Offseason Part 3 - Because Part 2 Was a Dud

[Greg Hibbard]

People keep citing fWAR and comparing players like Leury to RPs. But honesty does fWAR account for high leverage situations accurately? 

[Two-Gun Pete]

12 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Hahn has enough fire able offenses to last a lifetime...fortunate JR is more forgiving with front office execs and former players than managers.

Oh, I agree.

But no one can look at the way baseball is measured, and come to the conclusion that RPs > an everyday RFer, in the White Sox's case.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Two-Gun Pete

[ptatc]

6 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Look, I respect you, and appreciate your expertise with respect to injury. And I understand your want to defend your position.

But you are now straining credulity with this view. The unit of measure for baseball is not the number of pitches thrown, its the PA. The former is a theoretically open-ended question, whereas baseball is measured in a theoretical minimum of 27 or 24 PAs long per game per team.

WAR attempts to solve for this, by incorporating run production and run avoidance. A pitcher, ANY pitcher participates solely in run avoidance. A position player participates in run avoidance (by means of defensive chances faced), AND run production by means of his PAs and his appearances on base.

You also glommed together "pitchers," ne they RPs or SPs as a question of whether or not RH should have gotten one or the other.

Its not that I disagree with your position, it's just that you (and more importantly, RH) are wrong on this.

Just because some people measure baseball in that manner doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it. If you confine yourself to only one view, you limit your information. 

WAR does attempt to solve it but again WAR is severely limited in it's ability to measure actual game performance. It is purely counting and volume. There are other factors to games than pure volume. It is inherently biased against pitching as it only counts volume. by innings. As I've shown pitchers effect more plays in a game than just pure volume of outs. Granted it is a different way to look at it but as with anything, if you only look at it from one way, you limit your information. WAR is a good attempt but it by no means paints the whole picture. One stat can't possibly do that.

[credezcrew24]

1 hour ago, FoxForce2 said:

Pitching is specialized. Baseball is the only major sport where the defense initiates the play and the play starts with the pitcher.

I guess you’ve never heard of the second most popular sport in the world

[SoCalChiSox]

Get the damn trades done already. We badly need something new to talk about. We also badly need a LH RF and another SP, but mainly we need something new to talk about. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Oh, I agree.

But no one can look at the way baseball is measured, and come to the conclusion that ROs > an everyday RFer, in the White Sox's case.

So there is only one way to measure baseball? There may be the best we currently have but it by no means covers everything and it can always be improved.

[Chicago White Sox]

7 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

People keep citing fWAR and comparing players like Leury to RPs. But honesty does fWAR account for high leverage situations accurately? 

No it doesn’t

[Two-Gun Pete]

Just now, ptatc said:

Just because some people measure baseball in that manner doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it. If you confine yourself to only one view, you limit your information. 

WAR does attempt to solve it but again WAR is severely limited in it's ability to measure actual game performance. It is purely counting and volume. There are other factors to games than pure volume. It is inherently biased against pitching as it only counts volume. by innings. As I've shown pitchers effect more plays in a game than just pure volume of outs. Granted it is a different way to look at it but as with anything, if you only look at it from one way, you limit your information. WAR is a good attempt but it by no means paints the whole picture. One stat can't possibly do that.

Ok, how many pitches is the limitation for a length of a game?

How many PAs is the minimum length of a game?

Pitchers participate in only one aspect of a game. Position players participate in more than one aspect of a game. This is why even the elite SP generally produces less WAR than an elite position player.

I am not attacking you by any means, but you (and RH) are wrong. SPs > RPs. Position players > RPs.

Addressing a marginal issue in the bullpen instead of a starting RFer was just outright wrong. Addressing a marginal issue in the bullpen instead of fortifying the rotation was just outright wrong.

[Two-Gun Pete]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

So there is only one way to measure baseball? There may be the best we currently have but it by no means covers everything and it can always be improved.

Again:

How many pitches is the limitation of a game?

How many PAs is the limitation of a game?

[caulfield12]

12 minutes ago, credezcrew24 said:

I guess you’ve never heard of the second most popular sport in the world

Cricket or futbol lol?

[Two-Gun Pete]

19 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

People keep citing fWAR and comparing players like Leury to RPs. But honesty does fWAR account for high leverage situations accurately? 

 

11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

No it doesn’t

This is a good question. From FANGRAPHS:

...Here’s the basic construction:

WAR = [[([(League “FIP” – “FIP”) / Pitcher Specific Runs Per Win] + Replacement Level) * (IP/9)] * Leverage Multiplier for Relievers] + League Correction..."

Edited March 22, 2022 by Two-Gun Pete

[Jerksticks]

5 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Ok, how many pitches is the limitation for a length of a game?

How many PAs is the minimum length of a game?

Pitchers participate in only one aspect of a game. Position players participate in more than one aspect of a game. This is why even the elite SP generally produces less WAR than an elite position player.

I am not attacking you by any means, but you (and RH) are wrong. SPs > RPs. Position players > RPs.

Addressing a marginal issue in the bullpen instead of a starting RFer was just outright wrong. Addressing a marginal issue in the bullpen instead of fortifying the rotation was just outright wrong.

I think wrong is the wrong word.  You’re boxing our FO into the layup opinions: cheap, stupid, Jerry, 2nd place, not understanding value (cmon, really?)- all those layups sitting on the tee.  We all know them.  There hasn’t been a fresh, insightful FO opinion on here in 20 years.  
 

I think it’s possible they just want to get some young guys ABs so they have a shot at a long sustainable window.  Like maybe it’s not about the money, but more about having some unfilled positions to rotate the young talent through.   
 

Is that crazy?

[FoxForce2]

10 minutes ago, credezcrew24 said:

I guess you’ve never heard of the second most popular sport in the world

Play a lot of cricket do you?

[Eminor3rd]

4 hours ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

EVERYONE is suggesting we push all in for short term gains. 

Nothing is "Clearly" a bad strategy until it doesn't work.  Two of the smartest teams in baseball, Brewers and Rays, have emphasized relief pitching.  It seems like the game is going in that direction.  Hahn is just throwing money at what he thinks is a market inefficiency.  Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  But again...top six relief staffs by fWar last year won an average of 95 games.  Replacing worst two arms with better pitchers is not idiotic.   

Thanks Balta reminded me of Jason Heyward.  Gold Glove right fielder, left handed hitter, in his twenties, 8 years $184 million contract...what could go wrong?  

OK define "much better position to win"?   I think Vaughn is going to put up an .830 OPS this year.  I think Engel will cover 30% of the innings with GG caliber outfield play.  I think they will cost $20 million a year less than Conforto.  I think there is a near term and long term risk to giving Conforto a big contract (see above).  

It has been a dull off season.  The original comment was regarding people that said they couldn't get excited about THIS team.  

 

 

 

 

The Brewers and Rays did not "emphasize" relief pitching -- they happened to develop a great deal of it, which is a by-product of developing great pitching in general. The last team to "emphasize" relief pitching the way the Sox have -- by spending a great deal of resources (in both money and players, in our case) acquiring veteran relievers at the peak of their value -- was the Rockies, the consensus laughingstock of the MLB, and it very much did NOT work. And that wasn't surprising, because everyone knows that relief pitcher performance is the most volatile of any position on the diamond, by a lot. 

I think Vaughn is going to hit well, too. The problem with Vaughn is that he's a first baseman, not a right fielder. Engel is a good RF, but he can't hit well. So every night you have to choose a player who can only play well consistently on one side of the ball. Now, what if you had someone who could do both instead? I would call that putting the team in a much better position to win. I think Hahn has pulled us into an illusory universe where he's chained to having certain players on his roster. His explanation for not acquiring a RF has alluded to needing to find at-bats for Andrew Vaughn and Gavin Sheets. But... neither of those players are right fielders. Any other team, when finding themselves in possession of a logjam of interesting MLB-ready prospects in a single position would TRADE one or more of those players to shore up a position they actually needed. Similarly, not signing a RF because Cespedes and/or Colas might be ready in a year or two is nonsense -- the team also just lost a 4+ fWAR pitching season from Carlos Rodon that it hasn't replaced. If you now have a logjam in RF, why not trade a prospect for a pitcher?

Your call for financial prudence is sound, but let's engage in a counter-factual:

Actual WS offseason, in 2022-only dollars committed:

1. Leury Garcia ($5.5M)
2. Josh Harrison ($5.5M)
3. Kendall Graveman ($7M)
4. Joe Kelly ($8.5M)
5. Vince Velasquez ($3M)
TOTAL: $29.5M

What if, instead:

1. Michael Conforto ($25M)
2. Romy Gonzalez (FREE)
3. Danny Mendick (FREE)
TOTAL: $25M

Now, you can trade Gavin Sheets for a controllable back-end starter. Or Andrew Vaughn for an excellent to elite starter, or an excellent to elite second baseman. If Cespedes/Colas forces the issue, imagine trading one of THEM for a controllable starter or second baseman, maybe even packing two of those players together to go even bigger. Would that team not be in a much better position to win? With Abreu/Eloy/whoever is left from Vaughn/Sheets/Burger rotating in DH/1B/LF to help them all stay healthy and not requiring them to play out of position? With a real full-time RF in the other corner? Now, imagine you gave Rodon the QO instead of exercising Kimbrel's option. Suddenly you have pitching depth, possibly a lot of it! And it didn't cost ANY more money than what they've done instead. Is the upgrade from Romy/Mendick to Leury/Harrison worth the alternative?

[ptatc]

6 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Again:

How many pitches is the limitation of a game?

How many PAs is the limitation of a game?

There could be an unlimited number of pitches, it's not standardized. However, just because it is difficult to measure doesn't mean it isn't important.

Just because you can measure the PAs or outs doesn't mean its the only way to measure it.

Even though it is currently the standard way of measuring it doesn't mean its the only way nor does it mean you shouldn't use other information. No one stat can tell you everything about anything.

At one time batting average was the standard. 

[caulfield12]

11 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

No it doesn’t

But that's where we can get into an interesting debate comparing 2020 Colome and 2021 Hendriks, for example, with fWAR (versus save conversion percentage, inherited runners scored, etc).  At the simplest levels, you would favor Colome in a number of top line categories, yet no baseball GM would actually prefer him fir 2022 unless they ran an Indians or Rays budget.

[Two-Gun Pete]

Just now, Jerksticks said:

I think wrong is the wrong word.  You’re boxing our FO into the layup opinions: cheap, stupid, Jerry, 2nd place, not understanding value (cmon, really?)- all those layups sitting on the tee.  We all know them.  There hasn’t been a fresh, insightful FO opinion on here in 20 years.  
 

I think it’s possible they just want to get some young guys ABs so they have a shot at a long sustainable window.  Like maybe it’s not about the money, but more about having some unfilled positions to rotate the young talent through.   
 

Is that crazy?

In my attempt to give ptatc an answer to his question, I framed it as a way to rank needs.

I still believe it was wrong to spend lavishly on RPs, while spending a comparative pittance on everyday players and SPs.

I think your view to want to get young guys PAs is a reasonable one. I just don't think it wise to have those PAs attached to square-pegging 1B into the OF.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

 

This is a good question. From FANGRAPHS:

...Here’s the basic construction:

WAR = [[([(League “FIP” – “FIP”) / Pitcher Specific Runs Per Win] + Replacement Level) * (IP/9)] * Leverage Multiplier for Relievers] + League Correction..."

What is replacement level. Is there a single stat that measures you that replacement level is? Shouldn't it change annually based upon what a replacement is that year as talent level changes. OR are players exactly the same today as they were in 1982?

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

There could be an unlimited number of pitches, it's not standardized. However, just because it is difficult to measure doesn't mean it isn't important.

Just because you can measure the PAs or outs doesn't mean its the only way to measure it.

Even though it is currently the standard way of measuring it doesn't mean its the only way nor does it mean you shouldn't use other information. No one stat can tell you everything about anything.

At one time batting average was the standard. 

Thank you for agreeing with me. Player usage, and the concomitant % of player involvement in a game is not the # of pitches thrown.

It is the PA, and the impact a player has on the outcome of a PA that leads to the overall outcome of a game.

Because position players have so much more involvement than RPs, it was foolish to prioritize RPs over position players, full stop.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

In my attempt to give ptatc an answer to his question, I framed it as a way to rank needs.

I still believe it was wrong to spend lavishly on RPs, while spending a comparative pittance on everyday players and SPs.

I think your view to want to get young guys PAs is a reasonable one. I just don't think it wise to have those PAs attached to square-pegging 1B into the OF.

I don't think anyone wants this. Its just a matter of where you think the team has it's greatest weakness. You think it's the lineup. I think its the pitching.

[pcq]

My name is Karen and I would like to speak with the General Manager. 

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

What is replacement level. Is there a single stat that measures you that replacement level is? Shouldn't it change annually based upon what a replacement is that year as talent level changes. OR are players exactly the same today as they were in 1982?

You can search for that on fangraphs yourself, but yes, they've refined their formulai over the years. 

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

The Brewers and Rays did not "emphasize" relief pitching -- they happened to develop a great deal of it, which is a by-product of developing great pitching in general. The last team to "emphasize" relief pitching the way the Sox have -- by spending a great deal of resources (in both money and players, in our case) acquiring veteran relievers at the peak of their value -- was the Rockies, the consensus laughingstock of the MLB, and it very much did NOT work. And that wasn't surprising, because everyone knows that relief pitcher performance is the most volatile of any position on the diamond, by a lot. 

I think Vaughn is going to hit well, too. The problem with Vaughn is that he's a first baseman, not a right fielder. Engel is a good RF, but he can't hit well. So every night you have to choose a player who can only play well consistently on one side of the ball. Now, what if you had someone who could do both instead? I would call that putting the team in a much better position to win. I think Hahn has pulled us into an illusory universe where he's chained to having certain players on his roster. His explanation for not acquiring a RF has alluded to needing to find at-bats for Andrew Vaughn and Gavin Sheets. But... neither of those players are right fielders. Any other team, when finding themselves in possession of a logjam of interesting MLB-ready prospects in a single position would TRADE one or more of those players to shore up a position they actually needed. Similarly, not signing a RF because Cespedes and/or Colas might be ready in a year or two is nonsense -- the team also just lost a 4+ fWAR pitching season from Carlos Rodon that it hasn't replaced. If you now have a logjam in RF, why not trade a prospect for a pitcher?

Your call for financial prudence is sound, but let's engage in a counter-factual:

Actual WS offseason, in 2022-only dollars committed:

1. Leury Garcia ($5.5M)
2. Josh Harrison ($5.5M)
3. Kendall Graveman ($7M)
4. Joe Kelly ($8.5M)
5. Vince Velasquez ($3M)
TOTAL: $29.5M

What if, instead:

1. Michael Conforto ($25M)
2. Romy Gonzalez (FREE)
3. Danny Mendick (FREE)
TOTAL: $25M

Now, you can trade Gavin Sheets for a controllable back-end starter. Or Andrew Vaughn for an excellent to elite starter, or an excellent to elite second baseman. If Cespedes/Colas forces the issue, imagine trading one of THEM for a controllable starter or second baseman, maybe even packing two of those players together to go even bigger. Would that team not be in a much better position to win? With Abreu/Eloy/whoever is left from Vaughn/Sheets/Burger rotating in DH/1B/LF to help them all stay healthy and not requiring them to play out of position? With a real full-time RF in the other corner? Now, imagine you gave Rodon the QO instead of exercising Kimbrel's option. Suddenly you have pitching depth, possibly a lot of it! And it didn't cost ANY more money than what they've done instead. Is the upgrade from Romy/Mendick to Leury/Harrison worth the alternative?

Not the 2013-17 Royals emphasizing the bullpen?

Also, no pitching interventions have ever worked at Coors, starting with the Mark Hampton contract...as well as that pitcher who died in his StL hotel room. In the end, they believed relief pitching might be the successful approach compared to overpaying for FA starters who would see ERAs increase by 1.5ish per game.

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, pcq said:

My name is Karen and I would like to speak with the General Manager. 

hahahahahahahahaha

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

In my attempt to give ptatc an answer to his question, I framed it as a way to rank needs.

I still believe it was wrong to spend lavishly on RPs, while spending a comparative pittance on everyday players and SPs.

I think your view to want to get young guys PAs is a reasonable one. I just don't think it wise to have those PAs attached to square-pegging 1B into the OF.

You can win the AL Central doing that.

The struggles of Leury and Sheets out there suggest the playoffs are a totally different animal.