Jose Abreu general discussion

[cabiness42]

would you trade abreu for donaldson (money aside)?

 

If you take away the fact that this is Abreu's first year outside of Cuba, in a vacuum I would take a 28 year old 3B producing like Donaldson over a 27 year old 1B producing like Abreu. The one thing that gives me pause is the belief that because Abreu came here from Cuba, he may have more room between his current production and his peak than the typical 27-28 year old. Also, the Sox have a good 3B in Gillaspie and another potentially good one in Davidson, with no real 1B prospect behind Abreu.

 

But yeah, if I'm starting a team from scratch and have to choose Donaldson or Abreu for the same money, it's a close decision.

Edited August 4, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[witesoxfan]

I think the more accurate question is does anyone really believe that if you switched Donaldson's and Abreu's exact preformances this year to the opposite teams, if there would be no change at all on their respective teams. If the answer is no, the stat is flawed.

 

Of course it's a flawed statistic, but no statistic is perfect. It's also difficult to just assume that teams are going to remain the same record wise. The Sox I think would be - they could simply move Gillaspie over to 1B and they'd be sitting right around their same mark - but the A's then have to do something with Moss or Abreu and find a 3B, which cuts 5 positional runs from either's value due to the positional adjustment made in WAR.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Of course it's a flawed statistic, but no statistic is perfect. It's also difficult to just assume that teams are going to remain the same record wise. The Sox I think would be - they could simply move Gillaspie over to 1B and they'd be sitting right around their same mark - but the A's then have to do something with Moss or Abreu and find a 3B, which cuts 5 positional runs from either's value due to the positional adjustment made in WAR.

I strongly disagree that the Sox would have the same record with Donaldson instead of Abreu

[witesoxfan]

I strongly disagree that the Sox would have the same record with Donaldson instead of Abreu

 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think you are vastly underrating the defensive prowess of guys like Donaldson, Gordon (who has a fairly good line, despite what you suggested), and Heyward and that effect on a team's overall success.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Of course it's a flawed statistic, but no statistic is perfect. It's also difficult to just assume that teams are going to remain the same record wise. The Sox I think would be - they could simply move Gillaspie over to 1B and they'd be sitting right around their same mark - but the A's then have to do something with Moss or Abreu and find a 3B, which cuts 5 positional runs from either's value due to the positional adjustment made in WAR.

That's the problem with those stats. They are based on measures and probabilities and linear weights and measures and God knows what else a simpleton like me can't nor doesn't want to take the time to try and understand without going back to college or taking night classes.

 

The beauty of ERA and batting averages and RBI's and Slugging and OBP is that the math for calculating those things is relatively simple. Anyone with an 8th grade education can follow it. They are part of the reason why baseball was America's game.

 

I understand that the game is no longer the simple pleasure it once was . But it is still the same game on the field with a DH . But is no longer simple to evaluate a player . It has gone the way of big business and over analization to the point of reams and reams of paper pushing.It makes the guys with the computers instant baseball experts wihthout ever having stepped foot on the field or been in the trenches . For this my heart break a little.

Edited August 4, 2014 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[witesoxfan]

That's the problem with those stats. They are based on measures and probabilities and linear weights and measures and God knows what else a simpleton like me can't nor doesn't want to take the time to try and understand without going back to college or taking night classes.

 

The beauty of ERA and batting averages and RBI's and Slugging and OBP is that the math for calculating those things is relatively simple. Anyone with an 8th grade education can follow it. They are part of the reason why baseball was America's game.

 

I understand that the game is no longer the simple pleasure it once was . But it is still the same game on the field with a DH . But is no longer simple to evaluate a player . It has gone the way of big business and over analization to the point of reams and reams of paper pushing.It makes the guys with the computers instant baseball experts wihthout ever having stepped foot on the field or been in the trenches . For this my heart break a little.

 

Yes, they have a complicated calculation for WAR itself, but I don't look it to the point you do. I look at it and it allows me some knid of base guideline to compare a shortstop to a left fielder to a centerfielder to a first baseman to a starting pitcher to a relief pitcher. How valuable are these guys contributions to a team? It's not cut and dry and, as I've said and shown in the past, a 6.5 WAR may be "greater" than a 6.0 WAR, but it may not be "better" depending upon the composition of the team. We compare Donaldson and Abreu, but Donaldson's value is greater to the A's than it would be the White Sox because then the Sox have to shift Gillaspie to 1B (where he loses value because he's suddenly being compared to guys like Cabrera, Abreu, Rizzo, Freeman, Encarnacion, Moss, and any others) instead of being compared to those who also play 3B (Frazier, Sandoval, Longoria, Carpenter, Donaldson, and whoever else). Based on that, the Sox lose value there.

 

I still use all the numbers when I'm gauging how good players are. I don't merely look at WAR. It's a quick reference guide and, while there's value, a lot of it is subjective value.

[GGajewski18]

What are his chances at AL MVP?

[Jose Abreu]

What are his chances at AL MVP?

It's between him, Trout, and Cabrera. I think Abreu has a pretty good shot. It'll come down to him and Trout, but I think Trout will win it

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

What are his chances at AL MVP?

Abreu or Donaldson ? I think Abreu gets way more votes than Donaldson but that's strictly subjective voting and the A's are a much better "team" with decent players at a few more positions than the Sox. Gaudy offensive numbers help but it usually goes to a guy on a winner. Therefore Abreu's chances for MVP are slim to none.

[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.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

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.

To me, it's a simple question. Who is harder to replace? Isn't WAR all about replacement value after all? In my opinion, it's always harder to find the star offensive player, the guy that makes everyone else in the lineup better (ala Miggy, prime Pujols, Bonds, Big Hurt), than a guy like Donaldson who is very good at everything but not great at any one thing.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

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.

Good explanation as usual from you educated folks But many of the points you make can be made without the advanced stats. Their ages ,the late blooming,standard MILB numbers, Abreu's 1st year, sophomores slumps etc are all part of baseball past stats and folklore. Besides Abreu's near the best at his position now so it's probably a bad example of trading Abreu for Donaldson and much more useful for trading more similar players. Besides no stat can predict the future . I probably toot my own horn too much but I've had debates on here about choosing one player over another in the off season for certain trade possibilities and kept those debates in my mind while looking at the production of the players involved over the next few years and I'm usually right .

[Jake]

To me, it's a simple question. Who is harder to replace? Isn't WAR all about replacement value after all? In my opinion, it's always harder to find the star offensive player, the guy that makes everyone else in the lineup better (ala Miggy, prime Pujols, Bonds, Big Hurt), than a guy like Donaldson who is very good at everything but not great at any one thing.

 

Generally speaking, it's far easier to find a good 1B than good 3B.

 

The best 3B in FA this past offseason was Juan Uribe. The year before that it was some combo of Eric Chavez/Jeff Keppinger. The year before that, you had one good player - Aramis Ramirez.

 

For 1B, several solid guys became available - Mike Napoli, James Loney, Justin Morneau. The year before that - Nick Swisher, Mike Napoli, Adam LaRoche. The year before that - Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder.

 

With that said, it is harder to find a guy who is good at multiple things than good at one thing. Great at one thing? Always difficult. The whole point of this process, though, is there is no requirement for an amazing hitter. This entire discussion is about the fact that you can quantifiably reproduce the run value of a great bat by being an all-around good player.

 

There's nothing magical about a great hitter that makes the hitters around them better. Who has Abreu turned into a good hitter this year? What about Barry Bonds? The only guy I can see him seemingly having an effect on was Rich Aurilia in the 72 home run year, though Aurilia played far worse the years before and after in the same spot in the batting order, so that seems dubious. There is a lot of research on protection that shows that, over many many years of baseball, protection is never measurable beyond the extent to which you would expect random variation in performance.

 

While a great hitter is always better than not a great one, a good hitter that is a good fielder is usually better to have than a great hitter who can't field. The more a guy's game is focused on a single thing, the more that single thing can make his value disappear entirely. Compared to last year, Donaldson is having a bad year at the plate. However, because he's an excellent fielder and decently quick on the basepaths, he's still having one of the best years in the game.

[Jake]

Good explanation as usual from you educated folks But many of the points you make can be made without the advanced stats. Their ages ,the late blooming,standard MILB numbers, Abreu's 1st year, sophomores slumps etc are all part of baseball past stats and folklore. Besides Abreu's near the best at his position now so it's probably a bad example of trading Abreu for Donaldson and much more useful for trading more similar players. Besides no stat can predict the future . I probably toot my own horn too much but I've had debates on here about choosing one player over another in the off season for certain trade possibilities and kept those debates in my mind while looking at the production of the players involved over the next few years and I'm usually right .

 

Right - that's what I saying. To look at WAR and say "WAR says this guy's better but I totally wouldn't trade for them" would be a misunderstanding of what WAR is supposed to do. That's what I was trying to explain. There are all kinds of other things that go into projecting a player and deciding how to build a team.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Right - that's what I saying. To look at WAR and say "WAR says this guy's better but I totally wouldn't trade for them" would be a misunderstanding of what WAR is supposed to do. That's what I was trying to explain. There are all kinds of other things that go into projecting a player and deciding how to build a team.

We're on the same page at least you don't say sabermetrics are the end all be all. It just seems WAR and saber stats will be misused for many years without the general media people and most people in general having advanced knowledge on how they work.

[witesoxfan]

We're on the same page at least you don't say sabermetrics are the end all be all. It just seems WAR and saber stats will be misused for many years without the general media people and most people in general having advanced knowledge on how they work.

 

I know you're not talking about me, but I like using WAR as basically a reference:

 

0 - Replacement

1 - Accetable but bad starter/Bench player/Middle reliever

2 - Mediocre starter

3 - Good starter

4 - Great starter

5 - All-Star Caliber Starter

6 - All-Star Caliber Starter/Possible MVP candidate

7 - MVP Candidate

8 - Best player in the league candidate

9-11 - Mike Trout

14 - Barry Bonds

 

I don't like to line players up by WAR and say "so and so IS better than so and so because his WAR is higher," just that "so and so has been as valuable as so and so has to his team" or "so and so has been more valuable to his team than so and so."

 

You may also see me refer to certain players as a "4-5 WAR player" or something along those lines attempting to quantify qualitative adjectives like "good, great, and really, really great."

[Jake]

The other thing about getting wrapped up in single season WAR numbers is that the defensive statistic underlying the calculation is susceptible to some year-to-year variation. UZR ideally has a sample size of three or more seasons, so when looking at a player's defensive component, it's always important to see whether it lines up with his career norms.

[witesoxfan]

The other thing about getting wrapped up in single season WAR numbers is that the defensive statistic underlying the calculation is susceptible to some year-to-year variation. UZR ideally has a sample size of three or more seasons, so when looking at a player's defensive component, it's always important to see whether it lines up with his career norms.

 

Right, not that a player wasn't playing poor defense, but more along the lines of some guys will go get it for one year and then lose athleticism or their ability to read balls (thinking of De Aza here) or they can just have a bad year when they're normally great. Same thing happens to hitters too. Does anybody really think Chris Davis or Evan Longoria are as bad a hitters as they look this season?

[Rowand44]

I know you're not talking about me, but I like using WAR as basically a reference:

 

0 - Replacement

1 - Accetable but bad starter/Bench player/Middle reliever

2 - Mediocre starter

3 - Good starter

4 - Great starter

5 - All-Star Caliber Starter

6 - All-Star Caliber Starter/Possible MVP candidate

7 - MVP Candidate

8 - Best player in the league candidate

9-11 - Mike Trout

14 - Barry Bonds

 

I don't like to line players up by WAR and say "so and so IS better than so and so because his WAR is higher," just that "so and so has been as valuable as so and so has to his team" or "so and so has been more valuable to his team than so and so."

 

You may also see me refer to certain players as a "4-5 WAR player" or something along those lines attempting to quantify qualitative adjectives like "good, great, and really, really great."

And where does Willie Bloomquist fit in?

 

[Jake]

Adam Dunn of 2011 fits in at -3.0, the 11th worst season of all time. Mike Caruso's -2.7 in 1999 is the 18th worst.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Generally speaking, it's far easier to find a good 1B than good 3B.

 

The best 3B in FA this past offseason was Juan Uribe. The year before that it was some combo of Eric Chavez/Jeff Keppinger. The year before that, you had one good player - Aramis Ramirez.

 

For 1B, several solid guys became available - Mike Napoli, James Loney, Justin Morneau. The year before that - Nick Swisher, Mike Napoli, Adam LaRoche. The year before that - Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder.

 

With that said, it is harder to find a guy who is good at multiple things than good at one thing. Great at one thing? Always difficult. The whole point of this process, though, is there is no requirement for an amazing hitter. This entire discussion is about the fact that you can quantifiably reproduce the run value of a great bat by being an all-around good player.

 

There's nothing magical about a great hitter that makes the hitters around them better. Who has Abreu turned into a good hitter this year? What about Barry Bonds? The only guy I can see him seemingly having an effect on was Rich Aurilia in the 72 home run year, though Aurilia played far worse the years before and after in the same spot in the batting order, so that seems dubious. There is a lot of research on protection that shows that, over many many years of baseball, protection is never measurable beyond the extent to which you would expect random variation in performance.

 

While a great hitter is always better than not a great one, a good hitter that is a good fielder is usually better to have than a great hitter who can't field. The more a guy's game is focused on a single thing, the more that single thing can make his value disappear entirely. Compared to last year, Donaldson is having a bad year at the plate. However, because he's an excellent fielder and decently quick on the basepaths, he's still having one of the best years in the game.

I understand what you are saying in theory, but how do you explain the huge jump in offense for the White Sox this season? As I mentioned before Eaton and an improved Conor have been a boost but we have also seen a decrease in production from other guys as well to temper the Eaton/Conor boost. Take away Abreu and I would wager we are somewhere in the bottom third again in runs scored. That's just one guy making that kind of difference. I don't think one guy can make that much of a difference on defense (with catcher maybe being the one exception).

 

I do undersell defensive metrics for a number of reasons. Outside of errors, putouts, assists, etc. they aren't tangible. I don't always see a 3B get to a grounder that another 3B would not have. It's not always obvious. I see when a guy hits a homer and knocks in three runs. Also, I feel like there's a lot of gray and fluff in the defensive numbers. I have a hard time believing that Placido Polanco has a UZR/150 of 9.9 while Adrian Beltre is at 8.4 since 2010. Does anyone really believe that Polanco has been a better defensive 3B than Beltre over the last 4 years? For these reasons, I have a hard time putting defense at the same value as offense

[BigHurt3515]

Adam Dunn of 2011 fits in at -3.0, the 11th worst season of all time. Mike Caruso's -2.7 in 1999 is the 18th worst.

 

He sucks!!

[shysocks]

I understand what you are saying in theory, but how do you explain the huge jump in offense for the White Sox this season? As I mentioned before Eaton and an improved Conor have been a boost but we have also seen a decrease in production from other guys as well to temper the Eaton/Conor boost. Take away Abreu and I would wager we are somewhere in the bottom third again in runs scored. That's just one guy making that kind of difference. I don't think one guy can make that much of a difference on defense (with catcher maybe being the one exception).

Alexei Ramirez and Tyler Flowers have been vastly better. Dunn has been better. That's six spots in the lineup that are better than last season. You also have to consider that we're getting at-bats from Abreu instead of Paul Konerko's corpse, so while Abreu is a massive improvement, the level of production he is replacing was miserable.

 

I do undersell defensive metrics for a number of reasons. Outside of errors, putouts, assists, etc. they aren't tangible. I don't always see a 3B get to a grounder that another 3B would not have. It's not always obvious. I see when a guy hits a homer and knocks in three runs.

And that's exactly why we need the metrics. I'm not saying they are perfect, but Jake and others have done a beautiful job of explaining their value. They help measure something that is otherwise fuzzy. They tell you something, which is exactly what good stats should do.

 

Also, I feel like there's a lot of gray and fluff in the defensive numbers. I have a hard time believing that Placido Polanco has a UZR/150 of 9.9 while Adrian Beltre is at 8.4 since 2010. Does anyone really believe that Polanco has been a better defensive 3B than Beltre over the last 4 years? For these reasons, I have a hard time putting defense at the same value as offense

Why? Have you watched every inning they've played? I know I haven't. All I know is that Beltre gets more press for his glove - largely because of his bat. Which, again, is why the stats are useful. We can see that, hey, even though he doesn't get the same level of attention, Polanco has played the field pretty well.

[witesoxfan]

And where does Willie Bloomquist fit in?

 

He's the LeBron James of baseball, fitting somewhere around 48 WAR per year.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jose-abreu-is-now-complete/