Neil Walker on the Block

[Dick Allen]

4.71 ERA, 4.49 FIP, 4.65 xFIP, 6.28 K/9, 2.84 BB/9, averaging 5.9 innings a start. Not exactly good.

It apparently was worth $14 million.

 

If advanced stats are to be believed, he is a 1.8 WAR left handed pitcher. If you eat a little money, those guys should bring you back something useful if it is determined he can do it again.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Dick Allen

[shysocks]

4.71 ERA, 4.49 FIP, 4.65 xFIP, 6.28 K/9, 2.84 BB/9, averaging 5.9 innings a start. Not exactly good.

Just to zero in the IP/start thing, that's pretty much the new normal. I isolated the AL because the NL's pinch hitting tendencies would throw things off, and out of 97 pitchers who made at least 10 starts, the average length of a Danks start ranked 44th.

 

Six innings per start isn't a rarity, but it's not a given.

[Dick Allen]

Just to zero in the IP/start thing, that's pretty much the new normal. I isolated the AL because the NL's pinch hitting tendencies would throw things off, and out of 97 pitchers who made at least 10 starts, the average length of a Danks start ranked 44th.

 

Six innings per start isn't a rarity, but it's not a given.

57th in IP. Less than 2 a team that were higher than him.

[LDF]

Just to zero in the IP/start thing, that's pretty much the new normal. I isolated the AL because the NL's pinch hitting tendencies would throw things off, and out of 97 pitchers who made at least 10 starts, the average length of a Danks start ranked 44th.

 

Six innings per start isn't a rarity, but it's not a given.

57th in IP. Less than 2 a team that were higher than him.

 

this i didn't know.

 

to both excellent use of the stats

[Eminor3rd]

It apparently was worth $14 million.

 

If advanced stats are to be believed, he is a 1.8 WAR left handed pitcher. If you eat a little money, those guys should bring you back something useful if it is determined he can do it again.

 

That's not true. Two things:

 

1. The $/WAR thing does NOT say "Player x's performance was worth $y because of z WAR." The $/WAR thing DOES say "Teams have paid an average of $x per WAR in the most recent offseason free agent market." It's very natural to want to draw an equivalency of dollars to raw value, but it doesn't work specifically because the number ONLY applies to free agent dollars. In other words, the price paid is for marginal wins from entities that already have MOST of their total wins in the bank at substantially lower costs (in the form of controllable players, both pre-free agency and post-free agency players that outproduce their contracts). The actual dollar value per win in the MLB is way, way lower because of guys like Mike Trout or Jacob DeGrom. Additionally, the $/WAR model shows that the rate teams pay is NOT linear at all. As the yearly salary figure increases, the rate of return decreases -- players essentially give a "discount" on a per WAR basis in exchange for more years or just a lot of money anyway. The whole thing tends to top out around $30m no matter who we're talking about.

 

2. That John Danks put up a 1.8 fWAR season does not mean he is "a 1.8 fWAR pitcher." Good on him for having a great year and approximating a league average player in 2015, but as I pointed out before, that number is just one of a larger data set, and that larger data set points to him NOT repeating his success going forward.

[Dick Allen]

That's not true. Two things:

 

1. The $/WAR thing does NOT say "Player x's performance was worth $y because of z WAR." The $/WAR thing DOES say "Teams have paid an average of $x per WAR in the most recent offseason free agent market." It's very natural to want to draw an equivalency of dollars to raw value, but it doesn't work specifically because the number ONLY applies to free agent dollars. In other words, the price paid is for marginal wins from entities that already have MOST of their total wins in the bank at substantially lower costs (in the form of controllable players, both pre-free agency and post-free agency players that outproduce their contracts). The actual dollar value per win in the MLB is way, way lower because of guys like Mike Trout or Jacob DeGrom. Additionally, the $/WAR model shows that the rate teams pay is NOT linear at all. As the yearly salary figure increases, the rate of return decreases -- players essentially give a "discount" on a per WAR basis in exchange for more years or just a lot of money anyway. The whole thing tends to top out around $30m no matter who we're talking about.

 

2. That John Danks put up a 1.8 fWAR season does not mean he is "a 1.8 fWAR pitcher." Good on him for having a great year and approximating a league average player in 2015, but as I pointed out before, that number is just one of a larger data set, and that larger data set points to him NOT repeating his success going forward.

He was a lot better than the "he sucks 3 out of every 4 starts" hyperbole we read on this board in 2015.

 

It is funny how iron clad these advanced stats supposedly are at times, and how other times, well, xxx happened, and you can't expect xxx to happen...Go back to the Zach Duke signing. I ranted against it. You saber guys were saying he is a totally different pitcher. Nothing he did before 2014 was relevant. Danks is a different pitcher. Perhaps more healthy. He was throwing a little harder near the end of the season. Now, what he did in 2011-2014 IS relevant.

 

Whether you are totally saber, totally old school, or a mix, we all can spin the numbers around to make the guys we like look good, and the guys we think suck, to suck. I do it, you do it, everyone who reads this does it.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

He was a lot better than the "he sucks 3 out of every 4 starts" hyperbole we read on this board in 2015.

 

It is funny how iron clad these advanced stats supposedly are at times, and how other times, well, xxx happened, and you can't expect xxx to happen...Go back to the Zach Duke signing. I ranted against it. You saber guys were saying he is a totally different pitcher. Nothing he did before 2014 was relevant. Danks is a different pitcher. Perhaps more healthy. He was throwing a little harder near the end of the season. Now, what he did in 2011-2014 IS relevant.

 

Whether you are totally saber, totally old school, or a mix, we all can spin the numbers around to make the guys we like look good, and the guys we think suck, to suck.

 

As I've said seemingly thousands of times, the only people calling them "ironclad" are those who are setting up strawmen against them, typically in exapserated justification of using a number to try to explain a phenomenon that it was never intended to explain. Every stat has a purpose, and some are better than others. Each is good at telling you some things, and not at telling you others. Some are more reliable at others. If you insist on viewing the situation in a black & white, all or nothing, SABRS VS JOCKS, "I know everything or else I know nothing" manner, then none of this will make sense to you.

 

If someone misuses a stat, and someone else tries to explain how it should be used properly, the result is not evidence that all numbers are a lie.

[Dick Allen]

As I've said seemingly thousands of times, the only people calling them "ironclad" are those who are setting up strawmen against them, typically in exapserated justification of using a number to try to explain a phenomenon that it was never intended to explain. Every stat has a purpose, and some are better than others. Each is good at telling you some things, and not at telling you others. Some are more reliable at others. If you insist on viewing the situation in a black & white, all or nothing, SABRS VS JOCKS, "I know everything or else I know nothing" manner, then none of this will make sense to you.

 

If someone misuses a stat, and someone else tries to explain how it should be used properly, the result is not evidence that all numbers are a lie.

Misuses a stat? He put up a 1.8 WAR. That's better than several guys owed more money.

 

How come you don't get so upset when guys were posting that Danks sucked 3 out of every 4 starts when that was totally false?

 

I did use saber guys because it was you and your buddy witesoxfan who told me Duke's career numbers were meaningless. He was well worth the contract he was given. One all that mattered was the previous season. Danks, all that matters is everything but the previous season.

 

But if you read your post and your conclusions, the black and white you complain about, is exactly what you are doing.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Dick Allen

[LDF]

That's not true. Two things:

 

1. The $/WAR thing does NOT say "Player x's performance was worth $y because of z WAR." The $/WAR thing DOES say "Teams have paid an average of $x per WAR in the most recent offseason free agent market." It's very natural to want to draw an equivalency of dollars to raw value, but it doesn't work specifically because the number ONLY applies to free agent dollars. In other words, the price paid is for marginal wins from entities that already have MOST of their total wins in the bank at substantially lower costs (in the form of controllable players, both pre-free agency and post-free agency players that outproduce their contracts). The actual dollar value per win in the MLB is way, way lower because of guys like Mike Trout or Jacob DeGrom. Additionally, the $/WAR model shows that the rate teams pay is NOT linear at all. As the yearly salary figure increases, the rate of return decreases -- players essentially give a "discount" on a per WAR basis in exchange for more years or just a lot of money anyway. The whole thing tends to top out around $30m no matter who we're talking about.

2. That John Danks put up a 1.8 fWAR season does not mean he is "a 1.8 fWAR pitcher." Good on him for having a great year and approximating a league average player in 2015, but as I pointed out before, that number is just one of a larger data set, and that larger data set points to him NOT repeating his success going forward.

 

if i am reading this correctly, you are judging him based on what??? and if you are using anything to judge or compare him too, then you are using the realm of subject opinion following by a perception.

 

ball players a judge on their yearly performance and can be use as a track record. but this whole thing has change due to his injury, surgery etc,....

[Eminor3rd]

Misuses a stat? He put up a 1.8 WAR. That's better than several guys owed more money.

 

How come you don't get so upset when guys were posting that Danks sucked 3 out of every 4 starts when that was totally false?

 

I did use saber guys because it was you and your buddy witesoxfan who told me Duke's career numbers were meaningless. He was well worth the contract he was given. One all that mattered was the previous season. Danks, all that matters is everything but the previous season.

 

But if you read your post and your conclusions, the black and white you complain about, is exactly what you are doing.

 

If you want to find a post I made about Zach Duke where I say that his career numbers are meaningless and he's a lock to repeat his career year and sabermetrics prove he's unstoppable, I will gladly eat s*** or whatever.

 

But if you go on a search, you'll find instead that I have said things like "I like this risk because I've read that his transformation was due to an overhaul of his mechanics and pitch-mix, thus making me feel that his recent numbers are more likely to stick," or something similarly reasonable and realistic and notably NOT the type of hyperbolic, extreme claim that you frequently "remember" me making. And that's really the key: you seem to have a need to divide everyone's stance into one of two clear camps, where each side must accept EVERY premise of anyone who also falls on that side, and must simultaneously reject every premise held by anyone on the opposite side. It feels a lot like mainstream political coverage at times. The truth is that I liked the Zach Duke signing and that I thought he was likely to succeed on some level -- and yet I'm not shocked AT ALL that he didn't succeed, because I always knew it was a possibility. I'm disappointed, yes, but it didn't shatter my worldview, because I understand that life isn't a series of pre-meditated events that can be predicted absolute accuracy.

 

Which leads to the following strange conclusion: I still like the Zach Duke signing. I don't like how it's worked out, but even re-evaluating the information that existed at the time, I think it made a ton of sense. Sometimes you have to live with the dice not falling like you wanted.

 

I don't know if it's just the idea of shades of grey, probablities, etc. that is annoying to you or if it's just the intrigue of goading me to argument. I agree that there is appeal to being able to draw a distinct conclusion from everything, it's just that unfortunately that's not how life/baseball works. And I tend to value seeking the truth (even when the truth is frustratingly incomplete) rather than seeking a sense of conclusion. Accuracy over completeness.

 

And I get that that feels "waffle-y" to you probably. But you won't find me posting what you say I'm posting because I don't and have never thought those things.

 

if i am reading this correctly, you are judging him based on what??? and if you are using anything to judge or compare him too, then you are using the realm of subject opinion following by a perception.

 

ball players a judge on their yearly performance and can be use as a track record. but this whole thing has change due to his injury, surgery etc,....

 

Right. Danks was a very good pitcher before his shoulder surgery. Since then, he's been varying degrees of bad until last year, where he was merely "slightly below average." Since than last season is the most recent, it holds more weight than the other seasons individually, but it doesn't hold more weight than the combined effect of the larger, multi-year sample.

 

So if you want to say something like "what kind of pitcher is John Danks post-surgery," one VERY simple (too simple, but effective for the purposes of the example) way to do it would be to simply average his results since. That way, his outlier 2015 is included but not over-represented. Danks' average fWAR since his surgery is 0.7 fWAR per season. So are you comfortable saying that guy is a 1.8 fWAR pitcher next year?

 

In truth, you'd make it more complicated. First of all, you'd weight the most recent season by some factor. I didn't do that above because I have no idea what that factor is, but guys that make projection systems have figured it out enough to make a really solid guess. Regardless, it's a safe to assume that the 0.7 figure is low, perhaps a weighted average might make it closer to 1.0 fWAR.Secondly, you'd look at what actually changed to make him more productive, and then decide if those factors are likely or not likely to continue or to be indicative of a sustainable skill. Danks' 2014 (0.5 fWAR) and 2015 (1.8 fWAR) seasons were actually REMARKABLY similar -- the biggest difference is he struck out a few more guys (on a per inning basis) this year. The second biggest difference, though, appears to be that league offense got better, which means something for his contributions but doesn't necessarily suggest that he's a better pitcher.

 

Thirdly, you might try to find a difference in his peripherals or style that could have sustainably contributed to his increased strikeout rate. For example, did his velocity increase? Did he add a pitch? If so, this would very ironically be the same argument for Danks improving that Dick Allen is arguing AGAINST in the case of Zach Duke.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

If you want to find a post I made about Zach Duke where I say that his career numbers are meaningless and he's a lock to repeat his career year and sabermetrics prove he's unstoppable, I will gladly eat s*** or whatever.

 

But if you go on a search, you'll find instead that I have said things like "I like this risk because I've read that his transformation was due to an overhaul of his mechanics and pitch-mix, thus making me feel that his recent numbers are more likely to stick," or something similarly reasonable and realistic and notably NOT the type of hyperbolic, extreme claim that you frequently "remember" me making. And that's really the key: you seem to have a need to divide everyone's stance into one of two clear camps, where each side must accept EVERY premise of anyone who also falls on that side, and must simultaneously reject every premise held by anyone on the opposite side. It feels a lot like mainstream political coverage at times. The truth is that I liked the Zach Duke signing and that I thought he was likely to succeed on some level -- and yet I'm not shocked AT ALL that he didn't succeed, because I always knew it was a possibility. I'm disappointed, yes, but it didn't shatter my worldview, because I understand that life isn't a series of pre-meditated events that can be predicted absolute accuracy.

 

Which leads to the following strange conclusion: I still like the Zach Duke signing. I don't like how it's worked out, but even re-evaluating the information that existed at the time, I think it made a ton of sense. Sometimes you have to live with the dice not falling like you wanted.

 

I don't know if it's just the idea of shades of grey, probablities, etc. that is annoying to you or if it's just the intrigue of goading me to argument. I agree that there is appeal to being able to draw a distinct conclusion from everything, it's just that unfortunately that's not how life/baseball works. And I tend to value seeking the truth (even when the truth is frustratingly incomplete) rather than seeking a sense of conclusion. Accuracy over completeness.

 

And I get that that feels "waffle-y" to you probably. But you won't find me posting what you say I'm posting because I don't and have never thought those things.

 

 

 

Right. Danks was a very good pitcher before his shoulder surgery. Since then, he's been varying degrees of bad until last year, where he was merely "slightly below average." Since than last season is the most recent, it holds more weight than the other seasons individually, but it doesn't hold more weight than the combined effect of the larger, multi-year sample.

 

So if you want to say something like "what kind of pitcher is John Danks post-surgery," one VERY simple (too simple, but effective for the purposes of the example) way to do it would be to simply average his results since. That way, his outlier 2015 is included but not over-represented. Danks' average fWAR since his surgery is 0.7 fWAR per season. So are you comfortable saying that guy is a 1.8 fWAR pitcher next year?

 

In truth, you'd make it more complicated. First of all, you'd weight the most recent season by some factor. I didn't do that above because I have no idea what that factor is, but guys that make projection systems have figured it out enough to make a really solid guess. Regardless, it's a safe to assume that the 0.7 figure is low, perhaps a weighted average might make it closer to 1.0 fWAR.Secondly, you'd look at what actually changed to make him more productive, and then decide if those factors are likely or not likely to continue or to be indicative of a sustainable skill. Danks' 2014 (0.5 fWAR) and 2015 (1.8 fWAR) seasons were actually REMARKABLY similar -- the biggest difference is he struck out a few more guys (on a per inning basis) this year. The second biggest difference, though, appears to be that league offense got better, which means something for his contributions but doesn't necessarily suggest that he's a better pitcher.

 

Thirdly, you might try to find a difference in his peripherals or style that could have sustainably contributed to his increased strikeout rate. For example, did his velocity increase? Did he add a pitch? If so, this would very ironically be the same argument for Danks improving that Dick Allen is arguing AGAINST in the case of Zach Duke.

You really need to read my original post again. You know the one where I said he put up a 1.8 WAR and said you could probably get something for him if you threw in a little money and the team acquiring him thought he could do it again. Clearly you think it is black and white, something you supposedly despise, that he can't. No one is goading you. You think Danks sucks, WAR be damned.

[Eminor3rd]

You really need to read my original post again. You know the one where I said he put up a 1.8 WAR and said you could probably get something for him if you threw in a little money and the team acquiring him thought he could do it again. Clearly you think it is black and white, something you supposedly despise, that he can't. No one is goading you. You think Danks sucks, WAR be damned.

 

I do think he sucks, but the problem with your argument is that WAR doesn't make a case that he's good in the first place, so I'm not sure where the "WAR be damned" comes from. His 2015 fWAR was close but not even league average, and it's a stark outlier, so you need to regress it against the larger sample. It paints the picture of a 1 WAR guy, and that's just not valuable at $14m at all.

[Dick Allen]

I do think he sucks, but the problem with your argument is that WAR doesn't make a case that he's good in the first place, so I'm not sure where the "WAR be damned" comes from. His 2015 fWAR was close but not even league average, and it's a stark outlier, so you need to regress it against the larger sample. It paints the picture of a 1 WAR guy, and that's just not valuable at $14m at all.

If he puts up,a 1.8 WAR he is worth something. That does not suck.

[LDF]

Right. Danks was a very good pitcher before his shoulder surgery. Since then, he's been varying degrees of bad until last year, where he was merely "slightly below average." Since than last season is the most recent, it holds more weight than the other seasons individually, but it doesn't hold more weight than the combined effect of the larger, multi-year sample.

 

So if you want to say something like "what kind of pitcher is John Danks post-surgery," one VERY simple (too simple, but effective for the purposes of the example) way to do it would be to simply average his results since. That way, his outlier 2015 is included but not over-represented. Danks' average fWAR since his surgery is 0.7 fWAR per season. So are you comfortable saying that guy is a 1.8 fWAR pitcher next year?

 

In truth, you'd make it more complicated. First of all, you'd weight the most recent season by some factor. I didn't do that above because I have no idea what that factor is, but guys that make projection systems have figured it out enough to make a really solid guess. Regardless, it's a safe to assume that the 0.7 figure is low, perhaps a weighted average might make it closer to 1.0 fWAR.Secondly, you'd look at what actually changed to make him more productive, and then decide if those factors are likely or not likely to continue or to be indicative of a sustainable skill. Danks' 2014 (0.5 fWAR) and 2015 (1.8 fWAR) seasons were actually REMARKABLY similar -- the biggest difference is he struck out a few more guys (on a per inning basis) this year. The second biggest difference, though, appears to be that league offense got better, which means something for his contributions but doesn't necessarily suggest that he's a better pitcher.

 

Thirdly, you might try to find a difference in his peripherals or style that could have sustainably contributed to his increased strikeout rate. For example, did his velocity increase? Did he add a pitch? If so, this would very ironically be the same argument for Danks improving that Dick Allen is arguing AGAINST in the case of Zach Duke.

i will give you credit, you do make a compelling argument but for me, taking the advance stat out of the equation, i will settle this as before his surgery and post surgery result.

 

now the book is clean and everything is new stats as you pointed out. thus there is no book. now for my disclaimer, you may be trying to point this out in using the stats and i am too dumb to realize it .... all i can say to that, if that is the case, pls excuse my post.

 

[Eminor3rd]

If he puts up,a 1.8 WAR he is worth something. That does not suck.

 

I agree with that, but my point is:

 

1) Assuming he's going to match his four-year peak despite not much changing in his peripherals just isn't realistic. It's possible, but not likely. We do this all the time as fans -- when a guy "breaks out" to any degree, we tend to bank on it continuing -- but when a guy has a s*** year, we always assume he'll bounce back or progress to the mean.

 

2) Even if he could be expected to match it, 1.8 WAR for $14m does not suck, but it doesn't have any surplus value at all. So he's not a trade asset. And while you didn't specifically say he should be worth Neil Walker (if we added something small), that's what the posters were suggesting when I jumped in.

[Eminor3rd]

i will give you credit, you do make a compelling argument but for me, taking the advance stat out of the equation, i will settle this as before his surgery and post surgery result.

 

now the book is clean and everything is new stats as you pointed out. thus there is no book. now for my disclaimer, you may be trying to point this out in using the stats and i am too dumb to realize it .... all i can say to that, if that is the case, pls excuse my post.

 

I actually don't think it's an "advanced stats" thing -- his last three years, in terms of the "traditional" innings and ERA, have been REMARKABLY similar, and since his injury his DIPS stats have never really painted much of a different picture than his run-based stats in the first place. In a low offensive environment like we're in, a 4.75 ERA just isn't very good.

 

But yeah, I'm not saying he's always sucked. I think we probably overrated him pre-surgery, but there's no question he was a very good pitcher. He's just not the same guy after his shoulder issues. It's not his fault or anything.

[LDF]

I actually don't think it's an "advanced stats" thing -- his last three years, in terms of the "traditional" innings and ERA, have been REMARKABLY similar, and since his injury his DIPS stats have never really painted much of a different picture than his run-based stats in the first place. In a low offensive environment like we're in, a 4.75 ERA just isn't very good.

 

But yeah, I'm not saying he's always sucked. I think we probably overrated him pre-surgery, but there's no question he was a very good pitcher. He's just not the same guy after his shoulder issues. It's not his fault or anything.

 

many thanks for the kind words, but what i was trying to say is, there is no stats from him on a post surgery except for the ones he makes. all pitchers handles this kind of surgery different. what i truly believe many posters are looking at, it his salary. he got extremely lucky and signed a going contract before his injury and if he can't get back to that level, he is set up for himself and family. this i will not begrudge him for. it is just shiittty luck that the sox have had.

[Dick Allen]

many thanks for the kind words, but what i was trying to say is, there is no stats from him on a post surgery except for the ones he makes. all pitchers handles this kind of surgery different. what i truly believe many posters are looking at, it his salary. he got extremely lucky and signed a going contract before his injury and if he can't get back to that level, he is set up for himself and family. this i will not begrudge him for. it is just shiittty luck that the sox have had.

The one thing that has totally changed the last 20-25 years with fans evaluating pitchers, is velocity. Back then you would watch a game on TV or at the park and have no idea if a guy is throwing 92 or 95. Now you do, and it makes all the difference in the world.

 

 

I just wonder with the way the game is played these days when batters rarely face the same guy more than twice, if the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. If all you see is 95-100, eventually you probably get at least a little used to it. The junkballer may become really unique.

[LDF]

The one thing that has totally changed the last 20-25 years with fans evaluating pitchers, is velocity. Back then you would watch a game on TV or at the park and have no idea if a guy is throwing 92 or 95. Now you do, and it makes all the difference in the world.

 

 

I just wonder with the way the game is played these days when batters rarely face the same guy more than twice, if the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. If all you see is 95-100, eventually you probably get at least a little used to it. The junkballer may become really unique.

 

EXCELLENT analysis..... i didn't think you had it you.

 

but here is my example to what you just posted. Mark Buehrle, in the beginning, i always assumed that he must be throwing in the mid 90's b/c of his success... when all the tech comes out and shows in reality a whole different story.

 

now for the second part, the hitters today are so advance and i believe they will adjust as they see the pitchers, on game day.

 

nice post.