they would NOT be able to spend to patch something else up. It might not be much in a vacuum, but this ISN'T a vacuum and there are other players we have and pay and will want to get later. Again, see every argument you've ever made about Adam Dunn. He "only" makes $14m per year.

It's entirely possible (likely) that I'm hearing more hype than you guys here in NY. It's crazy to realize how much of the MAINSTREAM media is actually in NY. So maybe I'm overblowing it. Interesting component: when you look at his Defensive Runs at FG, you see Jeter with a career -25.7 (compared to Thomas' -267.4 LOL holy s***), and think, "Oh that's not so bad over an 18 year career." That is until you realize that number INCLUDES positional adjustment, which gives him +7.5 runs per year just for being at SS. Multiply that by 18 seasons, and you see that compared to other SS's, he is -160.7 runs below average. An astonishing -16 fWAR lost through bad defense alone. Which begs further analysis of Frank Thomas. If he would have been a scratch defender, either by being a good first baseman or an average, say, third baseman or RF or something, he would have nearly 27 more fWAR over the course of his career, making him a 99 fWAR player, which would put him ahead of guys like Cal Ripken, Joe Morgan, and Carl Yastrzemski.