I agree with Doug on this one. They have said Chapman is going to be a starter for a few years and they haven't done that. Even if Madson didn't get injured, he likely would have started back in Louisville. Everyone knows how I have the biggest mancrush ever on Giancarlo. I think he's the best player in baseball.
/kindanotseroius
I have some more to add on the Chapman aspect, as to being back as a starter going forward, but I'll move that to a Chapman thread...
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...07#post2710207
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
I'll bet the following players/year had the same skepticism from some hard-to-please fans of theirs...Originally Posted by jojo
* Hack Wilson, 1930.
>> He'll never repeat 56 HR and 191 RBI.
* Babe Ruth, 1927
>> He'll never repeat 60 HR, 164 RBI.
* Walter Johnson, 1913
>> He'll never repeat a 36-7 record, 11 shutouts and 1.14 ERA.
Asking any man to repeat the kind of season they are having (or predicting it will not be as good) of this magnitude is tough. One and done? I doubt this is what you mean, but let's try to be fair. We (all of us) were lucky enough to see something historical this season. Not just our REDS, but in MLB history. The kind of dominance on the mound by one guy that most of us have NEVER seen on our fav team nor seen in all of MLB. And some us are willing to unload this person? WOW! Sell high, I know. And of course (to be fair) most of you "sellers" would only do it for a player like Stanton.
I keep arms. As Brutus mentioned... good non-pitchers are more a dime-a-dozen than good pitchers. I will put my money on that good pitcher when facing that good hitter in every AB.
I bet they didnt....
An argument has been made that there isn't much difference between the value of Stanton and Chapman up to this point and since Chapman is "rare" that means he's more valuable.
Chapman is having a historic season for a relief pitcher and history tells us that very few bullpen arms put up a 4 WAR season and really none should be expected to consitently repeat the feat-i.e. it's not appropriate to assume Chapman is a 4WAR or close bullpen arm going forward.
Stanton on the other hand is averaging 4 WAR/yr through his age 22 season, is a everyday player and impacts both run scoring as well as run prevention.
So in order for the two to be considered roughly equal, one has to assume that Chapman will successfully transition to the rotation and be a something greater than a 4 WAR starter (Stanton may end up being a 7+ WAR player at his peak). This even though Chapman has only had 13 starts as a pro (all of them three years ago in the minors), hasn't logged anything near a starter's workload, and largely has been allowed to ignore the development of any secondary stuff in lieu of throwing gas.
Can Chapman become a valuable starter? Sure, it's possible. But he'll be 25 years old before the Reds even push that button, assuming that they actually will.
In other words, Stanton looks like he is tracking to be a 7+WAR guy with a plus bat and glove. It's alot riskier to assume Chapman could become that valuable than it is to project Stanton.
And lets be accurate and fair-no one argued "one and done".
Also, position players are much safer bets than pitchers. If one has to frame the argument as "either or" (and there really isn't a reason to force the issue to framed thusly), I'd trade you pitchers for position players all day as a general rule and my team would generally be better.
Last edited by jojo; 08-21-2012 at 08:57 AM.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
I am not an expert on WAR, however:
* Does WAR for a position player factor in your team allowing ungodly amounts of runs? Is a position player WAR of 7.0 the same for a team that has a team ERA of 5.50 the same as a guy with a WAR of 7.0 for a team that has an ERA of 4.00?
* Is it fair to comapre the WAR of a position player against the WAR of a pitcher?
Safer bets? Nothing safe about losing 12-10. I agree that pitchers are much more of an injury risk. But not too many teams have gone anywhere with a team ERA that is in the lower half of their own league. And thise rehab project pitchers ain't doin' the trick either (right, Jim Bowden?). No risk, no reward. No pitching, no post-season... history shows you that.
No way your good hitters beat my good pitchers. Good hitting beats good pitching, is that how the saying goes? I love the statistical side of things. But sometimes WAR does not tell the whole picture. If it did, they'd create sayings for it too.
Yes, the WAR is still the same. WAR is for wins above replacement and replacement isn't a moving target for each team based on how that team's other talent is.
As for the good pitching beats good hitting thing.... well that isn't always true.
It's too bad that Stanton looks like he is on the way to fulfilling his potential, while Bruce has turned out to just be an above average player. It's too bad he couldn't attain what everyone thought he could after being the #1 prospect in baseball.
I see great things in baseball. It's our game.
WAR is basically the number of "wins" (or runs..10 runs/win) that a player's production was worth above a generic player that was freely obtainable.
I think what you're asking is "does the worth of a player's WAR change with a team's run differential?" In theory 7 WAR is 7 WAR but a case could be made that 1 WAR is more valuable to the Reds (i.e. a world series contender) than it is to the Astros (i.e. a team that would be no better off by adding 1 WAR).
But really I disagree with the notion that it's pitching, pitching, pitching. It's run scoring and run prevention as this quote argues:
Truthfully the Reds didn't emerge from the dark decade until they completely redefined the profile of their position players in a way that revamped their defense from chronically being one of the worst to being one of the best in the majors. The pitching suddenly improved.
The 2001 Seattle Mariners are a great example too....they were decidely vanilla from a pitching standpoint but won 116 games based upon exceptional offense and defense.
The arguement is that i'll have more good position players than you'll have good pitchers....
The goal is to be at least average at every position while being as above average as possible at as many positions as possible. Erring on the side of position players-who impact both run scoring and run prevention as everyday players-will accomplish that goal more often simply because of the odds associated with a position player reaching his cieling compared to that of a pitcher.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Sigh.....
Good stuff on WAR. Thanks! I wonder if there is statistical data on the batting statistics of Cooperstown players in ABs against Cooperstown picthers? I tired to locate some data, but mark it down as a fail on my part. Of course we know some players/pitchers may not belong, but it might go against/for the old saying. Not to mention it would be interesting to view for stats nuts like most die-hard baseball fans can be.
It's true a lot more often than it's not.
The 10-year correlation to winning: runs scored (.5917) or 35% of the variance, and runs allowed (.6559) or 43% of the variance. Pitching/defense has already shown to correlate to a much higher playoff success as well.
If you're someone that wants to play the percentages, you're better off opting for the pitching and defense first.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
But pitching and defense are two separate things, yet you are attributing runs allowed solely to the 'pitching side'.
I'm also attributing runs scored in part of baserunning to the 'hitting side.' It evens out, yes? Stolen bases, passed balls, balks and taking extra bases on hits aren't directly a function of hitting, yet they're included in runs scored. So that argument doesn't hold water.
If there were a direct way of splitting pitching and defense fairly, I would. But there's really not.
Most defenses range from roughly a .715 defensive efficiency ratio to .675. That works out to roughly a difference of 160 extra baserunners a year between the best team and the worst team. Probably about 275 extra bases, roughly. The average number of stolen bases, bases taken and extra bases taken works out to roughly 500 per team.
So yes, actually pitching does correlate much higher to hitting if you want to remove baserunning and fielding from the equation.
Last edited by Brutus; 08-21-2012 at 03:04 PM.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
agreed
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
I can't believe Jay Bruce retired. I hadn't heard this anywhere else.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote