PDA

View Full Version : Pujols to Cards: You have through spring



Pages : 1 [2]

Patrick Bateman
02-18-2011, 04:49 PM
I doubt Pujols' leverage can get any greater than it is now.

I'm going to say this again to you.
I really really don't think you understand basic economics.

lollipopcurve
02-18-2011, 04:53 PM
A lot can happen to increase or decrease his leverage. He is definitely taking a risk by not signing now.

He would have to experience something far different from anything than he has ever experienced as a pro baseball player to see his leverage decrease. The odds are strongly in his favor. The fact is, it's very rare for a catastrophic injury to befall a hitter, especially a guy whose game is not about speed.

medford
02-18-2011, 05:04 PM
Well, if we believe the reports.. he wants 10 years for $30 Mil per year. I don't believe that, but you all are free to believe the whispers if you would like. You don't get much more leverage than saying pay me 10 years at $30Mil per year or I'm leaving. lol

Well except he's not saying "pay me $300 mil for 10 years or I'm leaving" he's saying "pay me $300 mil for 10 years" or I'm heading to free agency. That's a huge difference. He may hit free agency and discover that there's no $300 mil offers out there, and perhaps the Cards are smart to hold of offerring him his max demands so they can sign him for cheaper next season.

Or he could get out there, and someone steps to the plate w/ a 10 year, $350 mil deal that the cards would have to match in order to retain his services.

The 10 year, $300 mil deal doesn't surprise me one bit. It may not be Albert's ultimate demands, but its likely the number that his agent is floating out there to see how much interest there is next offseason. It convinently puts his deal at a nice neat number, ahead of ARod's contract for the biggest ever. There may be no one willing to put that kind of cash up now, but if you want to sign a $250 mil deal, you start w/ something bigger, so the negotiations can get you where you want to be.

Brutus
02-18-2011, 05:09 PM
Any leverage on an open market with more bidders is greater than leverage within a contract and bidder of one. As mentioned, that's basic economics.

Why do you think the MLB rules allow a period after the year where only your team can negotiate with a pending free agent? Because if they didn't allow that, it would give more leverage to the player as they could know what offers are available.

Chip R
02-18-2011, 05:24 PM
The Stan Musial thread got me thinking about the link between him and Pujols. I remember when the Ken Burns Baseball documentary came out, he (Burns) was criticized for hardly or not mentioning Musial. I think people who follow baseball can agree Musial was one of the best ever. But he's basically ignored in a 20 some hour documentary about the game. You have to wonder why that was. It certainly wasn't because he was overrated. More than likely it was because he played all his career in StL i.e. flyover country.

In 30 or 40 years when they make another documentary is Pujols going to be ignored much as Musial was because he played his whole career in StL? Perhaps that's going through Pujols' mind now. If he stays in StL for his whole career, is he going to be ignored by the historians? While I have no doubt he's sincere about wanting to stay in StL, it could be that he may want to play somewhere like BOS or NY or CHI or L.A./Anaheim where he can be paid what he wants and his deeds will be there for all to see now and for years to come.

Slyder
02-18-2011, 05:26 PM
Pujols had a chance to get this over with and accept darn near $200 million to be set for life beyond anyone's wildest imagination (more than he already is). If he were so adamant about wanting to remain a "Cardinal for life", all he had to do was sign on the dotted line and not drag this out beyond his self-imposed deadline.

To me, that's a move that reeks of being "about the money."

If he's not about the money, then sign the Cardinals' offer and be done with it.

There's absolutely nothing about how he's doing this that can be construed as being anything other than about the money.

To me, this move reaks more about ego and Albert being known as the highest paid player in baseball. Whether it was 20 mil, 25 mil, 30 mil he'd want whatever to get to be "Highest paid player in baseball". Just IMO.

Will M
02-18-2011, 05:35 PM
IMO the Cardinals really messed up here. Addressing the Pujols issue should have been the FIRST thing done in the offseason. Not the last. Its almost as if they assumed he'd sign a reasonable (to them) extension and put it on the back burner. If they had found out early in the offseason that they couldn't resign him then they could have planned accordingly. They could have spent more on the 2011 team knowing that the payroll would drop in 2012.
Or they could have actually traded him for a boatload of players. Maybe a Hershell Walker kind of deal. As it is their offseason additions don't scream "World Series" in Pujol's last year & its way too late in the offseason to do much about it.

westofyou
02-18-2011, 05:44 PM
To me, this move reaks more about ego and Albert being known as the highest paid player in baseball. Whether it was 20 mil, 25 mil, 30 mil he'd want whatever to get to be "Highest paid player in baseball". Just IMO.

He is the best, historically the game has ALWAYS rewarded the best with the largest contract, of course ego plays a part of in it, as it should, because he's the best player in the game.

RedsManRick
02-18-2011, 05:55 PM
To me, this move reaks more about ego and Albert being known as the highest paid player in baseball. Whether it was 20 mil, 25 mil, 30 mil he'd want whatever to get to be "Highest paid player in baseball". Just IMO.

To be realistic about it, this is pretty much standard for all athletes. It was the same issue that snagged the Derek Jeter negotiations.

Right or wrong, salary is seen as more than just compensation for performance. It's a relative comparison. You ask nearly any athlete and they'll pretty much admit that they are being paid WAYYYY more than some absolute social value of what they do. So from that angle, there's very little difference between getting paid $5M and $20M -- it's just different shades of grossly overpaid.

Rather, it's about relative value. If your team won't pay you commensurate to your talent, what does that say about how they'll build the team moving forward? Do they only really value you if you're cheap and providing surplus value? If they won't pay you, the best player in the game, what your performance merits -- especially after you already gave them a discount once -- then will they be "cheap" with other players?

While we'd like to think we'd be happy with whatever we'd get, I would suggest it's just a matter of perspective. 90% of the world living on incomes in the 100s of dollars per year would be flabbergasted by arrogance of some white guy sitting at a desk all day being upset with his employer giving him just a $2,000 raise instead of $5,000 one.

I mean, how many people around here would have their life fundamentally changed by increasing your salary 20% (the difference between $25M and $30M)? I'm sure it would mean a lot to some people -- a nicer car, clothes or house. But for most of us, it would be the difference between putting food on the table and keeping a roof over our heads. And when it's time for raises to come around, how many of us are judging that raise solely on an objective assessment of our value to our employer and not in comparison to our colleagues or other people in our field? I mean, I bet your company could do better if you took a home town discount and let them pursue more talent from outside the organization.

It's all a matter of perspective.

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 06:12 PM
The Stan Musial thread got me thinking about the link between him and Pujols. I remember when the Ken Burns Baseball documentary came out, he (Burns) was criticized for hardly or not mentioning Musial. I think people who follow baseball can agree Musial was one of the best ever. But he's basically ignored in a 20 some hour documentary about the game. You have to wonder why that was. It certainly wasn't because he was overrated. More than likely it was because he played all his career in StL i.e. flyover country.

In 30 or 40 years when they make another documentary is Pujols going to be ignored much as Musial was because he played his whole career in StL? Perhaps that's going through Pujols' mind now. If he stays in StL for his whole career, is he going to be ignored by the historians? While I have no doubt he's sincere about wanting to stay in StL, it could be that he may want to play somewhere like BOS or NY or CHI or L.A./Anaheim where he can be paid what he wants and his deeds will be there for all to see now and for years to come.

Interesting angle, but I think that if Pujols thinks this, he's misguided.

There were a lot of problems with Burn's baseball documentary in terms of it being a comprehensive documentary of the sport. He dealt more with bigger political and social themes than he did with the actual history of the game and its players. The fact that Musial was left out for the most part speaks more to the fact that there was never any controversy around him than hus being from a flyover state.

Aaron was from a smaller market, and never suffered from a lack of publicity or respect. I think Pujols is closer to Aaron in that he is considered by many to be the best in the game. Musial was always considered one of the best, but really never in that conversation with Mays, Aaron or Williams. (although he should have been.)

I think Pujols will have a much greater and move admired legacy if he stays with StL, than if he leaves for a coast.

RFS62
02-18-2011, 06:23 PM
I don't think it matters where he goes, really. As long as he performs.

If he does get a long term deal like what's reported he wants, and doesn't play well at any point, he runs the risk of ending up like Junior. Greatest player in the game when he came to the Reds, unfulfilled promise through brutal injuries in the end.

TheNext44
02-18-2011, 06:42 PM
Any leverage on an open market with more bidders is greater than leverage within a contract and bidder of one. As mentioned, that's basic economics.

Why do you think the MLB rules allow a period after the year where only your team can negotiate with a pending free agent? Because if they didn't allow that, it would give more leverage to the player as they could know what offers are available.

That's not always true. The Jeter and Howard contracts are good examples of this. Keeping the players happy and avoiding any bad blood is more important to the player's original team than to any other team.

There's no way Jeter or Howard get those contracts on the open market, but the bad blood created by letting them hit the open market is not a price their team's thought they afford.

It doesn't look like the Cards think that this is the case. We'll see.

Brutus
02-18-2011, 07:02 PM
That's not always true. The Jeter and Howard contracts are good examples of this. Keeping the players happy and avoiding any bad blood is more important to the player's original team than to any other team.

There's no way Jeter or Howard get those contracts on the open market, but the bad blood created by letting them hit the open market is not a price their team's thought they afford.

It doesn't look like the Cards think that this is the case. We'll see.

Are you referring to Jeter's contract this year or the one prior?

I would say it's almost always true. There are some cases where teams overpay to avoid the bad publicity by not retaining an iconic player. But generally, there's still always more leverage for a player to hit the open market (or threaten to do so).

Blitz Dorsey
02-18-2011, 08:26 PM
Pujols is the best player in the game and should be paid as such. If I'm him and his agent, I would also demand to get paid more than what A-Rod got after he was able to opt-out of his deal last year. If A-Rod is "worth" 10 years/$275 million, I don't know how anyone could argue that Albert is not worth 10 years/$300 mil. The Cards might not be willing to give it to him, but you can bet someone will next offseason. The Cards will either have to meet his demands or watch him walk. There will be one team that backs up the truck for Albert. Unless he has a serious injury this year, there is no way he value will go down. He'll get his $30 million a year. The only question is how many years will be included in the contract. But it will be at least 8 and maybe as many at 10. I can see not wanting to give him 10 years since he'll be 40+ by the time the deal is over, but there is no doubt it's going to take an 8-10 year deal at $30 million per to get him.

traderumor
02-19-2011, 09:06 AM
It'd be tough living on just $240 million for the rest of my life. I'd force my employer into a corner and alienate all of the people who would help pay my salary for another $60 million. A guy's gotta eat, ya know. Gotta take care of my family. This is my last contract. If it was me, I'd go for every last dollar I could get. If he doesn't get it, then the rich owner will.

Add you favorite rationalizing greed cliche here.

Griffey012
02-19-2011, 10:57 AM
Interesting angle, but I think that if Pujols thinks this, he's misguided.

There were a lot of problems with Burn's baseball documentary in terms of it being a comprehensive documentary of the sport. He dealt more with bigger political and social themes than he did with the actual history of the game and its players. The fact that Musial was left out for the most part speaks more to the fact that there was never any controversy around him than hus being from a flyover state.

Aaron was from a smaller market, and never suffered from a lack of publicity or respect. I think Pujols is closer to Aaron in that he is considered by many to be the best in the game. Musial was always considered one of the best, but really never in that conversation with Mays, Aaron or Williams. (although he should have been.)

I think Pujols will have a much greater and move admired legacy if he stays with StL, than if he leaves for a coast.

Ken Griffey Jr. says Hello. Right now Pujols has been one of, if not, the greatest Cardinal to ever play. His legacy will be determined by his future years combined with his Cardinal era. If he stays with the Cards and continues to put up ridiculous numbers, he will be right there with Musial in the discussion. If he leaves, his 10 years will be considered right there with Musial. If he stays another 10 years and puts up huge numbers, he will be talked about as the greatest to ever play, if he stays 10 years on a huge contract and disappoints it will dampen his legacy a bit.. IMHO its a bit of a 2 way street, with the expected value not getting much higher than it currently is.

His decision to stay/leave will ultimately be very similar to Griffey's decision. Aside from the fact Griffey took a hometown discount while Pujols is passing that up. But based off numbers and performance, Pujols will always be a highly respected Card regardless if he stays or leaves.

Chip R
02-19-2011, 10:57 AM
I have to think that there are people out there affiliated with other teams that are talking to Pujols' agent and letting him know what their teams are willing to pay for his services after this season.

Sea Ray
02-19-2011, 12:13 PM
The question now is, if they don't sign him are they nuts for not trading him?

Blitz Dorsey
02-19-2011, 12:42 PM
The question now is, if they don't sign him are they nuts for not trading him?

You would have to think so. They would get compensatory draft picks of course if he left as a FA. However, they are sure to get better "assets" by trading the best player in baseball than they would via draft picks.

_Sir_Charles_
02-19-2011, 12:47 PM
The question now is, if they don't sign him are they nuts for not trading him?

People keep overlooking the simple fact that PooHoles has stated he wouldn't accept a trade and would veto any trade. Not bar a trade to a team not on a list...ANY trade.

Imo, it's blatantly obvious what Albert wants. He either wants to get paid like he feels he should IN ST. LOUIS or he wants to become a free agent. NOTHING in between.

kaldaniels
02-19-2011, 02:43 PM
I may be a capitalist pig who doesn't understand the romance of our national pasttime, but if Albert can get 60MM more by changing uniforms, I can't begrudge him one bit. Nothing greedy to me about that.

traderumor
02-19-2011, 09:49 PM
I may be a capitalist pig who doesn't understand the romance of our national pasttime, but if Albert can get 60MM more by changing uniforms, I can't begrudge him one bit. Nothing greedy to me about that.That cliche was already used: "If it was me, I'd go for every last dollar I could get." When money at that level is the driving force of a decision, it really is greed, by definition. I've seen no evidence presented in this drama that indicates it is about anything less than millions of dollars. Beg my pardon for calling it what it is. Whether or not you're ok with it does not define if greed is at work.

Will M
02-20-2011, 12:20 AM
People keep overlooking the simple fact that PooHoles has stated he wouldn't accept a trade and would veto any trade. Not bar a trade to a team not on a list...ANY trade.

Imo, it's blatantly obvious what Albert wants. He either wants to get paid like he feels he should IN ST. LOUIS or he wants to become a free agent. NOTHING in between.

how can he do this? according to Cots he only has a 'limited no trade clause'.

PuffyPig
02-20-2011, 12:41 AM
how can he do this? according to Cots he only has a 'limited no trade clause'.

He has 5/10 rights, complete no trade rights.

kaldaniels
02-20-2011, 12:44 AM
It is about the money traderumor. I just don't think it is greedy. At somepoint common sense comes into play. 60 million more to play baseball in a different city? Yes please. If it is worth it to him stay in STL so be it, but I don't view him as a lesser man if he bolts.

Before you go out on the mountaintop once more and shout to the masses that Albert is greedy, please read this.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3663957

TheNext44
02-20-2011, 01:15 AM
It is about the money traderumor. I just don't think it is greedy. At somepoint common sense comes into play. 60 million more to play baseball in a different city? Yes please. If it is worth it to him stay in STL so be it, but I don't view him as a lesser man if he bolts.

Before you go out on the mountaintop once more and shout to the masses that Albert is greedy, please read this.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3663957

Carl Linder was known for his charity work as well.

The amount of money over which Pujols leaves St. Louis is almost irrelevant to whether or not he's greedy. It's the circumstances that surround his decision.

If the Cardinal's offer a 7 year, $150M contract and he signed an 8 year $210M contract, I would not call him greedy. But if the Cardinals offer him a 8 year $224M contract, but he signs a 9 year $284M contract, I would call him greedy.

Basically, if the Cardinals offer him a respectful contract, but he takes more money, then I think he's being greedy. If they don't, then it's difficult to label him as greedy no matter what he does.

kaldaniels
02-20-2011, 01:25 AM
Carl Linder was known for his charity work as well.

The amount of money over which Pujols leaves St. Louis is almost irrelevant to whether or not he's greedy. It's the circumstances that surround his decision.

If the Cardinal's offer a 7 year, $150M contract and he signed an 8 year $210M contract, I would not call him greedy. But if the Cardinals offer him a 8 year $224M contract, but he signs a 9 year $284M contract, I would call him greedy.

Basically, if the Cardinals offer him a respectful contract, but he takes more money, then I think he's being greedy. If they don't, then it's difficult to label him as greedy no matter what he does.

I'm sorry. I just can't take a shot at someone for taking 60 million dollars more to work in a different location. This is going to be his last big contract I figure, so the years aren't as relavant as they would be with a younger guy.... the total bottom line is the number that matters.

Brutus
02-20-2011, 01:59 AM
how can he do this? according to Cots he only has a 'limited no trade clause'.

As Puffy mentioned, his full 10/5 rights just kicked in this year. I think it was back in October, to be exact.

TheNext44
02-20-2011, 02:10 AM
I'm sorry. I just can't take a shot at someone for taking 60 million dollars more to work in a different location. This is going to be his last big contract I figure, so the years aren't as relavant as they would be with a younger guy.... the total bottom line is the number that matters.

it's all relative. The difference between $1 and $60M is far greater than the difference between $240M and $300M.

For me, once you get past $100M, which would set up your family for generations, it's just a matter of respect.

How would your life or the lives of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren be any different if you were worth $200M or $260M?

Will M
02-20-2011, 02:15 AM
As Puffy mentioned, his full 10/5 rights just kicked in this year. I think it was back in October, to be exact.

i missed that. thanks.

GAC
02-20-2011, 05:43 AM
I may be a capitalist pig who doesn't understand the romance of our national pasttime, but if Albert can get 60MM more by changing uniforms, I can't begrudge him one bit. Nothing greedy to me about that.

The only problem(s) I have with it is that there are only a small handful of teams, due to their market size, that can afford it, and it does hurt the competitive nature (makes it harder) for the rest to compete and/or retain players.

And those costs are, in a way, passed on down to you and I when we try to take our families to a game. It's getting quite expensive.

traderumor
02-20-2011, 08:54 AM
It is about the money traderumor. I just don't think it is greedy. At somepoint common sense comes into play. 60 million more to play baseball in a different city? Yes please. If it is worth it to him stay in STL so be it, but I don't view him as a lesser man if he bolts.

Before you go out on the mountaintop once more and shout to the masses that Albert is greedy, please read this.


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3663957
And that was three years ago, which was kinda my point. Honestly, Albert Pujols is just another person who happens to have a talent that makes people millionaires many times over. I get to be a pundit on his motives because his personal business (contract talks) is in the public domain. He may be a super duper nice guy. Greedy people can also give millions of dollars to charity.

I am really looking at this from "what does this seem to be about," and from all reports I have heard, he loves the St. Louis Cardinals and the community. Maybe that has changed and he can use the contract issue as a way out, who knows. But, from all reports I've seen, it is about "$300 million, 10 years take it or leave it" and it doesn't seem to be about anything else.

Who knows if the $240 over 8 was even offered. But still, even if an organization that he has publicly stated his desire to stay and how it is a good place for his family, offered him $150M for 5 years, it starts to beg the question of "how much is it worth to relocate?" Maybe if you can't put a price tag on that, it starts to look like more money is the only issue and even $150M for five more years is going "to take care of my family" (more bs cliche), then the love of money may just be at work. And do you really think he is going through all of this so he can give more to charity?

lollipopcurve
02-20-2011, 09:22 AM
If Pujols feels he can do more good in the world by earning more $$$ elsewhere -- than he could by leaving $$$ on the table and staying in St. Louis -- would he be morally corrupt if he stayed?

Eric_the_Red
02-20-2011, 10:12 AM
Your current job pays you a tidy $85,000 per year. Certainly enough for most of us to live relatively comfortable on. Another company in the same field offers you $110,000 per year for the same work. Are you greedy if you switch jobs?

Eric_the_Red
02-20-2011, 10:12 AM
Your current job pays you a tidy $85,000 per year. Certainly enough for most of us to live relatively comfortable on. Another company in the same field offers you $110,000 per year for the same work. Are you greedy if you switch jobs?

kaldaniels
02-20-2011, 10:55 AM
If Pujols feels he can do more good in the world by earning more $$$ elsewhere -- than he could by leaving $$$ on the table and staying in St. Louis -- would he be morally corrupt if he stayed?

Not in my eyes. I will cast no judgement on Albert no matter what he does. It is his choice.

traderumor
02-20-2011, 11:16 AM
If Pujols feels he can do more good in the world by earning more $$$ elsewhere -- than he could by leaving $$$ on the table and staying in St. Louis -- would he be morally corrupt if he stayed?

Begs the question, what is known indicates it is about money and how much, there is no indication that he is looking toward the job that will allow him to use his resources for the common good.


Your current job pays you a tidy $85,000 per year. Certainly enough for most of us to live relatively comfortable on. Another company in the same field offers you $110,000 per year for the same work. Are you greedy if you switch jobs?
If you are addressing my opinion, it should be pretty clear that you have not provided enough information to answer your question. The clear point I am making, whether or not you agree, is that pandering for more millions when multi-millions are already being offered that is more than enough for any individual to support themselves and several businesses to boot, is greedy.

If you don't like that, then try "you know you're greedy when the money you make is going to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the organization you have publicly claimed loyalty to be successful." BTW, I saw that type of greed regularly when doing the books for small businessmen who took a salary that the company could not support and be successful. It was clear that they didn't care as much about their business succeeding and thriving as it was that they needed a particular salary to support their lifestyle.

Now, if we're talking about owners and profits, then its "those greedy owners." Players who are free agents, or independent contractors, its ok for them to go after every $ they can get. Sorry, I see inconsistency in those positions, ones which I have seen held by the same person many times over.

Eric_the_Red
02-20-2011, 12:24 PM
It is the owners' prerogative to pay, or not pay, the player whatever amount they want to offer.

It is the players' prerogative to sign, or not sign, that offer.

I don't see why one would be greed and the other would be a business decision, or vice versa.

To me, greed would be if Pujols was offered a contract making him the highest paid player in the majors over the next 8-10 years, and then he wanted another $10 million on top of that. Pujols asking to be paid on par with the best players of the game isn't greed, IMO, but basic business sense.

If you consistently outperformed 99% of your co-workers, but 20% of your co-workers made more than you did, I think it is only natural to want to be paid more whether you are a banker or a baseball player.

If the owners don't like it, then stop handing out ridiculous contracts.

TheNext44
02-20-2011, 04:21 PM
Your current job pays you a tidy $85,000 per year. Certainly enough for most of us to live relatively comfortable on. Another company in the same field offers you $110,000 per year for the same work. Are you greedy if you switch jobs?

Making $110K a year would make my life and the lives of my family better then making $85K a year. I can't imagine how my life or the lives of my family for generations would be better if I made $300M instead of $240M.

Eric_the_Red
02-20-2011, 04:54 PM
Making $110K a year would make my life and the lives of my family better then making $85K a year. I can't imagine how my life or the lives of my family for generations would be better if I made $300M instead of $240M.

You can't imagine what $60M would do?

Maybe the fans should get together and tell the players and owners exactly how much they need to make, and force them to give the rest to charities.

TheNext44
02-20-2011, 05:11 PM
You can't imagine what $60M would do?

Maybe the fans should get together and tell the players and owners exactly how much they need to make, and force them to give the rest to charities.

I can't imagine how $300M will be any different from $260M.

There are only so many private islands I can buy.

traderumor
02-20-2011, 05:16 PM
You can't imagine what $60M would do?

Maybe the fans should get together and tell the players and owners exactly how much they need to make, and force them to give the rest to charities.

Yup, he's just living the American Dream. More like the American Nightmare. I have to leave now to go buy me a lottery ticket. Maybe I can live that Dream, too!

traderumor
02-20-2011, 05:17 PM
I can't imagine how $300M will be any different from $260M.

There are only so many private islands I can buy.Come on, man, he is going to fund 10 not-for-profit company budgets with that additional money. It's all about his peeps.

Sea Ray
02-20-2011, 07:55 PM
I get the sense Pujols wants to stay, and the Cards want him there. When two sides want a deal to get done, it gets done eventually. I'll be surprised if Pujols is anywhere but in St. Louis in 2012.

I agree because I don't see another team breaking the bank for him. The list of teams that can afford him is small to begin with and of those teams, I don't see enough that would lead to a bidding war. It may take all season but I see him eventually signing with the Cardinals and for less than Arod got

Blitz Dorsey
02-20-2011, 08:43 PM
You guys are living in a fantasy world if you think there won't be one team that isn't willing to break the bank for Pujols. All it takes is one team and there will be one team that goes after him with every dollar they can afford (or not afford). He's going to get his $30 mil/year for at least 7 years.

PuffyPig
02-20-2011, 09:38 PM
I can't imagine how $300M will be any different from $260M.

There are only so many private islands I can buy.

If the Cards would offer him $260M, he'd be already signed.

Blitz Dorsey
02-20-2011, 10:56 PM
If the Cards would offer him $260M, he'd be already signed.

Well, if they offered him 8-years/$260M, I'm sure he would have signed. But I don't think he would have signed a 10-year deal for $260 mil. He wants his $30 mil per year and he's going to get it from someone. Might not be 10 years/$300 million like has been reported (that is probably just the starting point for his negotiation) but I'm sure it would take at least $240 million over eight years if you wanted him.

To me, it's really not about money in terms of how rich Albert wants to be. He knows he's going to be set for life and his kids and their kids and their kids will be set for life. But it is about money when it comes to the respect angle. That might sound odd but work with me here: If Alex Rodriguez is making X and Pujols is clearly better than A-Rod (which he is) then Pujols should definitely make more than X. In this case, that means $30 million a year for several years, at least 7-8 IMO. And I don't blame Albert one bit. He is the best player in the game (even if it's PED enhanced) and should be paid as such.

MattyHo4Life
02-21-2011, 02:44 AM
If the Cards would offer him $260M, he'd be already signed.

I agree 100%! Nobody knows what was offered, but I don't think Albert would turn that contract down. People can say what they want, but Albert has never shown any indications of being all about the money. He gives a lot of money to charities. He has played for years at a very reasonable contract. He plays in the state that he grew up in, and he has always seemed happy to be close to home. I don't blame Albert for holding out for a fair deal, and I don't blame the owners for trying to get the best deal they can. I think a lot of people are over reacting on both sides. Sure, there are reports on contract talks, but you can't believe everything you read. Most people do though.

MattyHo4Life
02-21-2011, 02:48 AM
He wants his $30 mil per year and he's going to get it from someone.

There is no doubt in my mind that he can get $30Mil or more per year from somebody. I don't think Albert is demanding $30Mil a year though, and I think he will sign with the Cardinals even if they offer him less than $30Mil per year.

Will M
02-21-2011, 03:03 AM
So it seems that the Cardinals have three options:

1) convince him to accept a trade mid season if they fall out of contention

2) let him leave for two drafts picks

3) sign him to a mega contract. the team has been successfull in recent years with a handfull of All Star players surrounded by very low cost players. if the team pays $30M to Albert & $18M to Holliday then they have very little left to fill out the rest of the roster. it seems that their barbell approach (stars plus low priced players without many middle cost players) has worked well for years. however, their farm system doesn't seem healthy & their new GM doesn't seem to be a super 'dumpster diver'. so if they quality of their cheap players goes down & they have ~$14M/year less to spend I believe they won't be as successfull going forward as they have been in the past.

Brutus
02-21-2011, 03:38 AM
I agree 100%! Nobody knows what was offered, but I don't think Albert would turn that contract down. People can say what they want, but Albert has never shown any indications of being all about the money. He gives a lot of money to charities. He has played for years at a very reasonable contract. He plays in the state that he grew up in, and he has always seemed happy to be close to home. I don't blame Albert for holding out for a fair deal, and I don't blame the owners for trying to get the best deal they can. I think a lot of people are over reacting on both sides. Sure, there are reports on contract talks, but you can't believe everything you read. Most people do though.

Serious question.. what do you think the Cardinals offered?

Look, while I do not at all fault him for it, turning down any amount of money more than he's making now is still doing it "for the money."

I do not blame him for it, nor would I do it differently I don't believe. But let's not pretend he's not "about the money." If he wants to stay a "Cardinal for life" then he could accept their offer and be done with it. And since I highly doubt their offer is less than he's making now -- probably much more -- then one would have to conclude he's still doing it for the money.

Nothing wrong with that, but let's call a spade a spade here.

lollipopcurve
02-21-2011, 11:59 AM
one would have to conclude he's still doing it for the money.

Maybe it's a semantic debate, but I don't agree with this. Unless he hits free agency and goes to the highest bidder, I don't think you can conclude he's in it only for the dough. The process has far to go.

REDREAD
02-21-2011, 12:05 PM
The question now is, if they don't sign him are they nuts for not trading him?

I don't think so.
If the Cards trade him, there's even worst backlash then letting him walk as a FA.. When a player leaves as a FA, the team can always just say "Hey, we gave him a huge offer, but he was greedy and left".

Honestly, I am not sure that Pujols would fetch that much in a trade.
It's hard to say for sure, but in the past 5 years, I can't recall a big bat with a large salary with one year on his contract that got an impressive haul. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but it's been a buyer's market when trading for veteran bats recently.

Brutus
02-21-2011, 02:05 PM
Maybe it's a semantic debate, but I don't agree with this. Unless he hits free agency and goes to the highest bidder, I don't think you can conclude he's in it only for the dough. The process has far to go.

The whole purpose of the deadline was to cease negotiations and go to free agency. How can that be construed otherwise? It's not like he's negotiating with St. Louis anymore. He's committed himself to hitting the open market. To me, there's no reason to do that unless it's about the money (since he's said repeatedly he wants to stay in St. Louis).

Razor Shines
02-21-2011, 02:28 PM
Making $110K a year would make my life and the lives of my family better then making $85K a year. I can't imagine how my life or the lives of my family for generations would be better if I made $300M instead of $240M.

What about the people that get paid on a % of Albert? I bet that $60M matters to them.

kaldaniels
02-21-2011, 02:36 PM
What about the people that get paid on a % of Albert? I bet that $60M matters to them.

Exactly. I mean I'm sure Chris Carpenter has some sort of bonus for reaching the World Series. And he needs Albert for the Cardinals to reach the World Series. And if that bonus doesn't come around the Carpenter family won't be able to afford that nice new family pool out back. And if that is the case, how will......:D

/my first ever attempt at that joke

Chip R
02-21-2011, 02:41 PM
The whole purpose of the deadline was to cease negotiations and go to free agency. How can that be construed otherwise? It's not like he's negotiating with St. Louis anymore. He's committed himself to hitting the open market. To me, there's no reason to do that unless it's about the money (since he's said repeatedly he wants to stay in St. Louis).

I wonder if, this goes through the season without a deal, StL would offer him arbitration at somewhere in the high $20M range and he would accept and counter with something in the low to mid $30M range.

kaldaniels
02-21-2011, 02:44 PM
I wonder if, this goes through the season without a deal, StL would offer him arbitration at somewhere in the high $20M range and he would accept and counter with something in the low to mid $30M range.

Very interesting scenario, though I can't see it playing out that way. Let me ask this. Who is the biggest name that has ever done just that, hitting the free agent market ready for a giant payday, but accepting arbitration?

PuffyPig
02-21-2011, 02:54 PM
Very interesting scenario, though I can't see it playing out that way. Let me ask this. Who is the biggest name that has ever done just that, hitting the free agent market ready for a giant payday, but accepting arbitration?

Greg Maddux accepted arbitration.

IIRC, Atlanta had to trade Millwood to afford Maddux.

I really, really doubt that Pujo0ls would accept arbitration.

He wants a 8-10 year deal, and will likely get it.

Blitz Dorsey
02-22-2011, 12:42 AM
I agree 100%! Nobody knows what was offered, but I don't think Albert would turn that contract down. People can say what they want, but Albert has never shown any indications of being all about the money. He gives a lot of money to charities. He has played for years at a very reasonable contract. He plays in the state that he grew up in, and he has always seemed happy to be close to home. I don't blame Albert for holding out for a fair deal, and I don't blame the owners for trying to get the best deal they can. I think a lot of people are over reacting on both sides. Sure, there are reports on contract talks, but you can't believe everything you read. Most people do though.

When did he move to the U.S.? He was born in the Dominican and I was always under the impression he "grew up" there. I thought he moved to the U.S. when he was around the age of 15 or so. If that's the case, he didn't grow up in the state of Missouri. But I could be wrong. Just asking, because like I said I always thought he was a Dominican kid who moved to the States when he was a teenager.

Blitz Dorsey
02-22-2011, 12:45 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought: Pujols moved to the U.S. when he was 16. He definitely didn't "grow up" in Missouri. It's not exactly like a kid who grew up in Cincinnati and was a big Reds fan. Pujols had no connection to the Cardinals until they drafted him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pujols

Blitz Dorsey
02-22-2011, 02:09 AM
BTW: Brutus is right. People can say it's not about the money and cite examples of Albert giving to charity (like every player in MLB that makes a bunch of money does). But we all know it's about the money. Otherwise, he already would have signed with the Cardinals.

Pujols will sign with the highest bidder this offseason. I have no doubt about that. And before you say "So you think he's going to sign with the Pirates if they offer him $300 million over 10 years?" let's make it clear that there are only a handful of teams that will actually be in the running. All big-market teams. Clubs that play in New York, Chicago and LA come to mind immediately. Don't rule out Baltimore either.

The Cardinals do have one thing going for them though: The Yankees and BoSox already have high-priced first basemen in Texeria and Gonzalez. Otherwise, I would say Albert would be a lock to join one of those two franchises.

Homer Bailey
02-22-2011, 02:25 AM
Pujols will sign with the highest bidder this offseason.

This is an opinion disguised as a fact, as there is no concrete evidence to support this conclusion. Pujols has said he wants to be a Cardinal forever. Just because he hasn't agreed to a deal doesn't mean he won't re-sign with the Cards next off season. There is no doubt in my mind that he will get a better offer next offseason than the offer he currently got, whatever it was.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2011, 02:58 AM
Serious question.. what do you think the Cardinals offered?

This is a complete guess on my part. I expected a lowball offer from Dewitt this winter, and I didn't expect anything to get done by the deadline. My guess is $160-$180Mil over 7 years.

Brutus
02-22-2011, 03:44 AM
This is a complete guess on my part. I expected a lowball offer from Dewitt this winter, and I didn't expect anything to get done by the deadline. My guess is $160-$180Mil over 7 years.

I think that's a very fair guess, and I can see that being the case. That would be around the neighborhood I've kind of anticipated.

But see, that's kind of why I think it's about the money. Even that deal, hypothetically, on the low end is worth nearly $23 million a year. That's a huge chunk of change to get to play in the place you say you want to stay. Put it this way... Ken Griffey Jr., to his credit, took less than $10 million a year to get traded to Cincinnati when he could have nearly doubled that on the open market (or at least gone into the high teens).

I am with you on that guess, though we have no way of knowing for sure. But that's why I think the whole song and dance about wanting to be a Cardinal for life is just lip service (not that he doesn't mean it, but that it's not the top priority). That theoretical offer alone is a pretty darn good one and there's no much reason to turn it down and go to free agency unless you want to leverage more money. And again, I see nothing wrong with that, but just think we should all agree that's what's happening.

Ron Madden
02-22-2011, 05:24 AM
Call me an Idiot or Old Fashioned if you want to but I hope Albert Pujols spends his whole career in St Louis.




and I believe he will.

Blitz Dorsey
02-22-2011, 11:38 AM
Call me an Idiot or Old Fashioned if you want to but I hope Albert Pujols spends his whole career in St Louis.

and I believe he will.

I definitely know where you're coming from, but as a Reds fan who doesn't like the Cardinals, I must be honest when I say I hope they lose him (and I believe they will).

The Cardinals have had a very nice run over the last 12 years or so and even won a WS title. I'm not going to shed a tear for them if they lose Pujols, especially after overspending on Holliday the year before. I would have paid Albert what he wanted and built the team around pitching from there. You do need someone in the lineup to protect Albert, but that person doesn't have to make $18 million per season. The Cardinals really thought they were going to be able to afford two of the highest-paid offensive players in baseball, including the man who wants to be the highest paid (and should be)? Not good planning on their part and it looks like it's going to bite them.

I definitely have my popcorn ready.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2011, 03:26 PM
I think that's a very fair guess, and I can see that being the case. That would be around the neighborhood I've kind of anticipated.

But see, that's kind of why I think it's about the money. Even that deal, hypothetically, on the low end is worth nearly $23 million a year. That's a huge chunk of change to get to play in the place you say you want to stay. Put it this way... Ken Griffey Jr., to his credit, took less than $10 million a year to get traded to Cincinnati when he could have nearly doubled that on the open market (or at least gone into the high teens).

I am with you on that guess, though we have no way of knowing for sure. But that's why I think the whole song and dance about wanting to be a Cardinal for life is just lip service (not that he doesn't mean it, but that it's not the top priority). That theoretical offer alone is a pretty darn good one and there's no much reason to turn it down and go to free agency unless you want to leverage more money. And again, I see nothing wrong with that, but just think we should all agree that's what's happening.

I think there is a good chance that Pujols wants more years than the Cardinals originally offered. If that is the case, then you can say it's about money, because the contract would obviously be worth more with more years added. I don't think that is an unfair request or him to want to play as long as he can and end his career with the same team.

The Cardinals, supposedly only offered one contract (if that report is true). I'd imagine a lot of players reject the first contract offered. I wouldn't think that is very unusual.

Sea Ray
02-22-2011, 03:31 PM
The Cardinals, supposedly only offered one contract (if that report is true). I'd imagine a lot of players reject the first contract offered. I wouldn't think that is very unusual.

If it's true that only one contract was offered then the Cardinals weren't interested in getting a deal done now. Why do you suppose that is?

redsfandan
02-22-2011, 05:05 PM
The Cardinals do have one thing going for them though: The Yankees and BoSox already have high-priced first basemen in Texeria and Gonzalez. Otherwise, I would say Albert would be a lock to join one of those two franchises.
Although it's still expected to happen Boston hasn't signed Gonzalez to a new deal yet.

I think that's a very fair guess, and I can see that being the case. That would be around the neighborhood I've kind of anticipated.

But see, that's kind of why I think it's about the money. Even that deal, hypothetically, on the low end is worth nearly $23 million a year. That's a huge chunk of change to get to play in the place you say you want to stay. Put it this way... Ken Griffey Jr., to his credit, took less than $10 million a year to get traded to Cincinnati when he could have nearly doubled that on the open market (or at least gone into the high teens).

I am with you on that guess, though we have no way of knowing for sure. But that's why I think the whole song and dance about wanting to be a Cardinal for life is just lip service (not that he doesn't mean it, but that it's not the top priority). That theoretical offer alone is a pretty darn good one and there's no much reason to turn it down and go to free agency unless you want to leverage more money. And again, I see nothing wrong with that, but just think we should all agree that's what's happening.
I think pride has more to do with this than greed. The guy wants a deal that reflects the fact that he's been THE BEST player in the game for years. $23M/yr doesn't do that. If the Cardinals were to offer him an 8 year/$224M contract ($28M/yr) he might take it. He could say that's enough to make him the highest paid player and when you look at how much it averages per year it would be. But, it doesn't sound like the Cardinals have come close to that kind of offer.

redsfandan
02-22-2011, 05:24 PM
I definitely know where you're coming from, but as a Reds fan who doesn't like the Cardinals, I must be honest when I say I hope they lose him (and I believe they will).

The Cardinals have had a very nice run over the last 12 years or so and even won a WS title. I'm not going to shed a tear for them if they lose Pujols, especially after overspending on Holliday the year before. I would have paid Albert what he wanted and built the team around pitching from there. You do need someone in the lineup to protect Albert, but that person doesn't have to make $18 million per season. The Cardinals really thought they were going to be able to afford two of the highest-paid offensive players in baseball, including the man who wants to be the highest paid (and should be)? Not good planning on their part and it looks like it's going to bite them.

I definitely have my popcorn ready.
I don't understand. You want this to hurt the Cardinals but you also want them to lose Pujols?

If Pujols leaves they'll find someone else to play 1st. Obviously, there'll be a dropoff but the new guy will be alot cheaper. And instead of spending all that money on Pujols it would be used to improve other positions instead. But, if the do resign Pujols they'll end up with alot less money for the other positions. It's been Pujols and Holliday and not much else. With an extension it would be Pujols and Holliday and even less. It would be harder for the Cardinals if so much of their payroll is tied up, for years, in two aging, declining players. They might struggle initially but letting Pujols go would be the smart move long-term.

Blitz Dorsey
02-22-2011, 06:08 PM
I don't understand. You want this to hurt the Cardinals but you also want them to lose Pujols?

If Pujols leaves they'll find someone else to play 1st. Obviously, there'll be a dropoff but the new guy will be alot cheaper. And instead of spending all that money on Pujols it would be used to improve other positions instead. But, if the do resign Pujols they'll end up with alot less money for the other positions. It's been Pujols and Holliday and not much else. With an extension it would be Pujols and Holliday and even less. It would be harder for the Cardinals if so much of their payroll is tied up, for years, in two aging, declining players. They might struggle initially but letting Pujols go would be the smart move long-term.

There is no way to spin it. Losing the best player in the game will greatly hurt the Cardinals. This is why their fans are so nervous about the situation. They know they are basically in for a rebuilding process if Albert leaves. Not "rebuilding" in the sense of the Pirates, but they will be a shell of their former selves. Plus Carpenter is getting up there in age and has a history of arm problems. They don't have a bunch of top prospects in their ML system. They'll be solid without Pujols thanks to Holliday, Rasmus, Wainwright, Garcia and whoever they add to their core of players, but they will definitely take a huge step backwards.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2011, 06:35 PM
If it's true that only one contract was offered then the Cardinals weren't interested in getting a deal done now. Why do you suppose that is?

I wouldn't be surprised if only one contract was offered, and I didn't expect anything to get done this offseason. The Cards ownership takes their time with contracts. Bill Dewitt made comments in December and even in January that made it seem like there wasn't any rush and that they weren't in a rush to get things done. That doesn't mean that they don't want Pujols to be a Cardinal for the rest of his career, because I believe they do. The whole reason they signed Holliday was to prove to Albert that they were committed to winning. I think they may want to see what happens this year before resigning him. If they believe Pujols is serious about wanting to remain a Cardinal, then they probably feel that they can get the same deal after the season. If the $300 Mil figure that Pujols is asking for is true (i doubt it is), then the demands probably can't get any higher after the season.

Sea Ray
02-22-2011, 06:47 PM
If the $300 Mil figure that Pujols is asking for is true (i doubt it is), then the demands probably can't get any higher after the season.

The problem is they'll be competing with other teams then. History shows that FAs generally don't return to their original team once it gets to that point.

I'm thinking the Cards are figuring that there won't be a bidding war for him due to the teamswith deep pockets already having his role filled...and I think they may very well be right

Phhhl
02-22-2011, 06:50 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if only one contract was offered, and I didn't expect anything to get done this offseason. The Cards ownership takes their time with contracts. Bill Dewitt made comments in December and even in January that made it seem like there wasn't any rush and that they weren't in a rush to get things done. That doesn't mean that they don't want Pujols to be a Cardinal for the rest of his career, because I believe they do. The whole reason they signed Holliday was to prove to Albert that they were committed to winning. I think they may want to see what happens this year before resigning him. If they believe Pujols is serious about wanting to remain a Cardinal, then they probably feel that they can get the same deal after the season. If the $300 Mil figure that Pujols is asking for is true (i doubt it is), then the demands probably can't get any higher after the season.

Sounds like a game of chicken to me. I think you are reading way too much into it, and you are not alone. There is no way the Cardinals would have let it come to this if they could help it. He's going to walk.

TheNext44
02-22-2011, 06:53 PM
Call me an Idiot or Old Fashioned if you want to but I hope Albert Pujols spends his whole career in St Louis.




and I believe he will.

Completely agree.

The thought of Pujols in a Yankees, Angels, Mets, Dodger or Red Sox uniform makes me sick to my stomach.

Besides, I liked that the Reds beat the team with the best hitter in baseball last season, and would love to do it again and again for years. :)

redsfandan
02-22-2011, 07:18 PM
There is no way to spin it. Losing the best player in the game will greatly hurt the Cardinals. This is why their fans are so nervous about the situation. They know they are basically in for a rebuilding process if Albert leaves. Not "rebuilding" in the sense of the Pirates, but they will be a shell of their former selves. Plus Carpenter is getting up there in age and has a history of arm problems. They don't have a bunch of top prospects in their ML system. They'll be solid without Pujols thanks to Holliday, Rasmus, Wainwright, Garcia and whoever they add to their core of players, but they will definitely take a huge step backwards.
Well, we can agree to disagree but I just don't buy the assumption that "they will definitely take a huge step backwards". No, this sums it up to me:

They might struggle initially but letting Pujols go would be the smart move long-term.
Which is why I hope they cave and give him what he wants.

MattyHo4Life
02-22-2011, 09:03 PM
I'm thinking the Cards are figuring that there won't be a bidding war for him due to the teamswith deep pockets already having his role filled...and I think they may very well be right

I think this is exactly right. If the $300Mil demand is correct, The Cards probably figure they will take their chances to see if anyone offers that.

TheNext44
02-23-2011, 03:06 PM
Does anyone here think Pujols will want to sign with the Cards now that Wainwright is probably out for one and half seasons at least, and is a now a big question mark moving forward?

Like I said before, shoulda traded him last off season and blown up the team.

GoReds
02-23-2011, 03:30 PM
If Pujols leaves they'll find someone else to play 1st. Obviously, there'll be a dropoff but the new guy will be alot cheaper. And instead of spending all that money on Pujols it would be used to improve other positions instead. But, if the do resign Pujols they'll end up with alot less money for the other positions. It's been Pujols and Holliday and not much else. With an extension it would be Pujols and Holliday and even less. It would be harder for the Cardinals if so much of their payroll is tied up, for years, in two aging, declining players. They might struggle initially but letting Pujols go would be the smart move long-term.

This is where the Cards are in a nutshell - Catch 22.

Scenario 1 - they re-sign Pujols, but have little flexibility to improve their team. Think about it this way - many teams sign the big free agent to improve attendance and increase revenue that they can then (hopefully) re-invest in other areas of the team to keep them competitive. If the Cards re-sign Pujols, they get none of this benefit.

Scenario 2 - Pujols walks. The Cards get nothing and scramble to round out the roster. With Wainwright questionable for a year+ and Carpenter held together with duct tape, the Cards will be looking at rebuilding. Granted, the Cardinals can reload quicker than most.

Scenario 3 - The Cards bite the bullet and trade Albert. Trading during the season likely means a lesser return as contenders will be reluctant to trade important pieces and also rans are also rans for a reason. Albert could bring a massive prospect haul and maybe a top tier player, but it's difficult to imagine that happening with the Yankees or Red Sox (maybe the Phillies?).

Chip R
02-23-2011, 03:30 PM
Does anyone here think Pujols will want to sign with the Cards now that Wainwright is probably out for one and half seasons at least, and is a now a big question mark moving forward?

Like I said before, shoulda traded him last off season and blown up the team.


I doubt that will have much effect on his decision. Most likely Wainwright will be back by Spring Training of next year throwing just as good or better than ever.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 03:32 PM
I doubt that will have much effect on his decision. Most likely Carpenter will be back by Spring Training of next year throwing just as good or better than ever.

Where did Carp go? Assume you mean Wainwright.

Chip R
02-23-2011, 03:38 PM
Where did Carp go? Assume you mean Wainwright.


My bad.

kaldaniels
02-23-2011, 03:40 PM
I doubt that will have much effect on his decision. Most likely Wainwright will be back by Spring Training of next year throwing just as good or better than ever.

Not to be too contrary, but isn't the common thought that it takes 2 years to fully recover (and even be improved) post TJ surgery?

TheNext44
02-23-2011, 03:42 PM
I doubt that will have much effect on his decision. Most likely Carpenter will be back by Spring Training of next year throwing just as good or better than ever.

I assume you mean wainwright. But that would be remarkable if he was. Most if not all starters take at least one and half years to get back to full strength. But more importantly, at the time Pujols makes his decision, Wainwright will still be in rehab.

I just can't see Pujols wanting to stay after a likely out of contention season, and the team's #1 starter a big question mark for the future. He's going to want to sign with a winning team, not one that may or may not be one.

bucksfan2
02-23-2011, 03:47 PM
I assume you mean wainwright. But that would be remarkable if he was. Most if not all starters take at least one and half years to get back to full strength. But more importantly, at the time Pujols makes his decision, Wainwright will still be in rehab.

I just can't see Pujols wanting to stay after a likely out of contention season, and the team's #1 starter a big question mark for the future. He's going to want to sign with a winning team, not one that may or may not be one.

Don't be so quick to write off the Cards. They may have just been dealt a huge blow but they still have the best player in baseball, a great pitching coach, and an ace along with a couple of other decent options.

Chip R
02-23-2011, 04:00 PM
I assume you mean wainwright. But that would be remarkable if he was. Most if not all starters take at least one and half years to get back to full strength. But more importantly, at the time Pujols makes his decision, Wainwright will still be in rehab.


Our Opening Day pitcher came back a little over a year removed from TJ surgery and by the end of the season was in top form.

TheNext44
02-23-2011, 05:35 PM
Our Opening Day pitcher came back a little over a year removed from TJ surgery and by the end of the season was in top form.

I guess we have different memories. I remember Volquez coming back and being very inconsistant. More middle to bottom of the rotation production.

Either way, Punols will have no idea if and when (if ever) Wainwright will be back to top form at the time he has to decide where to play next off season.

Chip R
02-23-2011, 05:44 PM
I guess we have different memories. I remember Volquez coming back and being very inconsistant. More middle to bottom of the rotation production.


I'll take those last 4 starts in the regular season as middle to bottom of the rotation production any day of the week.

TheNext44
02-23-2011, 06:09 PM
I'll take those last 4 starts in the regular season as middle to bottom of the rotation production any day of the week.

The Cards are going to need more than 4 good starts from Wainwright in 2012 in order to contend.

Carpenter will be 38 then, so the Cards were expecting Wainwright to fill in for him as their Ace. Really not looking good for the Cards in the long term.

MikeThierry
02-23-2011, 08:55 PM
Don't be so quick to write off the Cards. They may have just been dealt a huge blow but they still have the best player in baseball, a great pitching coach, and an ace along with a couple of other decent options.

I'm a Cards fan but I'm already writing off my team. I can't tell what is the worst day from my perspective, losing in double overtime against the Red Wings in game 7 of the 1995 Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Rams losing to the Patriots on a field goal in 2001, or the news of Waino going down for the year in Pujols last season as a Cardinal.

Chip R
02-23-2011, 11:25 PM
The Cards are going to need more than 4 good starts from Wainwright in 2012 in order to contend.

Carpenter will be 38 then, so the Cards were expecting Wainwright to fill in for him as their Ace. Really not looking good for the Cards in the long term.

I'm sure Volquez would have had more good starts if the season wasn't over. The point is Wainwright has all this season and all the off season and all of ST 2012 to get back. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he is able to regain his position at the top of the Cardinals' rotation at the beginning of 2012.

MikeThierry
02-23-2011, 11:29 PM
I think Waino was already our ace over Carpenter. However, in 2012 there are some intriguing things for the Cardinals. Shelby Miller should be ready by then. He was the 20th ranked prospect by MLB Network. He has a fastball that touches 100, a massive curve, and some other nice pitches. I think the whole plan all along was that once Carpenter's contract was over, Shelby Miller would be ready to pitch in the majors. I don't think the Cardinals pitching situation is as dire as a lot of people think once 2012 hits.

cincrazy
02-23-2011, 11:38 PM
Volquez was inconsistent upon his return, but that's not anything different from what he's been most of his career to be totally honest. I don't see Wainwright having much trouble. To be smart they'll probably take it slow, and he'll have some restrictions, but I'd expect him to be productive.

I know one is a reliever and the other a starter, but Joe Nathan is firing bullets currently in spring training, and it was around last year at this time that he had TJ surgery. All pitchers respond to the surgery differently, so maybe it will take him longer to recover, but I think he'll be ready to go by April next year, at least to some extent.

membengal
02-24-2011, 07:10 AM
Random observation on Shelby Miller:

Great prospect, but I am not exactly worried about his arrival impacting the Cardinals too much within the next three years. As we all know from Homer's trajectory, it is not necessarily a straight line from hard-throwing prospect to impact major league starter. It can take time.

Plus, other than Jamie Garcia bursting on the scene last year, who was the last pitcher the Cardinals and Dave Duncan developed internally who made a lasting impact on the Cardinals? As good as Duncan is at reclamation projects, I don't have him marked (or the Cardinals as an organization) at being particularly good of late at developing pitchers and getting them into the majors to make a lasting impact as a Cardinal.

Dan Haren maybe, but Duncan never really worked with him, as he was dealt before his major league time. Before that, Ankiel? And that kinda went sideways quickly. Point is, there's a lot of time before Miller is established as a impact starter for the Cardinals, chewing up those 230 innings a year that Wainwright did.

MikeThierry
02-25-2011, 12:04 AM
I think you have to look more toward the bullpen rather than starting pitching because the Cards have always seemed to have key impact veteran pitchers in their rotation.

If you look at their bullpen however, Kyle McClellan has turned into one of the best right handed setup men in the game. Jason Motte was just a catcher a few short years ago but was turned into a stud pitcher out of the pen. He was superb last season.

Another factor is that the Cardinals have traded key prospects the last couple of years so I think its a bit difficult to blame Duncan for the lack of success developing young talent when the young talent is constantly being traded.

Patrick Bateman
02-25-2011, 01:08 AM
I think you have to look more toward the bullpen rather than starting pitching because the Cards have always seemed to have key impact veteran pitchers in their rotation.

If you look at their bullpen however, Kyle McClellan has turned into one of the best right handed setup men in the game. Jason Motte was just a catcher a few short years ago but was turned into a stud pitcher out of the pen. He was superb last season.

Another factor is that the Cardinals have traded key prospects the last couple of years so I think its a bit difficult to blame Duncan for the lack of success developing young talent when the young talent is constantly being traded.

Both of those guys were great in the minor leagues, even Motte had huge success in AAA before the call up. Both horrible examples in this case.

MattyHo4Life
02-25-2011, 01:48 AM
Plus, other than Jamie Garcia bursting on the scene last year, who was the last pitcher the Cardinals and Dave Duncan developed internally who made a lasting impact on the Cardinals?

Ummmmm...Adam Wainwright? He wasn't drafted by the Cardinals, but the Cardinals traded for him while he was still in the minors.

Oh, and Dan Haren pitched for the Cardinals in 2002 and 2003 for a total of 28 games, 19 as a Starter.

membengal
02-25-2011, 05:48 AM
Wainwright aquired pre-baked. Haren traded before he made the leap.

Try again. It looks like Garcia will be a guy that you all drafted and developed who is a keeper who stayed with the Cardinals. But before Garcia, you have to go back quite a ways, I think. The Reds have recently figured this out better, with Cueto/Bailey and likely Wood part of their rotation this year, three of five starters drafted and developed by Cincy. Prior to this, it had been a dry period for the Reds too.

I am just saying that it is not a straight line from where Shelby Miller is to a rock solid 230 inning guy in the major league rotation.

MattyHo4Life
02-25-2011, 08:56 AM
Wainwright aquired pre-baked.

Maybe you should do your research before you assume the Cardinals traded for a fully developed pitcher. Wainwright wasn't prebaked. The Braves traded him because they thought he wasn't going to be the top prospect that they once thought he would be. No way would they trade him for a half season of JD Drew if they knew he would be this good. Wainwright has talked a lot about being in the minors with Dan Haren and Anthony Reyes, and how they were the better pitchers at the time, and he was learning by watching them pitch. Wainwright was developed by the Cardinals... not the Braves.

So...let me get this right. A pitching coach doesn't get any credit for a pitcher unless his team drafts the player and the player is developed completely through their system? I'm glad you aren't in charge of hiring pitching coaches. I'll take Dave Duncan as my pitching coach anyday. It isn't a pitching coaches fault if his team doesn't draft top starting pitchers for him to work with. Look back at the Cardinals #1 draft picks, very few of them have been Starting pitchers.

medford
02-25-2011, 09:34 AM
Will Duncan still be around in 3 years? Seems like he's pretty tied into LaRussa, and it seems like LaRussa's time is winding down. This may well be his last in St Louis.

Chip R
02-25-2011, 10:02 AM
Will Duncan still be around in 3 years? Seems like he's pretty tied into LaRussa, and it seems like LaRussa's time is winding down. This may well be his last in St Louis.

We've heard this every year for the past few seasons. It's almost as tiring as the Favre saga.

membengal
02-25-2011, 12:30 PM
Touchy, matty. Fact is wainwright was drafted and development begun elsewhere. Period. My point as to drafted and developed entirely in-house for you guys stands. Before we pencil miller into the rotation as an innings hoss, let's note that there are a lot of steps to take and the cardinal record of moving their own drafted pitching prospects from point A to point B is spotty. At best.

membengal
02-25-2011, 12:33 PM
Just glanced at his minors record and it comports w/ my memory...4 years in braves org, one and a half w/ cards.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 03:26 PM
I

If you look at their bullpen however, Kyle McClellan has turned into one of the best right handed setup men in the game. Jason Motte was just a catcher a few short years ago but was turned into a stud pitcher out of the pen. He was superb last season.




"superb" and "stud" should be reserved for pitchers who fit that discription.

McClelland had a 4.07 FIP last year, a 4.42 xFIP.

Motte was at 3.29 and 3.69.

That's OK, but not magical by any means.

ERA's are a poor way to judge relievers. And IIRC, each just loves to give up HR's in key situations.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 03:32 PM
I think Waino was already our ace over Carpenter. However, in 2012 there are some intriguing things for the Cardinals. Shelby Miller should be ready by then. He was the 20th ranked prospect by MLB Network. He has a fastball that touches 100, a massive curve, and some other nice pitches. I think the whole plan all along was that once Carpenter's contract was over, Shelby Miller would be ready to pitch in the majors. I don't think the Cardinals pitching situation is as dire as a lot of people think once 2012 hits.


Miller is in high A to start this season.

I doubt that he'll be ready to take Carpenter's spot at the start of 2012. If everything progresses well, you might see him as a September call up in 2012.

Top 20 prospect just means his chances of success are better than other guys. He's still has less than a 50% chance of having a meaningfull career.

If the Cards are banking their entire furture on one prospect in A ball, God help them. Especially a pitcher.

And I think Miller is an excellent prospect. But until he has AA sucess, I would count on much.

But if the Cards want to count on Miller so much, I've got a Howington and a Gruler for sale. They were each highly regraded at one time too. I'm guessing Miller will fit in nicely between Garcia and Anthony Reyes in your rotation.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 03:33 PM
"superb" and "stud" should be reserved for pitchers who fit that discription.

McClelland had a 4.07 FIP last year, a 4.42 xFIP.

Motte was at 3.29 and 3.69.

That's OK, but not magical by any means.

ERA's are a poor way to judge relievers. And IIRC, each just loves to give up HR's in key situations.

ERA is a poor way to evaluate what a pitcher might do going forward. I don't think it's unfair to use it to say someone was superb, as ERA is in fact the best judge of what you did rather than what you'll continue to do.

If someone has an ERA in the high 1's or low 2's, that is still superb even if it's not likely to be replicated. "Superb," in this case, is not meant to be construed as an adjective describing talent, but rather performance.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 03:37 PM
ERA is a poor way to evaluate what a pitcher might do going forward. I don't think it's unfair to use it to say someone was superb, as ERA is in fact the best judge of what you did rather than what you'll continue to do.

If someone has an ERA in the high 1's or low 2's, that is still superb even if it's not likely to be replicated. "Superb," in this case, is not meant to be construed as an adjective describing talent, but rather performance.

ERA is a poor method of judging how well a relief pitcher pitched in any given season.


Each of McClennan and Motte gave up many HR's balls at poor times last season.

Neither actually pitched as well as their ERA"s might indicate.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 03:39 PM
ERA is a poor method of judging how well a relief pitcher pitched in any given season.


Each of McClennan and Motte gave up many HR's balls at poor times last season.

Neither actually pitched as well as their ERA"s might indicate.

ERA is never a bad way to judge what actually happened. It's only a poor way to judge what might happen in the future. That's the part that gets often conflated around here.

MartyFan
02-25-2011, 03:43 PM
Something else to consider in all the Albert, Carpenter and other signings...this story (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/02/25/residents-flee-st-louis-especially-north-city-over-last-decade/)...from a local CBS affiliate in St. Louis.

The economic base of St. Louis is softening and those moving out of the city are starting to move further and further out, beyond the suburbs.

A smaller population base means a tougher time selling tickets and at what price they can sell them. Will it impact the Cardinals this year? No, they still have Albert and a few other marquees pieces in place but I would not look for the Cardinals to resign Albert based solely on the fact that their market is actually shrinking.

Patrick Bateman
02-25-2011, 03:47 PM
ERA is never a bad way to judge what actually happened. It's only a poor way to judge what might happen in the future. That's the part that gets often conflated around here.

You're actually very wrong.

ERA tells you what the pitcher did in a particular set of circumstances and environment.

It does not tell you how well he actually pitched.

ERA tells you the first one, but not the real results of how a pitcher did on his own merits.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 03:52 PM
You're actually very wrong.

ERA tells you what the pitcher did in a particular set of circumstances and environment.

It does not tell you how well he actually pitched.

ERA tells you the first one, but not the real results of how a pitcher did on his own merits.

You can do without the snark.

But by that logic, we'd have to never recognize any champion that was somewhat lucky just because their stats weren't indicative of how they really did on their own merits.

It's a results-based business, not a theoretical results-based business. They're paid on what actually happened, not what could have or should have happened.

That ERA is the best measure of what a pitcher did give up means it's a good measure of simple performance: what actually happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened, simply what did happen.

Like I said... if you want to measure talent, strip luck from the equation or figure out someone is going to do going forward, ERA shouldn't be used. But what did you actually do? ERA is just fine because it tells us what did actually occur.

If you disagree with that, try to leave the snide remarks out the door.

TheNext44
02-25-2011, 03:58 PM
The problem with ERA for relievers is the very unfair way it handles inherited runners. Because of this, I don't think it is aa accurate measurement of what really happened.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 03:59 PM
ERA is never a bad way to judge what actually happened. It's only a poor way to judge what might happen in the future. That's the part that gets often conflated around here.

I disagree.

ERA is a very poor way to judge a reliever, who often pitches partial innings.

That part often gets misunderstood around here.

The higher FIP and xFIP means they didn't pitch as well as thier ERA's indicated. presumably that means they gave up more hits and HR's than their ERA's would suggest. Something that might well affect the teams performace with inherited runners, but not their ERA.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 04:00 PM
The problem with ERA for relievers is the very unfair way it handles inherited runners. Because of this, I don't think it is aa accurate measurement of what really happened.

That often evens out with most of them though. Many of them might give up inherited runners, but their own runners might not score with another reliever.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 04:05 PM
I disagree.

ERA is a very poor way to judge a reliever, who often pitches partial innings.

That part often gets misunderstood around here.

The higher FIP and xFIP means they didn't pitch as well as thier ERA's indicated. presumably that means they gave up more hits and HR's than their ERA's would suggest. Something that might well affect the teams performace with inherited runners, but not their ERA.

I get all the explanations of the stats and everything, but the discussion was about results not theoretical results.

As I said... guys are paid to keep runners from scoring. Thats' really all that matters when we're looking back on a season.

I'm as big a fan of FIP, xFIP, tERA and all the other stats in the alphabet soup that exist, but when someone says someone was superb on the basis of ERA for a past season, I really don't think there's much room to challenge that because that did occur. That performance was superb because they didn't allow many runs and that's what they're paid to do.

Calling them superb on the basis of talent might not be the best idea on that premise, but based on production... I see nothing wrong with it.

TheNext44
02-25-2011, 04:06 PM
That often evens out with most of them though. Many of them might give up inherited runners, but their own runners might not score with another reliever.

Relying on it to "even out" means that it's not accurate, by definition. Also, because they pitch so few innings, one bad appearance can blow up a reliever's ERA unfairly. Personally, I like WHIP for relievers, and then K/BB, and then HR/9.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Relying on it to "even out" means that it's not accurate, by definition. Also, because they pitch so few innings, one bad appearance can blow up a reliever's ERA unfairly. Personally, I like WHIP for relievers, and then K/BB, and then HR/9.

But at the end of the day, they're paid not to let runners score. All of those things are important when evaluating the actual talent level of a pitcher, especially reliever, and evaluating what they're going to do in the future. But it still detracts from the actual (not theoretical) results of how they did in doing their jobs: don't let runners score.

Baseball is about scoring runs and preventing runs. Even if it might be luck or for other reasons, if you prevented runs, you did your job for that season.

TheNext44
02-25-2011, 04:16 PM
But at the end of the day, they're paid not to let runners score. All of those things are important when evaluating the actual talent level of a pitcher, especially reliever, and evaluating what they're going to do in the future. But it still detracts from the actual (not theoretical) results of how they did in doing their jobs: don't let runners score.

Baseball is about scoring runs and preventing runs. Even if it might be luck or for other reasons, if you prevented runs, you did your job for that season.

I agree. I just don't think that ERA accurately represents how good a reliever was at preventing runs.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 04:21 PM
I agree. I just don't think that ERA accurately represents how good a reliever was at preventing runs.

Well, that's kind of tricky though. A lot of people can't even agree on how to credit relievers for inherited runners. Some say it should be counted against the pitcher that gave them up, some say it should be the ones that allowed them to score, some say a mix.

I understand ERA is going to be a little misleading depending on how you fall philosophically with this, but I think that argument in itself can detract from the bottom line.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 06:08 PM
But at the end of the day, they're paid not to let runners score. All of those things are important when evaluating the actual talent level of a pitcher, especially reliever, and evaluating what they're going to do in the future. But it still detracts from the actual (not theoretical) results of how they did in doing their jobs: don't let runners score.

Baseball is about scoring runs and preventing runs. Even if it might be luck or for other reasons, if you prevented runs, you did your job for that season.


You seem to be missing the point, or perhaps simply ignoring it.

ERA reflects which of a pitcher's own runners he lets scores.

It does not reflect which of another pitcher's runs scores.

Motte was many things last year, he was not superb. Same for McClennan.

Again, ERA is a poor judge of a reliever's ability. It tells us absolutely nothing about how they did preventing other pitcher's runners from scoring.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 06:12 PM
You seem to be missing the point, or perhaps simply ignoring it.

ERA reflects which of a pitcher's own runners he lets scores.

It does not reflect which of another pitcher's runs scores.

Motte was many things last year, he was not superb. Same for McClennan.

Again, ERA is a poor judge of a reliever's ability. It tells us absolutely nothing about how they did preventing other pitcher's runners from scoring.

Neither does FIP or xFIP for that matter, especially over a small sample.

PuffyPig
02-25-2011, 06:30 PM
Neither does FIP or xFIP for that matter, especially over a small sample.

It tells you more.

If you have a good FIP and xFIP, it means you are doing the right things in terms of giving up HR's, striking out batters, and not walking batters.

Doing those things, as a reliever, likely has a reasonable correlation to preventing inherited runners from scoring. Certainly a much better correlation than ERA.

Brutus
02-25-2011, 06:34 PM
It tells you more.

If you have a good FIP and xFIP, it means you are doing the right things in terms of giving up HR's, striking out batters, and not walking batters.

Doing those things, as a reliever, likely has a reasonable correlation to preventing inherited runners from scoring. Certainly a much better correlation than ERA.

It doesn't tell you more about what actually happened. And that's the point I'll continue to make because I think it's relevant.

I'm a fan of FIP, xFIP, etc. But in the context of measuring what actually happened on the field, and not what a players' talent level or ability to replicate the production, ERA is just fine.

Lastly, correlation to inherited runners scoring is not the issue. The correlation we're talking about is what actually happened. Preventing runs. ERA correlates better than anything in run prevention because that's what it measures. So if you're going to throw correlation into the discussion, then this is an easy conclusion: ERA is the best measurement for simply describing what happened in past tense without the how or why.

Patrick Bateman
02-25-2011, 06:49 PM
You can do without the snark.

Not snark, just stating what as I see as facts.



But by that logic, we'd have to never recognize any champion that was somewhat lucky just because their stats weren't indicative of how they really did on their own merits.

That's not a very logical extention of what I said.
When the Cards won the WS they were not the best team in baseball.
Everyone knows that. Doesn't mean you can take that away from them.
But saying they were the best because they were the best team over 20 games is obviously not satisfactory.


It's a results-based business, not a theoretical results-based business. They're paid on what actually happened, not what could have or should have happened.

Depends on what you are trying to evaluate. If it's the results of a pitcher. You are barking up the wrong tree.

If you are evaluating how well a pitcher performed in x park with x defense behind him, then yes, ERA is the best reflection of results, because inherently that's what it is. However, as far as showing the results of the results of a pitcher, I'm suggesting that ERA is not really the results of a pitcher. It's the results of a number of things, he just happened to be a significant factor in them.


That ERA is the best measure of what a pitcher did give up means it's a good measure of simple performance: what actually happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened, simply what did happen.

And so are each of the components that make up the other formulas in xFIP and such. They are both different types of results. Again, depends on what you are looking for. ERA is simply not indiciatve of an individual pitcher's results.



If you disagree with that, try to leave the snide remarks out the door.

LOL! I've never had a problem with you Brutus.
Getting a little power hungry already? ;)

Brutus
02-25-2011, 08:20 PM
Not snark, just stating what as I see as facts.

Which would be, then, an opinion. There's no right or wrong answer here, so if you're going to tell someone how wrong they are, have verifiable, conclusive proof. Even then, it's possible to be a little less condescending when presenting such facts (which can't be done in this case, as it's still not quantifiable to what we're discussing, at least with any certainty).





That's not a very logical extention of what I said.
When the Cards won the WS they were not the best team in baseball.
Everyone knows that. Doesn't mean you can take that away from them.
But saying they were the best because they were the best team over 20 games is obviously not satisfactory.

What does being the best have to do with it? All I said is wins are wins and results are results. Saying someone didn't have a good season, who's ERA is below 2, just because it may have been lucky, isn't a very logical statement either. I can throw up a prayer halfcourt shot to win a game, and it might be lucky as heck, but if it's a game-winner, who cares? Win or lose, the shot went in.




Depends on what you are trying to evaluate. If it's the results of a pitcher. You are barking up the wrong tree.

If you are evaluating how well a pitcher performed in x park with x defense behind him, then yes, ERA is the best reflection of results, because inherently that's what it is. However, as far as showing the results of the results of a pitcher, I'm suggesting that ERA is not really the results of a pitcher. It's the results of a number of things, he just happened to be a significant factor in them.

We're evaluating whether a performance was superb. That's it. Run prevention comes down to simply not allowing runs. And since a pitcher with a low ERA then, by that measure, didn't give up runs, he's to be credited with the performance. It doesn't speak for his skill level or how those runs came about, nor does it speak for how lucky it was and whether it can be replicated. But simply saying he had a good year because of a great ERA isn't an outrageous claim to make.




And so are each of the components that make up the other formulas in xFIP and such. They are both different types of results. Again, depends on what you are looking for. ERA is simply not indiciatve of an individual pitcher's results. ERA is run prevention which is very indicative. The issue here is that a lot of people learning about sabermetrics have mistaken, in my opinion, ERA not being a good measure and using it for production versus ERA and using it for talent/skill level and whether to expect it going forward. The sabermetric movements on the other pitching statistics have never meant to completely discredit ERA, but rather limit its spectrum of usage to simple performance.





LOL! I've never had a problem with you Brutus.
Getting a little power hungry already? ;)

Nor I with you. But no, not having anything to do with power. Just trying to keep the conversation from being rude. Starting or ending a conversation telling someone how "very wrong they are" is especially not a good way to expect quality discourse. It really doesn't do anything to help your point, it actually hurts it, and it's just a not-so-veiled shot across the bow of the other party's opinion. Really has nothing to do with power... just think it's an unnecessary way to debate something.

MikeThierry
02-25-2011, 09:14 PM
Lord, I never intended to get into a conversation about ERA and why its good or not. My point was simply that McClellan and Motte were very good last year. Most teams in baseball would want relievers of their caliber. Yes ERA isn't going to tell you the whole story but it is still a decent tool to use to see if a pitcher pitched well or not. If you look at their stats, they have improved every single year since coming to the majors. Part of that has to be attributed to Duncan.


Both of those guys were great in the minor leagues, even Motte had huge success in AAA before the call up. Both horrible examples in this case.

I completely disagree. For one, the Cardinals have stressed in their minors a ground ball mentality. The same philosophy that Dave Duncan has stressed his entire career as a pitching coach. If you look at the Cardinals farm system during the time of LaRussa/Duncan, there haven't been a lot of guys that throw hard but rather there are a lot of pitchers the Cardinals draft and bring up that can throw sinkers and other ground ball type pitches. Jaime Garcia is a perfect example of drafting to fit the organizations need/philosophy. This is a direct result from Dave Duncan's influence in the Cardinals organization.

I think it is also a bit unfair to judge the effectiveness of Duncan towards minor league players prior to being called up. Simply put, no pitching coach spends tons of time in the minors developing young talent. They have to be judged on how well their staff performs once they hit the majors. If you look at the track record of young talent such as Wainwright and other players that get called to the majors, its clear that Duncan has helped a lot of young players.

TheNext44
02-25-2011, 09:16 PM
Lord, I never intended to get into a conversation about ERA and why its good or not.

Welcome to Redszone :)

Brutus
02-25-2011, 09:46 PM
Welcome to Redszone :)

Truer words have never been spoken.

MattyHo4Life
02-26-2011, 12:10 AM
Truer words have never been spoken.

HaHa...yep! I guess that's why I keep coming back. I must like being tortured. lol

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 12:33 AM
I completely disagree. For one, the Cardinals have stressed in their minors a ground ball mentality. The same philosophy that Dave Duncan has stressed his entire career as a pitching coach. If you look at the Cardinals farm system during the time of LaRussa/Duncan, there haven't been a lot of guys that throw hard but rather there are a lot of pitchers the Cardinals draft and bring up that can throw sinkers and other ground ball type pitches. Jaime Garcia is a perfect example of drafting to fit the organizations need/philosophy. This is a direct result from Dave Duncan's influence in the Cardinals organization.
.

Since Jocketty was fired, hasn't Duncan slowly been given less and less influence on the minor league development philosophy? I seem to remember that several years ago the leadership in minor league pitching development was replaced. Not trying to knock on Duncan at all, just that Garcia might not really be a product of Duncan's philosophy since I thought he had been pushed out of the minor league development aspects over the past couple years.

Did a quick look for it and found something about it here: http://www.rockinthered.com/2009/08/dave-duncan-is-mad.html The story is mostly about the handling of his son but mentions that he was not being consulted for minor league development anymore. You might know more about it than I am able to remember.

MikeThierry
02-26-2011, 01:42 AM
Quatitos, this was an issue for a short time but Jeff Lunow has kind of taken a lesser role with the organization after this flare-up between Duncan and the organization. They put someone back in place that more suited Duncan's philosophy. I think what made Duncan mad was the quality of pitchers coming up through the organization such as Chris Perez and PJ Walters. He wasn't too happy how they were developed in the minors. Things seemed to have cooled down now and they are kind of back to the way Duncan views pitching.

Garcia was drafted by the Cardinals in 2005. He fit that Dave Duncan mold of pitcher. While it is true that there was a shift a bit for a short time in pitching philosophy, they didn't really do anything that drastic with Garcia except develop the pitches he already had coming into the organization.

I just don't think you can really argue with the success of his pitching staffs going all the way back to his Oakland days.

By the way Quatitos, if you want an interesting read, take a look at how Jaime Garcia was originally drafted by the Orioles. This story kind of makes you understand why the Orioles have been so bad for so long.

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/cardinals-are-glad-garcia-got-lost-in-translation/

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 03:08 AM
Quatitos, this was an issue for a short time but Jeff Lunow has kind of taken a lesser role with the organization after this flare-up between Duncan and the organization. They put someone back in place that more suited Duncan's philosophy. I think what made Duncan mad was the quality of pitchers coming up through the organization such as Chris Perez and PJ Walters. He wasn't too happy how they were developed in the minors. Things seemed to have cooled down now and they are kind of back to the way Duncan views pitching.

Garcia was drafted by the Cardinals in 2005. He fit that Dave Duncan mold of pitcher. While it is true that there was a shift a bit for a short time in pitching philosophy, they didn't really do anything that drastic with Garcia except develop the pitches he already had coming into the organization.


Judging from how few successful starting pitcher prospects that have succeeded in St Louis I would be mad too. I was curious since someone brought it up that the Cards did not develop very many starting pitchers and it seems to be true. I wanted to see how many pitchers were brought up in the Cards minor leagues and put up several full seasons of success in the major leagues. I did a check of how many pitchers have put up a season with at least 15 starts (pitched half a season minimum) and under a 4.50 ERA. I felt these restrictions were adequate to find pitchers that were of at least middle of the rotation starter quality. There were a total of 23 pitchers that did this in over 46 seasons in the 15 years that Larussa/Duncan have been there. Only 10 pitchers did this more than once.


First Last #seasons
Matt Morris 6
Chris Carpenter 5
Adam Wainwright 4
Andy Benes 3
Todd Stottlemyre 3
Jeff Suppan 3
Woody Williams 3
Kent Bottenfield 2
Darryl Kile 2
Jason Marquis 2


Of those, only Matt Morris and Adam Wainwright played their development years with the Cardinals. Of those two, only Matt Morris was actually drafted by the Cardinals, and that was in 1995, before Larussa/Duncan were hired by the Cards. Jaime Garcia might be added to that list if he performs adequately this season. This leads me to believe two different possibilities, either the Cardinals management during that time were bad at drafting/developing starting pitching talent, or that Duncan was bad at developing young starting pitching talent, or any mix of those two. I would probably put the blame on the organization for this more so than any one coach, and the development turmoil ~2009 probably leads me to believe that as well.

Let me know if I missed anyone, had to break out my limited database skills to get this :).


I just don't think you can really argue with the success of his pitching staffs going all the way back to his Oakland days.


It is rather impressive, given the inability of the Cardinals to develop starting pitching talent over the last 15 seasons, what their pitching staffs have been able to accomplish over the years. I would definitely say that the view of Duncan as being able to work with pitchers seen as reclamation projects is well deserved, since he does not seem to have much history of developing young starters (in St Louis). I would agree that you can't argue with his success at handling a staff as a whole but the development of young starters is definitely questionable.

membengal
02-26-2011, 08:29 AM
And, Quattitos, again, as I mentioned a few pages back, of Wainwright's 5 1/2 years in the minors, 4 were with the Braves. I frankly refuse to concede he was "developed by the Cardinals" as a significant amount of his time was with Atlanta before the trade. The Cards got him to the majors and he progressed from there (to their credit), but my point was, in specific, on St. Louis' sparse history of successfully drafting and developing their very own prospects prior to what appears to be a breakthrough with Garcia. Thanks for your work, it appears my sense was on point.

So, yes, I am comfortable in not exactly projecting Miller to the bigs in 2012 and locking him in for 220+ innings a year of sub 3.00 era. There is a process with most pitching prospects, and it will apply to Miller too I would expect.

Further, in case this wasn't clear a few pages back when Matty/Mike were responding, but I would never and have never questioned Duncan's ability to salvage foundering careers and get remarkable work out of vets, but am sitll not inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt with regard to his particular genius to all prospects in the St. Louis system.

traderumor
02-26-2011, 08:43 AM
It would be hard for anyone to keep a straight face and claim that the Cardinals are anything other than one of the worst teams in the majors at draft and develop when it comes to pitching, and that has been the case for at least the 21st century. It's even difficult to argue that they are anything but the worst draft and develop org. in the majors going back several years, which makes their run all the more amazing.

But, it should be a surprise to no one if they bottomed out in the post-Albert era as this long-standing weakness is exposed, and the architect for most of the current success is now residing in the Cincy front office.

Mozeliak will probably be the casualty of all that.

MattyHo4Life
02-26-2011, 09:13 AM
Judging from how few successful starting pitcher prospects that have succeeded in St Louis I would be mad too. I was curious since someone brought it up that the Cards did not develop very many starting pitchers and it seems to be true. I wanted to see how many pitchers were brought up in the Cards minor leagues and put up several full seasons of success in the major leagues.

Well, this isn't exactly limited to Starting Pitchers. The Cardinals have focused heavily on the draft and trade philosophy over the last 15 years, especially while Jocketty was in power. In the last few years, the organization has attempted to focus more on homegrown talent. Whether that's a good thing is still questionable. I mean, I think most Cardinals fans would prefer to trade for a Second baseman than keep the homegrown Skip Schumaker as a Starter.

mth123
02-26-2011, 09:14 AM
I'm starting to think that Wainwrights injury might just mean its time for a quick rebuild and they should market Pujols.

Carpenter to the Yankees for Ivan Nova, Jesus Montero and Eduardo Nunez

Pujols to the Rangers for Michael Young, Engel Beltre and Derek Holland. the Rangers have to take Kyle Lohse and Skip Schumaker as part of the deal.


Berkman for whatever

Next year (using Larussa's normal style)

Theriot 2B
Young 3B
Rasmus CF
Holiday LF
Montero 1B
Molina C
Nunez SS
Pitcher
Beltre RF

Wainwright
Garcia
Westbrook
Holland
Nova

Jay, Craig and Freese would be a nice bench with guys like Bryan Anderson and maybe Tyler Green or Pete Kozma

Motte and Meclellan would still anchor the pen. Most of the better in house kids are pretty young but they would have some money to fill holes and some near ready kids like Lance Lynn and Eduardo Sanchez to help fill out the pen with the Ottavino's and Walters of the world.

It would be a quick rebuild and they could contend pretty quickly if Wainwright comes all the way back.

jojo
02-26-2011, 11:32 AM
You're actually very wrong.

ERA tells you what the pitcher did in a particular set of circumstances and environment.

It does not tell you how well he actually pitched.

ERA tells you the first one, but not the real results of how a pitcher did on his own merits.

Exactly and it's entirely possible for a relief pitcher to give up two hits record no outs while three runs scored...and he leave the mound with an ERA of zero.... I believe that's kind of Puffy's point with ERA and relievers.


You can do without the snark.

But by that logic, we'd have to never recognize any champion that was somewhat lucky just because their stats weren't indicative of how they really did on their own merits.

It's a results-based business, not a theoretical results-based business. They're paid on what actually happened, not what could have or should have happened.

That ERA is the best measure of what a pitcher did give up means it's a good measure of simple performance: what actually happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened, simply what did happen.

Like I said... if you want to measure talent, strip luck from the equation or figure out someone is going to do going forward, ERA shouldn't be used. But what did you actually do? ERA is just fine because it tells us what did actually occur.

Concerning run prevention, ERA is a global measure of the contribution that 9 guys made to limiting the number of total runs that were arbitrarily labeled "earned" by a tenth person who was sitting somewhere removed from the field and may never have played an inning of baseball in his life.

If the strategy is to parse "real" results versus "theoretical" results when deciding if a pitcher had a superb performance, then even ERA is inappropriate. Box scores don't add up "earned" runs in that all important "R" column that is used to calculate the "W". The team that wins isn't necessarily the one that scored the most arbitrarily assigned earned runs after all. If that is the rationale for the value of ERA, then one is left wondering, is there ever a situation where ERA is the best measure since it fails both in the "real" and "theoretical" departments?

But ultimately I'm confused by an argument that recognizes a pitcher's true talent (i.e. what he actually controlled) needs to have luck and the contribution of his teammates stripped from the equation yet maintains that luck and the contribution of his teammates are immaterial to deciding if the pitcher had a superb year or not...


The issue here is that a lot of people learning about sabermetrics have mistaken, in my opinion, ERA not being a good measure and using it for production versus ERA and using it for talent/skill level and whether to expect it going forward.

Actually it's not confusion over what happened versus what will happen that generally leads saber-minded baseball fans to reject ERA. It's a recognition that ERA contains a great deal of noise that makes it harder to evaluate just how a pitcher performed. If anything is being conflated IMHO, there is a tendency for those who favor ERA to credit (conflate) the contribution of a pitcher's teammates and his environment with his production. A pitcher's ERA is miscast as an individual stat. ERA is actually a macro stat that speaks to the run prevention of the team in the unique situation defined by times a specific pitcher was on the mound. In other words, a pitcher's ERA is actually a team split.

jojo
02-26-2011, 11:37 AM
It doesn't tell you more about what actually happened. And that's the point I'll continue to make because I think it's relevant.

Neither does ERA. In fact for relievers it very often obfuscates what really happened.

ERA says Rheal Cormier had a superb year in 2006.

TheNext44
02-26-2011, 11:54 AM
I'm starting to think that Wainwrights injury might just mean its time for a quick rebuild and they should market Pujols.

Carpenter to the Yankees for Ivan Nova, Jesus Montero and Eduardo Nunez

Pujols to the Rangers for Michael Young, Engel Beltre and Derek Holland. the Rangers have to take Kyle Lohse and Skip Schumaker as part of the deal.
.

I agree in theory, but it's too late as Pujols has 5-10 rights and has said he will veto any deal, no matter what.

And in what universe does a 36 year old Carpenter get more in a trade than a 32 year old Pujols? No offense, but that Pujols trade makes no sense for the Cardinals. They can get waaaaaaay more than that for him, even as a one year rental.

mth123
02-26-2011, 01:39 PM
I agree in theory, but it's too late as Pujols has 5-10 rights and has said he will veto any deal, no matter what.

And in what universe does a 36 year old Carpenter get more in a trade than a 32 yar old Pujols? No offense, but that Pujols trade makes no sense for the Cardinals. They can get waaaaaaay more than that for him, even as a one year rental.

Getting Texas to take Lohse and Schumaker is worth more than the Yankee package IMO. They just may be the worst major league starting pitcher and starting position players right now at a combined cost of roughly $30 Million over the next two years.

Carpenter is an ace going to a team desperate for one that doesn't value prospects much. Carpenter probably improves the Yankees more than Pujols improves the Rangers.

If the Cards deal Carpenter after Wainwright goes down, I'm guessing that Pujols won't be able to get out of town fast enough.

Patrick Bateman
02-26-2011, 03:36 PM
Which would be, then, an opinion. There's no right or wrong answer here, so if you're going to tell someone how wrong they are, have verifiable, conclusive proof. Even then, it's possible to be a little less condescending when presenting such facts (which can't be done in this case, as it's still not quantifiable to what we're discussing, at least with any certainty).

IMO, It's actually not an opinion, hence why I can suggest that you are wrong. It is a fact that ERA is not the result of an individual pitcher. He does not "own" those results unique to his own. That's a fact IMO. Conclusive. ERA is the result of something else, you're simply defining it incorrectly IMO.



What does being the best have to do with it? All I said is wins are wins and results are results. Saying someone didn't have a good season, who's ERA is below 2, just because it may have been lucky, isn't a very logical statement either. I can throw up a prayer halfcourt shot to win a game, and it might be lucky as heck, but if it's a game-winner, who cares? Win or lose, the shot went in.

Okay, but if a teammate rebounded the ball to win after your shot, then why would you credit yourself for that? That's in essence what ERA does IMO. It's a team dependent stat. For example, if a pitcher serves one up and has an outfielder rob the guy of a game winning homerun, then ERA says the pitcher's results were well. Actually it was the defender even though he technically did not give up a run IMO.

Instead, I'm suggesting that ERA is showing that the pitcher succeeded in that one unique environment but not as a basis for saying the results of a pitcher, all things equal IMO. Hence why you cant use ERA to compare results accross the league because each guy's ERA represents something entirely different.




We're evaluating whether a performance was superb. That's it. Run prevention comes down to simply not allowing runs. And since a pitcher with a low ERA then, by that measure, didn't give up runs, he's to be credited with the performance. It doesn't speak for his skill level or how those runs came about, nor does it speak for how lucky it was and whether it can be replicated. But simply saying he had a good year because of a great ERA isn't an outrageous claim to make.

It's all about context. Your missing that big time IMO.
It is outrageous because it assumes that the pitcher's ERA is a reflection of something the pitcher did on his own. It's no more insane than using RBI's to evaluate offensive talent. Obviously if player one triples, and the second gets an RBI via a groundout, player two is not better, right? He's just feeding off the first guy IMO. Much like a pitcher could do from his defense IMO. ERA credits too many other people IMO.



Nor I with you. But no, not having anything to do with power. Just trying to keep the conversation from being rude. Starting or ending a conversation telling someone how "very wrong they are" is especially not a good way to expect quality discourse. It really doesn't do anything to help your point, it actually hurts it, and it's just a not-so-veiled shot across the bow of the other party's opinion. Really has nothing to do with power... just think it's an unnecessary way to debate something.

Neither is talking down to someone as if they are 5. IMO, your tone is not coming off very constructively either. IMO, you would be right, then again, IMO, its actually you that has confused fact vs. opinion.

Patrick Bateman
02-26-2011, 03:52 PM
This is a direct result from Dave Duncan's influence in the Cardinals organization.


I don't think you know what direct result means.

Garcia improving this seeason *appears* to be a result of Duncan. It could be a multitude of factors.

Garcia being drafted by the Cardinals, as well could be due to a number of factors. I don't think they sat there and drafted him because he could get groundballs already. Duncan supposedly does that to people that couldnt in the past. As such, dating back to drafts, I doubt Duncan has a huge effect on that. There are least 3 levels of minor leagues that guys need to get to before Duncan can do much tweaking. A direct result would be Duncan hand picking Garcia which is not his job.

Joel Pineiro would likely have been a better example to use than anyone you have been trying.

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 04:06 PM
And, Quattitos, again, as I mentioned a few pages back, of Wainwright's 5 1/2 years in the minors, 4 were with the Braves. I frankly refuse to concede he was "developed by the Cardinals" as a significant amount of his time was with Atlanta before the trade. The Cards got him to the majors and he progressed from there (to their credit), but my point was, in specific, on St. Louis' sparse history of successfully drafting and developing their very own prospects prior to what appears to be a breakthrough with Garcia. Thanks for your work, it appears my sense was on point.


Yes what you say about Wainwright is true, and when Matt Morris is considered he was there before Duncan/Larussa. So effectively there has not been a single starting pitcher that has developed through the St Louis organization and become a successful starter under Duncan's influence. I think you are correct in saying that the future for Miller is anything but certain. He probably has a higher chance of being traded away than actually reaching the major leagues in the St Louis organization given the track record.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 04:13 PM
IMO, It's actually not an opinion, hence why I can suggest that you are wrong. It is a fact that ERA is not the result of an individual pitcher. He does not "own" those results unique to his own. That's a fact IMO. Conclusive. ERA is the result of something else, you're simply defining it incorrectly IMO.

Facts are something you can prove. That's not proof, that's opinion... that's rhetoric.

I'm not going to bother with the rest. Bottom line, results. ERA is a matter of what happened, not what theoretically should have happened. You want to talk about context, but you're missing the context of the conversation is what happened. That's really all that is relevant to the discussion.

PuffyPig
02-26-2011, 04:21 PM
It's pretty ridiculous that someone can't use ERA around her......

Oh you can use ERA around her, you're just using it to prove something that's make little sense.

Just because a reliever has a good ERA, it do not mean he has had a superd season. Because that is what you have said.

Even though you have been willfully blind to that point since you made it.

PuffyPig
02-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Facts are something you can prove. That's not proof, that's opinion... that's rhetoric.



It's fact that a pitcher's ERA is not entirely of his own doing.

Do you disagree?

Brutus
02-26-2011, 04:27 PM
It's fact that a pitcher's ERA is not entirely of his own doing.

Do you disagree?

No. But as I've said, my contention is that it's more descriptive of a pitcher's job to actually prevent runs from scoring than the other stats because it's more a direct correlation to the job they're supposed to ultimately do. It's not a telling stat for talent level, skill level, or expected production. But while it's not his own doing, it's more descriptive in what actually happened with runners scoring.


Oh you can use ERA around her, you're just using it to prove something that's make little sense.

Just because a reliever has a good ERA, it do not mean he has had a superd season. Because that is what you have said.

Even though you have been willfully blind to that point since you made it.

Not been willfully blind of anything, ad hominem attacks aside. Just don't see anything wrong with using it in this context, and you're no more changing your opinion than I am.

MikeThierry
02-26-2011, 04:28 PM
Again, I never intended this to turn into a ERA is good vs bad thread. ERA can still be used as a tool, just as FIP is a tool. I think it is silly to say one stat is superior to the other. The only stat I go all sabermetrics on is defensive stats as fielding percentage and errors are a horrible way to determine a players defensive worth. Other than that, I take FIP, WAR, etc with a grain of salt. They should be used as tools but shouldn't be the end all.

When it comes to FIP, it isn't kind on pitching staffs that use a ground ball philosophy, like the Cardinals pitching staffs. McClellan, for example, is somewhat of a ground ball pitcher. If you use FIP in McClellan's case, it isn't going to tell you the whole story, much like pure ERA isn't going to tell you the whole story.

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that some would go out of their way to bring up a fringe stat to show that McClellan and Motte didn't have a good year, when in fact they did. I looked at Fangraphs and I compared some of the Reds pitchers to McClellan. I can really only say that I would take Nick Masset and Rhodes over McClellan last year, and that is pushing it. McClellan also left close to 90% of the baserunners on base, which is insanely good. Jason Motte also even had a better year than McClellan if you go by the "sacred" FIP stat. The bottom line is that you could use any stat to show that a player isn't good. Heck, I'm sure you could find a stat that shows Pujols as not being a great player.


So, yes, I am comfortable in not exactly projecting Miller to the bigs in 2012 and locking him in for 220+ innings a year of sub 3.00 era. There is a process with most pitching prospects, and it will apply to Miller too I would expect.

I can't remember the last time the Cardinals had a top 10 pitching prospect in their system though. Maybe it was Ankiel and Harren. As MattyMo pointed out, the Cardinals have really depleted their pitching depth within the minors due to trades. In fact, this draft and trade philosophy is one of the reasons why Walt was fired in the Cardinals organization.

Still, the Cardinals been to 2 world series and won one of them this past decade. I'm not exactly going to argue with the success.

jojo
02-26-2011, 04:55 PM
Facts are something you can prove. That's not proof, that's opinion... that's rhetoric.

I'm not going to bother with the rest. Bottom line, results. ERA is a matter of what happened,

Actually no, ERA is not a matter of what happened. It's derived from the interpretation of what happened by official scorers and a function of how scoring rules dictate who is charged.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 05:12 PM
Actually no, ERA is not a matter of what happened. It's derived from the interpretation of what happened by official scorers and a function of how scoring rules dictate who is charged.

It's still based on the runs that actually... score not just in theory.

jojo
02-26-2011, 05:23 PM
It's still based on the runs that actually... score not just in theory.

First, lets hope ERA correlates with ERs....

But there's a disconnect between admitting that ERA is not the direct result of the pitcher and the assertion that ERA is a superior metric for evaluating the job a pitcher did because ERA correlates to runs.

BTW, FIP correlates extremely well to runs (r=.92; years 2001 thru 2010) and we know it's derived from things that are only controlled by the pitcher.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 05:27 PM
First, lets hope ERA correlates with ERs....

But there's a disconnect between admitting that ERA is not the direct result of the pitcher and the assertion that ERA is a superior metric for evaluating the job a pitcher did because ERA correlates to runs.

BTW, FIP correlates extremely well to runs (r=.92; years 2001 thru 2010) and we know it's derived from things that are only controlled by the pitcher.

Superior metric? Kind of a strawman, isn't it? I sure didn't use that sort of terminology.

But ERA does correlate better than FIP, so it's still better in this context of describing what runs a pitcher allowed. Yes, there's some subjectivity with earned runs, and it's not perfect. But nothing is.

TheNext44
02-26-2011, 05:28 PM
It's still based on the runs that actually... score not just in theory.

Correct, however how those runs get attributed to which pitcher is very inaccurate, the way the official scoring rules are set up. Therefore, it doesn't even accurately reflect how many runs a relief pitcher actually gave up, let alone any theoretical runs.

I agree with you concerning starting pitching, but just not relievers.

jojo
02-26-2011, 05:46 PM
Superior metric? Kind of a strawman, isn't it? I sure didn't use that sort of terminology.

No it wasn't a strawman. It's the logical extension of your argument.


But ERA does correlate better than FIP, so it's still better in this context of describing what runs a pitcher allowed

Again that argument ignores a very important point about ERA and frankly it misinterprets ERA. ERA describes what runs the pitcher's team allowed. At issue is what credit the pitcher should get for those runs which is a central point.

Several people have taken issue with the use of ERA to make the original point that started this dialog in part because of this major flaw- ERA really doesn't address the job a pitcher did in a clear manner-and because of the context of relief pitching where there is a disconnect between runs charged and performance as well as sample issues that further confound the issue.

There are other metrics that poke at the true contribution of the pitcher much better and they're usually just a few columns to the left or right of ERA on free baseball stat sites.

Homer Bailey
02-26-2011, 06:12 PM
Personally, I think it is ridiculous that some would go out of their way to bring up a fringe stat to show that McClellan and Motte didn't have a good year, when in fact they did. I looked at Fangraphs and I compared some of the Reds pitchers to McClellan. I can really only say that I would take Nick Masset and Rhodes over McClellan last year, and that is pushing it. McClellan also left close to 90% of the baserunners on base, which is insanely good. Jason Motte also even had a better year than McClellan if you go by the "sacred" FIP stat. The bottom line is that you could use any stat to show that a player isn't good. Heck, I'm sure you could find a stat that shows Pujols as not being a great player.


I don't have time to respond to this whole post, but this part is just wrong. Stranding 90% of baserunners is extremely lucky.

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 06:18 PM
I don't have time to respond to this whole post, but this part is just wrong. Stranding 90% of baserunners is extremely lucky.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/lob/

I thoroughly enjoy the video explanations. Considering that McClellan had both an extremely low BABIP and extremely high LOB% that do not line up with his career numbers, it is safe to say that he was extremely lucky last year and expecting him to repeat even close to that is very unlikely.

He also had a 33% inherited runner score%, which is not very impressive and does not show up in his ERA.

Patrick Bateman
02-26-2011, 06:39 PM
Just going to throw this out there:

1. ERA is the result of how many runs a pitcher gave up.

2. ERA does not tell you well a pitcher's actual results were.

3. Runs allowed does not equal a pitcher's results because of the contributions of other people.

4. A pitcher has numerous results, such as those (like walks, strikeouts, etc) included in formulas for more complex stats such as FIP and xFIP.

5. ERA does not correlate well to future runs such as those other stats because it is a reflection of things beyond a pitcher's control.

6. Therefore, ERA is not a good reflection of the evaluating the results of how well a pitcher pitched. It is however a good reflection of the amount of biased runs given up when that pitcher was on the field.

7. Therefore other types of results are more indicitave of evaluting the quality of how well a pitcher did during a given season, not ERA.

Is anyone really disagreeing with that?

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 06:41 PM
When it comes to FIP, it isn't kind on pitching staffs that use a ground ball philosophy, like the Cardinals pitching staffs. McClellan, for example, is somewhat of a ground ball pitcher. If you use FIP in McClellan's case, it isn't going to tell you the whole story, much like pure ERA isn't going to tell you the whole story.

FIP is not unfriendly to high ground ball % pitchers, since HRs have a huge negative effect on a pitchers FIP and groundball pitchers in general give up less HRs. I've heard you argue this before but I don't see any evidence that suggests this is true. Sure there are some groundball pitchers who over their career outperform their FIP, but there are also flyball pitchers that do this as well.

Look at Jake Westbrook for example, he has a very high career GB%, yet his career ERA is higher than his career FIP. Brandon Webb is another pitcher with a very high GB%, his career ERA (3.27) is slightly lower than his career FIP (3.50). But he also plays in Arizona which is more prone to giving up the long ball, so if you consider his career xFIP (3.31), which normalizes his HR/FB%, it is almost exactly in line with his career ERA. Derek Lowe is another high GB% pitcher, and his career ERA (3.85) is just in line with his FIP (3.80). These three pitchers have the highest GB% over the past decade with a minimum of 700 IP.

MikeThierry
02-26-2011, 07:28 PM
There were only 2 other relievers in baseball that had a better LOB% than McClellan and only 4 other pitchers in baseball that had a better LOB% than Jason Motte. There are maybe one or two relief pitchers, going by last years performance, that I would take on the Reds over those two pitchers.

I don't know, I just find it a bit silly that people are actually arguing that they had a bad year or that they are just average. Both have improved every single year since coming into the majors. Both are still young and I just don't think its unreasonable to expect them to trend better.

I also find it funny that a lot of sabermatricians don't believe in clutch hitters and don't believe in intangibles yet believe in something called luck. It just seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

jojo
02-26-2011, 07:45 PM
There were only 2 other relievers in baseball that had a better LOB% than McClellan and only 4 other pitchers in baseball that had a better LOB% than Jason Motte. There are maybe one or two relief pitchers, going by last years performance, that I would take on the Reds over those two pitchers.

I don't know, I just find it a bit silly that people are actually arguing that they had a bad year or that they are just average. Both have improved every single year since coming into the majors. Both are still young and I just don't think its unreasonable to expect them to trend better.

I also find it funny that a lot of sabermatricians don't believe in clutch hitters and don't believe in intangibles yet believe in something called luck. It just seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Luck=randomness and it is something that can be controlled by increased sample size.

There is nothing inconsistent with a position that maintains randomness influences results while marginalizing the importance of clutch or intangibles.

PuffyPig
02-26-2011, 07:50 PM
There were only 2 other relievers in baseball that had a better LOB% than McClellan and only 4 other pitchers in baseball that had a better LOB% than Jason Motte.

Do you know what LOB% even is?

It's the percentage of baserunners a pitchers allows on base who do not score.

It is likely a function, often, of the pitchers who pitch after you.

The higher that number is, the luckier a pitcher is, and the more likely he'll explode in the future.

No pitcher has an extremely high one his whole career. Average is 70-72%.

If you give us baserunners, you will give up runs.

Quatitos
02-26-2011, 08:02 PM
There were only 2 other relievers in baseball that had a better LOB% than McClellan and only 4 other pitchers in baseball that had a better LOB% than Jason Motte. There are maybe one or two relief pitchers, going by last years performance, that I would take on the Reds over those two pitchers.

Do you think they will actually be able to repeat those LOB% numbers? The numbers they put up last year in terms of LOB% are much higher than their career averages so there is little evidence that it is sustainable.




I don't know, I just find it a bit silly that people are actually arguing that they had a bad year or that they are just average. Both have improved every single year since coming into the majors. Both are still young and I just don't think its unreasonable to expect them to trend better.
They obviously had an above average season in terms of results. This does not necessarily mean that they are above average pitchers. Their stats in 2010 were skewed by having extremely lucky LOB% and McClellan having a very lucky BABIP. Of the two, I would say that Motte's numbers are more sustainable since his BABIP was not as lucky and he has better peripheral numbers.

Also, saying they have improved every year when they have 3 and 2 year careers doesn't say much. And they are not that young with McClellan starting his 27 year old season and Motte starting his 29 year old season.




I also find it funny that a lot of sabermatricians don't believe in clutch hitters and don't believe in intangibles yet believe in something called luck. It just seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Jonny Gomes put up a 1.024 OPS with RISP last season, over 120 points higher than any other season, and over 170 points higher than his career, do you think he is likely to repeat it? There are some people that are clutch and will perform very well in high pressure situations, there are also some people that get lucky for a season and put up amazing numbers that don't line up with their career averages. Based on the evidence available from their careers, it is highly unlikely that these high LOB% numbers are sustainable.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 08:05 PM
There were only 2 other relievers in baseball that had a better LOB% than McClellan and only 4 other pitchers in baseball that had a better LOB% than Jason Motte. There are maybe one or two relief pitchers, going by last years performance, that I would take on the Reds over those two pitchers.

I don't know, I just find it a bit silly that people are actually arguing that they had a bad year or that they are just average. Both have improved every single year since coming into the majors. Both are still young and I just don't think its unreasonable to expect them to trend better.

I also find it funny that a lot of sabermatricians don't believe in clutch hitters and don't believe in intangibles yet believe in something called luck. It just seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Don't fret, I love sabermetrics, but I proudly believe in clutch, intangibles, don't dismiss all variation to luck and believe there's a middle ground on some of the issues you've mentioned. It's easy to get jaded by the opinions of some, but there are wide-varying opinions, even within sabermetric fans, as to the degree of belief.

TheNext44
02-26-2011, 08:15 PM
Don't fret, I love sabermetrics, but I proudly believe in clutch, intangibles, don't dismiss all variation to luck and believe there's a middle ground on some of the issues you've mentioned. It's easy to get jaded by the opinions of some, but there are wide-varying opinions, even within sabermetric fans, as to the degree of belief.

I was about to post something very similar. I look forward to Mike's contributions to this never ending discussion on Redszone :)

Patrick Bateman
02-26-2011, 08:21 PM
Don't fret, I love sabermetrics, but I proudly believe in clutch, intangibles, don't dismiss all variation to luck and believe there's a middle ground on some of the issues you've mentioned. It's easy to get jaded by the opinions of some, but there are wide-varying opinions, even within sabermetric fans, as to the degree of belief.

Most sabremetricians in general believe in a small degree of each of these things. They more or less take exception to the belief that they are substantial even when are not able to be quanitifed or backed up with evidence.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 08:53 PM
Most sabremetricians in general believe in a small degree of each of these things. They more or less take exception to the belief that they are substantial even when are not able to be quanitifed or backed up with evidence.

I would agree most do. I think there are guys like Voros McCracken that get a lot of attention for the extreme views that misrepresent those of the many others that believe there is a middle ground. That might unfairly skew the perception somewhat.

But the part I don't understand... why should anyone take exception to the views of others, with regard to the stats they want to believe in? I can understand how some people that don't share the same view of sabermetrics might feel overwhelmed by it. A lot of threads on this board devolve into a stats discussion at the mere mention of ERA. I've stated my own personal (limited) usage of it, but I guess I'm struggling to understand why there's such a backlash against others that want to cite it.

jojo
02-26-2011, 09:58 PM
but I guess I'm struggling to understand why there's such a backlash against others that want to cite it.

Backlash? There have been attempts to explain why ERA is a poor metric to use when evaluating how effective a relief pitcher may or may not have been because these issues are central to the points that were being discussed, i.e. whether "Kyle McClellan has turned into one of the best right handed setup men in the game" as his 2010 ERA suggests or whether he was actually slightly below average for an NL reliever as his 2010 FIP suggests (FIP=4.07 while NL ave was 3.83 for relief pitchers).

So which is it? This really isn't a case of preferring Dr Pepper to Pepsi. The choice of metric makes a huge difference to the conclusion and the conclusions aren't congruent enough to stand side by side.

So again, backlash? Or an attempt to discuss the heart of an issue?

That's why the flaws in ERA were brought up. Given McClellan is a relief pitcher, it's very important to consider if using ERA would result in the most trustworthy, compelling conclusion. The inherent flaws in ERA in general have largely been discussed the least of which being that the pitcher's contribution to the runs scored while on the mound is unknown given the host of influences that contribute to run prevention that we know are completely out of his control. On top of that, runs scored while a relief pitcher is on the mound don't even necessarily get reflected in his ERA because since 2001, the average reliever has allowed 32% of his inherited runners to score. Those runs that score while he's on the mound don't show up in his ERA. Talk about a muddy mess that is impossible to sort out. BTW, McClellan was a tick below average there too at 33% which doesn't seem like a trait of a shut down set up guy. Then there is also the arbitrary parsing of unearned runs. Those runs don't show up in a reliever's ERA either and have on average represented .36 runs/g since 2001 for relief pitchers. Now it's likely a vast majority of those unearned runs were the result of legit errors but again, what a muddy mess. That just highlights an endemic inconsistency with ERA-the pitcher gets all of the credit when the defense helps him but he's considered blameless when they don't... Then of course there are sample size issues...one bad outing can blow up a relief pitcher's ERA and given the smaller number of innings and his ERA is much more susceptible to the influence of luck/randomness.

I get that some are bored to tears by stat-heavy discussion but sometimes it's necessary especially when considering an issue like this one (McClellan) where it should be entirely possible for two opposing sides to reach a consensus when discussing the facts.

Patrick Bateman
02-26-2011, 09:59 PM
I would agree most do. I think there are guys like Voros McCracken that get a lot of attention for the extreme views that misrepresent those of the many others that believe there is a middle ground. That might unfairly skew the perception somewhat.

But the part I don't understand... why should anyone take exception to the views of others, with regard to the stats they want to believe in? I can understand how some people that don't share the same view of sabermetrics might feel overwhelmed by it. A lot of threads on this board devolve into a stats discussion at the mere mention of ERA. I've stated my own personal (limited) usage of it, but I guess I'm struggling to understand why there's such a backlash against others that want to cite it.

It can be used in the right context.

This thread, IMO, has stemmed from 2 viewpoints in what it should be used for.

If you want to use it fine. Just use it within the appropriate context, and I dont think the stats crowd will backlash. But if we are trying to evaluate pitchers, absolutely, it is not appropriate to use ERA IMO. Otherwise, I am in agreement that it should not be taboo to use.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 10:01 PM
It can be used in the right context.

This thread, IMO, has stemmed from 2 viewpoints in what it should be used for.

If you want to use it fine. Just use it within the appropriate context, and I dont think the stats crowd will backlash. But if we are trying to evaluate pitchers, absolutely, it is not appropriate to use ERA IMO. Otherwise, I am in agreement that it should not be taboo to use.

That's a fair perspective. Obviously we will likely continue to disagree on the contextual aspect, but I believe that's a completely respectable stance.

jojo
02-26-2011, 10:05 PM
I would agree most do. I think there are guys like Voros McCracken that get a lot of attention for the extreme views that misrepresent those of the many others that believe there is a middle ground. That might unfairly skew the perception somewhat

Is there a large contingent of sabermetricians who view DIPS theory as extreme and unrepresentative of current thinking?

kaldaniels
02-26-2011, 10:28 PM
Explain how a pitchers ERA is dependent on the results of others, but if a pitcher throws 3 pitches a foot of the plate that a terrible player flails at, the pitcher gets all the credit in regards to his FIP stats.

I'm just saying there is a gray area folks.

jojo
02-26-2011, 10:34 PM
Explain how a pitchers ERA is dependent on the results of others, but if a pitcher throws 3 pitches a foot of the plate that a terrible player flails at, the pitcher gets all the credit in regards to his FIP stats.

I'm just saying there is a gray area folks.

That happens how often against a position player? The issues with ERA are endemic.

Brutus
02-26-2011, 10:51 PM
Is there a large contingent of sabermetricians who view DIPS theory as extreme and unrepresentative of current thinking?

I'm more referring to Voros' stance "pitchers have no control over balls in play." I think (hope) most people find that extreme and unrepresentative.

jojo
02-26-2011, 11:00 PM
I'm more referring to Voros' stance "pitchers have no control over balls in play." I think (hope) most people find that extreme and unrepresentative.

That is DIPs theory and even Tippett's data, the only data to date to suggest pitchers may have some ability to control the outcome, only suggests that a relatively few historic outliers may be able to slightly effect the outcome of a batted ball and one needs essentially a decade and half of data at least to have a chance to see such an effect.

Given that, DIPs theory doesn't seem like an extreme position and certainly isn't unrepresentative of mainstream sabermetric thinking.

RedsManRick
02-27-2011, 12:05 AM
I'm more referring to Voros' stance "pitchers have no control over balls in play." I think (hope) most people find that extreme and unrepresentative.

Even Voros would not agree with that quote.

TheNext44
02-27-2011, 12:09 AM
Even Voros would not agree with that quote.

Correct. Voros only presented stats and said that the likely conclusion of these stats appears to be that pitchers have less control over BABIP than we had assumed. He was actually rather apologetic about it.

Brutus
02-27-2011, 12:10 AM
Even Voros would not agree with that quote.

Voros once said it though. Perhaps he's changed his stance since then, but he did say that at one point.

TheNext44
02-27-2011, 12:15 AM
That is DIPs theory and even Tippett's data, the only data to date to suggest pitchers may have some ability to control the outcome, only suggests that a relatively few historic outliers may be able to slightly effect the outcome of a batted ball and one needs essentially a decade and half of data at least to have a chance to see such an effect.

Given that, DIPs theory doesn't seem like an extreme position and certainly isn't unrepresentative of mainstream sabermetric thinking.

Tippett's research discovered a serious flaw in Voros' work on DIPS... It was based on too small of a sample size, three seasons. Normally that is enough, but Tippett showed that if you looked at a pitchers whoLe career, the better pitchers did seem to have control over BABIP. It wasn't just a few historical outliers, and you didn't need 15 years of data to see it.

RedsManRick
02-27-2011, 12:31 AM
Voros once said it though. Perhaps he's changed his stance since then, but he did say that at one point.

Sort of... here's the quote: "There is little if any difference among major-league pitchers in their ability to prevent hits on balls hit in the field of play."

It's from this article: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878

That was 10 years ago. Sabermetric thinking has advanced a bit since then and if you want information about pitcher control over his BABIP, there is no shortage of it.

That you can predict future ERA better with a DIPS based approach than with ERA itself should lend some credence to it.

Pitchers have some influence over the type of balls that are hit against them, obviously -- there are fly ball pitchers and ground ball pitchers. And pitchers who can't avoid line drives don't stay in the major leagues. However, once you get to the level of pitching that is required to be a major leaguer, there isn't much more they can do to limit batting average. Once you control for the batted ball type (GB, LD, FB, IFFB) they display essentially no ability to affect the batting average of hitters .

The simple evidence is that in any given year and across years, the distribution of BABIP by pitchers is much tighter than it is for hitters. Yes, pitchers have an ability to affect BABIP. However, among those pitchers who are good enough to pitch in the majors the spread of that talent is very, very tight relative to the amount of variance that occurs naturally over a few hundred innings. It's so tight that it takes basically an entire career to tell the difference between a pitcher who is good at limiting BABIP and one who is merely lucky.

Here's a point from the article that I find extremely hard to ignore:

Take pitchers with similar stats in every other component category (and other peripheral factors like age, throwing hand, team hits per balls in play rates, etc.) but large differences in hits allowed (and therefore in innings pitched). When you group the pitchers into two categories--high-hits and low-hits--the following year the high-hits pitchers do not give up significantly more hits per balls in play (.292 to .291) than the low-hits pitchers, and the groups have identical ERAs.

There can be plenty of discussion about why there is such a small difference in pitchers' demonstrating ability to affect BABIP. But the fact there is such a small difference is simply a matter of fact.

RedsManRick
02-27-2011, 12:40 AM
Tippett's research discovered a serious flaw in Voros' work on DIPS... It was based on too small of a sample size, three seasons. Normally that is enough, but Tippett showed that if you looked at a pitchers whoLe career, the better pitchers did seem to have control over BABIP. It wasn't just a few historical outliers, and you didn't need 15 years of data to see it.

This misses the major point. There is statistical significance and then there is practical significance. Yes, some pitchers are better than others when it comes to BABIP. But imagine if 90% of all batters hit between .280 and .300 over their careers, but between .230 and .350 over a given season. And further, imagine if the guy who hit .240 last year was just as likely to hit .340 next year as the guy who hit .300.

We probably wouldn't pay nearly as much attention to batting average as we would to how much power he hit for and how much he walked.

What differentiates pitchers from each other isn't their ability to affect BABIP. Take a poor pitcher and give him Mo' Rivera's BABIP and he'd still stink. Give a Aaron Harang's BABIP and he's still really good. Over time, the affect of BABIP relative to K, BB and HR is just pretty darn small.

One thing I find very interesting is that if you're trying to predict ERA, adding batted ball data to FIP doesn't do very much to improve it. It does make it better, but it's sort of like adding batting average to OPS to predict run scoring. It sipmly doesn't tell you much that you don't already know. If it was a repeatable skill that was really different from simply missing bats, wouldn't it make the prediction significantly better?

Patrick Bateman
02-27-2011, 12:44 AM
Voros once said it though. Perhaps he's changed his stance since then, but he did say that at one point.

Okay, but representing a guy's opinions from like 7 years ago at the beginning of his research is not a very fair reflection of his stance. It was the start of a discussion that he has made many amendments to.

TheNext44
02-27-2011, 12:59 AM
This misses the major point. There is statistical significance and then there is practical significance. Yes, some pitchers are better than others when it comes to BABIP. But imagine if 90% of all batters hit between .280 and .300 over their careers, but between .230 and .350 over a given season. And further, imagine if the guy who hit .240 last year was just as likely to hit .340 next year as the guy who hit .300.

We probably wouldn't pay nearly as much attention to batting average as we would to how much power he hit for and how much he walked.

What differentiates pitchers from each other isn't their ability to affect BABIP. Take a poor pitcher and give him Mo' Rivera's BABIP and he'd still stink. Give a Aaron Harang's BABIP and he's still really good. Over time, the affect of BABIP relative to K, BB and HR is just pretty darn small.

One thing I find very interesting is that if you're trying to predict ERA, adding batted ball data to FIP doesn't do very much to improve it. It does make it better, but it's sort of like adding batting average to OPS to predict run scoring. It sipmly doesn't tell you much that you don't already know. If it was a repeatable skill that was really different from simply missing bats, wouldn't it make the prediction significantly better?

I wasn't really trying to make any point except to clarify Tippett's points.

I agree with most of what you said, but I'll just add that stats have a lot of value besides their predictive value.

jojo
02-27-2011, 10:08 AM
Tippett's research discovered a serious flaw in Voros' work on DIPS... It was based on too small of a sample size, three seasons. Normally that is enough, but Tippett showed that if you looked at a pitchers whoLe career, the better pitchers did seem to have control over BABIP. It wasn't just a few historical outliers, and you didn't need 15 years of data to see it.

Tippett's diamond mind stuff essentially didn't change the debate. Hough was one of the few obvious extreme outliers and Tippett suggests he could have saved 150-170 runs over his career. Thus an extreme outlier such as Hough might have saved roughly a third of a run per 9 (7 runs/200 IP). Lets be generous and say an average guy could affect things roughly a third as much. That translates into roughly 2 runs over 200 IP.

Basically it would take a career to identify such a guy given where we currently stand.

Essentially the mainstream view is that pitchers likely have some ability but for the majority of pitchers, its too small to be detectable through the noise-much like "clutch" etc. This isn't something that can be used to make personnel decisions etc...

Maybe as hit f/x and pitch f/x get improved this might change.

TheNext44
02-27-2011, 02:28 PM
Tippett's diamond mind stuff essentially didn't change the debate. Hough was one of the few obvious extreme outliers and Tippett suggests he could have saved 150-170 runs over his career. Thus an extreme outlier such as Hough might have saved roughly a third of a run per 9 (7 runs/200 IP). Lets be generous and say an average guy could affect things roughly a third as much. That translates into roughly 2 runs over 200 IP.

Basically it would take a career to identify such a guy given where we currently stand.

Essentially the mainstream view is that pitchers likely have some ability but for the majority of pitchers, its too small to be detectable through the noise-much like "clutch" etc. This isn't something that can be used to make personnel decisions etc...

Maybe as hit f/x and pitch f/x get improved this might change.

Tippett's conclusion was that many successful pitchers have a significantly lower BABIP than the average pitcher, and that conclusion is still substantiated by data today. These are not outliers, these are the #1-2 starting pitchers and top relievers on most team's staffs.

And that is not the mainstream view that you mention. That is the mainstream view of sabermetricians. There still is a lot of controversy concerning DIPS in the baseball community.

I agree with you that hit F/X will help us get closer to understanding this issue.

traderumor
02-27-2011, 02:47 PM
Wow, and I thought my "greed" discussion derailed the thread...

westofyou
02-27-2011, 02:48 PM
Wow, and I thought my "greed" discussion derailed the thread...

:clap:

membengal
02-27-2011, 02:55 PM
Wow, and I thought my "greed" discussion derailed the thread...

Rookie ball stuff compared to when the tired saber discussions smite a thread.

jojo
02-27-2011, 03:19 PM
Tippett's conclusion was that many successful pitchers have a significantly lower BABIP than the average pitcher, and that conclusion is still substantiated by data today. These are not outliers, these are the #1-2 starting pitchers and top relievers on most team's staffs.

Tippett compared a pitcher's HBP, BB, K, HR and BABIP versus league and versus his teammates for every season in pitcher's career for every pitcher between 1913 and 2002.

Here was Tippett's conclusion:


"The bottom line, though, is that I am convinced that pitchers do influence in-play outcomes to a significant degree."

And here is what he said in response to reaction to his article:


To those who say that I refuted McCracken's work, I say "hogwash". It's true that I came away believing that pitchers do influence in-play outcomes, and it's true that I presented some contrary evidence regarding some specific comments in his first article. But my work fully supports several of McCracken's most important observations: that pitchers have much less influence than most of us believed, that there's a lot of randomness in single-season results, and projections of future performance need to take these two things into account.

Why would he say that?

Hough, the most extreme pitcher in Tippett's study, gave up 299 fewer hits than expected over his 25 seasons as a big leaguer roughly equating to .3 runs/9 innings or roughly 7 runs/200 IP. That's the upper limit of the effect as defined by the most extreme pitcher Tippett could find.

He was able to find 42 pitchers in his study who had a statistically significant difference in the hits they allowed when compared to the league average. We know how great Tom Seaver was. I mention him because he made the list and given Tippett's data, Seaver saved about 4 runs/200 IP compared to a league average pitcher. That's not a big effect.

The most successful pitchers in history have saved only a few hits per season on balls in play, when compared with the league or team average.


And that is not the mainstream view that you mention. That is the mainstream view of sabermetricians. There still is a lot of controversy concerning DIPS in the baseball community.

How is that not representative of the mainstream sabermetric view?

Concerning the baseball community in totality, there is still a lot of controversy in the baseball community about ERA, the value of hustle, the notion that striking out is worse making any other out, and even that wins are a meaningful way to evaluate a pitcher.

Looking at data, we currently can't argue that pitchers have a large effect on the outcome of BABIP.

kaldaniels
05-15-2011, 11:44 PM
Alright. Time to bring up a hypothetical.

Lets say Albert finishes the year with rather pedestrian numbers. Say he hits .270 and has 20 HR. He just doesn't look right all season to the naked eye.

What kind of contract will he get, and from whom?

Slyder
05-16-2011, 12:47 AM
Alright. Time to bring up a hypothetical.

Lets say Albert finishes the year with rather pedestrian numbers. Say he hits .270 and has 20 HR. He just doesn't look right all season to the naked eye.

What kind of contract will he get, and from whom?

He still gets 30 mil a year from someone (Cubs, Mets, Angels, someone) on reputation alone.

reds44
05-16-2011, 01:08 AM
You know what, for some reason I get the feeling he is going to be gone after this year.