Dunn's Future

[chitownsportsfan]

Considering the crap you give someone when they said AJ would make have made a big difference last year by pointing out his WAR, it is interesting you write there's no way the Sox are anywhere near where they are right now without Dunn in the lineup when he is sporting a 0.3 WAR.

 

The DH penalty for WAR is extreme, probably a little too high. That said, it's pretty easy to find guys that can hit but can't field at all, and that don't make over $10 million a year. Dunn is hitting, hurray, it's only about 3 years too late.

 

The Sox will trade him for an A ball pitcher or two and maybe some salary back and they'll call it a day. That's fine. If he wasn't hitting at all nobody would take him.

[Eminor3rd]

LMAO.

You often use a guy's WAR and add it to the team win total to tell us what difference he would have made. You did it with AJ last year, laughing at Greg thinking he would have made more than a couple of games difference. Now, a quarter way through the season, Adam Dunn could have already made 2 or 3 games difference? At least be consistent.

 

The good news is Dunn's production this season isn't all that much better than his production the last calendar year. He might be able to maintain it or at least come pretty close.

 

When you don't have the benefit of choosing the situations that a guy's production happens, your best guess in wins added is WAR. The true value of those contributions is affected by context later, but you can't predict that context, so WAR represents essentially an average. Add up all the things he did, good and bad, and in the average effect of those things is his WAR and the best guess you have. It isn't the most likely outcome against the field, but of all possible individual outcomes, it is the most likely.

 

So comparing Dunn's value in context with AJP's value out of context is apples to oranges. It's kind of the difference between the questions, "What has Dunn done for the team?" and "what would Dunn likely contribute if we added him to the team?" One can, for example, believe that Dunn has been a huge difference maker this year and simultaneously think that the right decision would have been to cut him in the previous offseason. If I bet my entire life savings on a 3/6 offsuited hand pre-flop, and end up winning on a full house, there's no question that I ended up with a great hand. But the hand was only great in context. It's s*** on average, which means it's s*** in a context neutral environment, which is all I have to go on when I decide to go all-in pre-flop.

[chitownsportsfan]

Caulfield-ed!!!

 

Eh, nobody is holding a gun to Hahn's hand saying he has to spend the money (theoretically) saved from dumping another 6 million or so in salary on a mediocre starting pitcher. I hate to use this word because it's so generic and can mean anything -- but it gives the Sox flexibility.

 

Say someone with a big salary becomes available via a trade, the Sox will have another 6 or so million on the table in order to make it work.

 

As for the attendance stuff, if this fanbase is so fickle and stupid to turn out in even lower numbers because the Sox dumped Adam Dunn in a rebuilding year then I don't know what to say other then I hope they show up when they start winning.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Or it's just erasing $6 million in revenue loss due to lower attendance.

 

 

It's a risky endeavor to invest in pitching in the FA market. We're already seeing signs of Verlander deteriorating many years before the end of that deal.

 

Scherzer, Lester and Shields...I can't see us touching those guys.

 

And Masterson supposedly turned down $50 million for 3 years from the Indians but for the White Sox to commit let's say $80 million over even 4 seasons to him...they were willing to gamble on Tanaka because of his age and ace potential, but based on what he's looking like so far this year, would anyone jump up and down with joy getting Masterson for $80/4 (were he to continue putting up relatively pedestrian numbers)?

 

Last year, he was very good, better than Quintana. But this year, he's giving up more hits than IP, a WHIP of around 1.5 and a 5+ ERA.

 

Maybe the looming contract situation/FA is in his head (see Sandoval in SF), but that disappearing ability "disease" has infected Carlos Santana, Bourn and Nick Swisher as well.

 

http://www.indiansbaseballinsider.com/blog...easonable-63355

 

 

Joe Chengery

March 23, 2014 - 10:59 PM EDT

While the shorter length (and virtually no one thought they'd take a two-year deal, and the preference for them really is three) helps, it's still a risk, and still a lot of payroll to tie up in a guy who has not put up back-to-back good seasons, and is a borderline frontline starter (i.e. #2) at best. Signing Kazmir would have probably been more prudent; as I said before, the length of Ubaldo's contract would have made me shy away, but on the other hand, Ubaldo has matched or outdone Masterson over their careers, and it was a reasonable bet he could maintain a level of success here. Would it have been as good as the second half of 2013? That probably wasn't likely because very few pitchers stay in that "hot zone"- even Verlander hasn't been as dominant as he was a few seasons ago, but I think with (Mickey) Callaway's guidance and familiar surroundings, Ubaldo could have been a consistently good starter at a lower cost. I'm not as sure of that elsewhere; like I said though, I would have preferred Ubaldo at three years plus an option, but that turned out NOT to be an option in the end.

 

Keep in mind that no one expected Masterson to take a two-year deal, and the only real reason he's doing it is because of a possible change in the QO in the next bargaining agreement; taking a shorter contract would still enable him to still get a larger contract while he's still in his prime. A QO would probably affect his value since his track record is no better, and arguably worse, than Jimenez and Garza, so the shorter p-length contract is a calculated move on the part of Masterson and his agent, just as it was to make it seem as if the contract offer is a discount, when in reality, it isn't.

 

Seth, I still don't think Masterson's 2013 was that great; his 2011 was better, and his 2012 wasn't much better than Ubaldo's and that's where the rub is- can Masterson put together back-to-back strong seasons, presuming 2013 was a strong season? (I think Ubaldo had the stronger, more consistent overall 2013, along with a healthier 2013). If Masterson can put together a strong 2014 (more like he did in 2011 with better command, since I'm not confident his H and K rates will be as strong in 2014 based on his track record, necessitating the need for better command), it will be the first time he's done that in his career. I think that is a major reason why the Indians are hesitating - which Masterson are you going to get- the strong three, borderline two starter like in 2011 and parts of 2013, or the inconsistent 4-5 starter you got in 2012, and even parts of 2010 and 2013? That's why they don't think putting down 1/6 to 1/5 of this year's and next year's payroll is the best idea, especially when other salaries will be increasing next year (including Kipnis, who they want to sign long term, plus any upgrades the Indians may need next offseason. Signing Masterson to such a contract may tie their hands to the point where they won't be able to sign anyone of significance, even a Murphy-level signing).

 

Tanaka didn't cost any draft pick compensation though. I would be shocked if the Sox signed a player next offseason that cost the team a draft pick.

[Dick Allen]

When you don't have the benefit of choosing the situations that a guy's production happens, your best guess in wins added is WAR. The true value of those contributions is affected by context later, but you can't predict that context, so WAR represents essentially an average. Add up all the things he did, good and bad, and in the average effect of those things is his WAR and the best guess you have. It isn't the most likely outcome against the field, but of all possible individual outcomes, it is the most likely.

 

So comparing Dunn's value in context with AJP's value out of context is apples to oranges. It's kind of the difference between the questions, "What has Dunn done for the team?" and "what would Dunn likely contribute if we added him to the team?" One can, for example, believe that Dunn has been a huge difference maker this year and simultaneously think that the right decision would have been to cut him in the previous offseason. If I bet my entire life savings on a 3/6 offsuited hand pre-flop, and end up winning on a full house, there's no question that I ended up with a great hand. But the hand was only great in context. It's s*** on average, which means it's s*** in a context neutral environment, which is all I have to go on when I decide to go all-in pre-flop.

I thought sabermetrics took care of all that for us. Didn't you tell us it will let us know if player A is better than player B far better than our eyes or traditional numbers will tell us?

If you are going to say AJPs 3 WAR season takes the Sox from 63 to 66 wins, then don't say Adam Dunn's 0.3 WAR season takes the Sox from 22 wins down to 19 or 20 without him, or WAR numbers are ridiculous.

If a 3 WAR doesn't mean making a 63 win team a 66 win team, then it shouldn't be used as an argument against when someone is saying a certain player would have a bigger impact. That's all I am saying. I personally don't feel adding a 5 WAR player while dumping a 1 WAR player means 4 extra wins. All I am saying it that was used when they didn't like the argument, so when they actually like the player, perhaps they should use the same standard.

[Dick Allen]

Soxtalk didn't like Santana or Jimenez, but for some reason have a fascination with Masterson, a guy who has put up exactly 2 seasons of more than 10 starts and an ERA lower than 4.50.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Or it's just erasing $6 million in revenue loss due to lower attendance.

 

 

It's a risky endeavor to invest in pitching in the FA market. We're already seeing signs of Verlander deteriorating many years before the end of that deal.

 

Scherzer, Lester and Shields...I can't see us touching those guys.

 

And Masterson supposedly turned down $50 million for 3 years from the Indians but for the White Sox to commit let's say $80 million over even 4 seasons to him...they were willing to gamble on Tanaka because of his age and ace potential, but based on what he's looking like so far this year, would anyone jump up and down with joy getting Masterson for $80/4 (were he to continue putting up relatively pedestrian numbers)?

 

Last year, he was very good, better than Quintana. But this year, he's giving up more hits than IP, a WHIP of around 1.5 and a 5+ ERA.

 

Maybe the looming contract situation/FA is in his head (see Sandoval in SF), but that disappearing ability "disease" has infected Carlos Santana, Bourn and Nick Swisher as well.

 

http://www.indiansbaseballinsider.com/blog...easonable-63355

 

 

Joe Chengery

March 23, 2014 - 10:59 PM EDT

While the shorter length (and virtually no one thought they'd take a two-year deal, and the preference for them really is three) helps, it's still a risk, and still a lot of payroll to tie up in a guy who has not put up back-to-back good seasons, and is a borderline frontline starter (i.e. #2) at best. Signing Kazmir would have probably been more prudent; as I said before, the length of Ubaldo's contract would have made me shy away, but on the other hand, Ubaldo has matched or outdone Masterson over their careers, and it was a reasonable bet he could maintain a level of success here. Would it have been as good as the second half of 2013? That probably wasn't likely because very few pitchers stay in that "hot zone"- even Verlander hasn't been as dominant as he was a few seasons ago, but I think with (Mickey) Callaway's guidance and familiar surroundings, Ubaldo could have been a consistently good starter at a lower cost. I'm not as sure of that elsewhere; like I said though, I would have preferred Ubaldo at three years plus an option, but that turned out NOT to be an option in the end.

 

Keep in mind that no one expected Masterson to take a two-year deal, and the only real reason he's doing it is because of a possible change in the QO in the next bargaining agreement; taking a shorter contract would still enable him to still get a larger contract while he's still in his prime. A QO would probably affect his value since his track record is no better, and arguably worse, than Jimenez and Garza, so the shorter p-length contract is a calculated move on the part of Masterson and his agent, just as it was to make it seem as if the contract offer is a discount, when in reality, it isn't.

 

Seth, I still don't think Masterson's 2013 was that great; his 2011 was better, and his 2012 wasn't much better than Ubaldo's and that's where the rub is- can Masterson put together back-to-back strong seasons, presuming 2013 was a strong season? (I think Ubaldo had the stronger, more consistent overall 2013, along with a healthier 2013). If Masterson can put together a strong 2014 (more like he did in 2011 with better command, since I'm not confident his H and K rates will be as strong in 2014 based on his track record, necessitating the need for better command), it will be the first time he's done that in his career. I think that is a major reason why the Indians are hesitating - which Masterson are you going to get- the strong three, borderline two starter like in 2011 and parts of 2013, or the inconsistent 4-5 starter you got in 2012, and even parts of 2010 and 2013? That's why they don't think putting down 1/6 to 1/5 of this year's and next year's payroll is the best idea, especially when other salaries will be increasing next year (including Kipnis, who they want to sign long term, plus any upgrades the Indians may need next offseason. Signing Masterson to such a contract may tie their hands to the point where they won't be able to sign anyone of significance, even a Murphy-level signing).

Ignoring the exhaustive tangent into a topic I never brought up...

 

You think the Sox will lost $6M in attendance revenue by not having Dunn in the lineup in August and September? Really with that?

 

[Kyyle23]

Soxtalk didn't like Santana or Jimenez, but for some reason have a fascination with Masterson, a guy who has put up exactly 2 seasons of more than 10 starts and an ERA lower than 4.50.

 

 

How many people consist of "Soxtalk"? I havent seen anyone except Caulfield beating on that drum

[Steve9347]

Wow. There's a thread about keeping Dunn beyond this year.

 

Adam f***ing Dunn.

 

It's nice to see him not be entirely worthless for a moment, but come on, yo.

[witesoxfan]

Soxtalk didn't like Santana or Jimenez, but for some reason have a fascination with Masterson, a guy who has put up exactly 2 seasons of more than 10 starts and an ERA lower than 4.50.

 

I think he's a fairly good pitcher, but I'm not on board with giving him a big contract. I don't want them spending a significant amount on any starter in the free agent market.

[witesoxfan]

Wow. There's a thread about keeping Dunn beyond this year.

 

Adam f***ing Dunn.

 

It's nice to see him not be entirely worthless for a moment, but come on, yo.

 

60 years, all the money

[Steve9347]

Haha alright. I still have a soft spot for the man because he was one of my favorite players prior to joining the White Sox. He was an absolute monster for like 8 seasons and people conveniently forget that.

What the f*** did I just read? No one completely forgets that. He's been with the Sox for years and mostly terrible.

[Eminor3rd]

I thought sabermetrics took care of all that for us. Didn't you tell us it will let us know if player A is better than player B far better than our eyes or traditional numbers will tell us?

 

Yes. There is a difference between how a player is and how good player has played. From a FO perspective, you're almost always trying to predict the future, and so you're more interested in a player's true talent than his contributions that had more to do with his team and/or game situations. So, generally speaking, when evaluating players as canddates for your team, you want to use numbers that you think reflect true talent.

 

If you are going to say AJPs 3 WAR season takes the Sox from 63 to 66 wins, then don't say Adam Dunn's 0.3 WAR season takes the Sox from 22 wins down to 19 or 20 without him, or WAR numbers are ridiculous.

If a 3 WAR doesn't mean making a 63 win team a 66 win team, then it shouldn't be used as an argument against when someone is saying a certain player would have a bigger impact. That's all I am saying. I personally don't feel adding a 5 WAR player while dumping a 1 WAR player means 4 extra wins. All I am saying it that was used when they didn't like the argument, so when they actually like the player, perhaps they should use the same standard.

 

Yeah I think you misunderstand my last post. Probably my fault for not being clear.

 

Let's keep the poker analogy going:

 

What is the value of a hand with a 2 of Clubs and a 5 of Diamonds? It's not high. If you had to choose which hand you wanted, you'd rather have, say, an Ace of diamonds and Queen of Hearts. This decision is clear and it is context neutral. The latter hand is better because it will win in more situations. This is like WAR. We can add up all Dunn's homers and singles and walks and strikeouts and tell you exactly how much better or worse that total is than anyone else's by using linear weights. It's essentially a total of likely valuations assigned to a list of actual events. His homers typically add x runs, which result in y wins. You can compare these numbers with a common denominator and find out who does the things that lead to wins more often.

 

Now, to the actual game. The flop happens and it is a 2 of Hearts, 2 of Spades, and a 7 of Spades. All of a sudden, in the context of the game, the former hand that we agreed was worse in a context neutral environment is a much better hand now that context is introduced. You'd now choose the former hand every time because it is now way more likely to win. It has performed for you better than the latter hand did. Yet, if you have the chance to choose from the same two hands next game, you'll still choose the latter hand because it's still more likely to win for you before you have the benefit of analyzing the context in which it will play. Similarly, Adam Dunn's homers can all come at crucial parts of the game with runners on base, and all of a sudden the actual value of his contribution is much higher than the likely value that we chose from before. Adam Dunn may wins us 8 games this year through a WAR of 1.0 if all the cards fall right. And if I thought he'd be the same player next year, I'd still not think he was worth $14m, because it's not likely the cards are going to fall right again.

 

Basically, you can't expect a context-neutral number to make sense in a context dependent environment. That doesn't make the context neutral number useless though, because most of the important decisions that have to be made are made in context-neutral environments.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[southsider2k5]

Eh, nobody is holding a gun to Hahn's hand saying he has to spend the money (theoretically) saved from dumping another 6 million or so in salary on a mediocre starting pitcher. I hate to use this word because it's so generic and can mean anything -- but it gives the Sox flexibility.

 

Say someone with a big salary becomes available via a trade, the Sox will have another 6 or so million on the table in order to make it work.

 

As for the attendance stuff, if this fanbase is so fickle and stupid to turn out in even lower numbers because the Sox dumped Adam Dunn in a rebuilding year then I don't know what to say other then I hope they show up when they start winning.

 

Not been a Sox fan long I see...

[southsider2k5]

I thought sabermetrics took care of all that for us. Didn't you tell us it will let us know if player A is better than player B far better than our eyes or traditional numbers will tell us?

If you are going to say AJPs 3 WAR season takes the Sox from 63 to 66 wins, then don't say Adam Dunn's 0.3 WAR season takes the Sox from 22 wins down to 19 or 20 without him, or WAR numbers are ridiculous.

If a 3 WAR doesn't mean making a 63 win team a 66 win team, then it shouldn't be used as an argument against when someone is saying a certain player would have a bigger impact. That's all I am saying. I personally don't feel adding a 5 WAR player while dumping a 1 WAR player means 4 extra wins. All I am saying it that was used when they didn't like the argument, so when they actually like the player, perhaps they should use the same standard.

 

This post needs more TWTW to be complete.

[harfman77]

Looking at FA this season, I am not sure where the Sox are better served spending the money. They will likely not be contenders for the top two SP's and after that there is not a lot worth getting excited about. There are no big name international guys that will pop on the scene as we has last season. The Sox will end up surrendering an early pick plus a substantial amount of money to the mid-level guys that remain if they feel the need to be active. I would rather roll the dice on Dunn declining the offer and finding a multi-year deal elsewhere then throw that money at the crap that is hitting the market at the end of the season. There are no LH power bats in the system to take his place. I agree 1/$15M will be excessive, but its worth a gamble, with nothing better on the horizon.

[southsider2k5]

Looking at FA this season, I am not sure where the Sox are better served spending the money. They will likely not be contenders for the top two SP's and after that there is not a lot worth getting excited about. There are no big name international guys that will pop on the scene as we has last season. The Sox will end up surrendering an early pick plus a substantial amount of money to the mid-level guys that remain if they feel the need to be active. I would rather roll the dice on Dunn declining the offer and finding a multi-year deal elsewhere then throw that money at the crap that is hitting the market at the end of the season. There are no LH power bats in the system to take his place. I agree 1/$15M will be excessive, but its worth a gamble, with nothing better on the horizon.

 

Adam Dunn will not turn down a QO. In fact his eyes will turn into dollar signs and his arm will fall like a slot machine, complete with the "cha-ching" sound if he gets a QO from the White Sox.

[Dick Allen]

The fact that anyone even thinks it's a possibilty the Sox maybe, possibly, perhaps should give Dunn a qualifying offer makes me wonder if the 2011,2012 and 2013 seasons were just dreams.

 

I don't have the hate many at least had for him, even though I have been a proponent for dumping him to anyone willing to eat the contract, but even if he wound up having the best season of his career, I wouldn't give him a QO.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Dick Allen

[2nd_city_saint787]

Add me in to the Dunn supporter group.

 

That said I probably wouldn't give him a QO, but I'd probably throw him something much less. Probably something in the 5-9M range.

 

Everything, in my mind, hinges on whether or not they think Steverson has "fixed him". Same goes for Flowers and to a lesser extent(Because he has prospects behind him) Beckham. If Todd, and the rest of the organization think he's gotten through to those guys than I see no harm in keeping them around.

[TaylorStSox]

Is there a way to just have a Caufield random thoughts thread? That way he doesn't have to interject them in threads that have little to do with his posts.

[Quin]

1) I like Dunn. He needs to be gone after this year.

 

2) Who the f*** wanted Masterson?

 

Is there a way to just have a Caufield random thoughts thread? That way he doesn't have to interject them in threads that have little to do with his posts.

 

[southsider2k5]

Is there a way to just have a Caufield random thoughts thread? That way he doesn't have to interject them in threads that have little to do with his posts.

 

Deep thoughts... with Caulfield

[Marty34]

LMAO.

You often use a guy's WAR and add it to the team win total to tell us what difference he would have made. You did it with AJ last year, laughing at Greg thinking he would have made more than a couple of games difference. Now, a quarter way through the season, Adam Dunn could have already made 2 or 3 games difference? At least be consistent.

 

The good news is Dunn's production this season isn't all that much better than his production the last calendar year. He might be able to maintain it or at least come pretty close.

 

 

I got a laugh out of that too. WAR is the last word in baseball arguments until it's not.

[bmags]

I'd be happy to see Adam back. At this point I'm kind of done with the commodification of our players and just want to get back to enjoying them play.

[Eminor3rd]

I got a laugh out of that too. WAR is the last word in baseball arguments until it's not.

 

The only people that claim it is or is intended to be the "be all, end all" of statistics are those who don't understand what they're talking about.

 

EDIT: Like you.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Eminor3rd