2011-12 Hot Stove Thread

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

Most of those deals have ended up being disasters that the team wished they could take back. Few have turned out well.

The issue here isn't whether you should spend elite money on elite players. It's people misunderstanding Fielder's value. These sorts of labels are always kind of vague and semanticy, but he's not an elite player. He's an elite hitter, but his overall value is in the next tier.

It's not nearly as bad as Ryan Howard's deal, but it is in the same type.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

If you are an elite hitter, you will get paid. If you are an elite fielder who doesn't hit so well, you will get paid considerably less. Same for elite baserunners. This has been true since the Cincinnati Red Stockings divvied up their gates. I suggest that a business practice that has been commonly accepted for about 150 years must have some reason for lasting so long.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

The reason teams overspend is trying to win in the short-term.

The reason teams overspend specifically on hitters like Fielder is that owners see baseball teams as toys and aren't trying to maximize their winning efficiency

Prince Fielder may not help you win as much as a $15 million pitcher and a $10 million hitter, but he's a much shinier toy.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

Part of the problem with the Moneyball philosophy is also part of the reason for its success ... It's designed to factor in a large sample size.

So, Fielder, over 162 games, might cost his team five runs because of poor baserunning. That means he costs his team approximately one run every 288 innings (32 games). But he drives in 120 runs, so he produces a run approximately once every 12 innings (1.35 games).

Come the postseason, the sample size is going to be small. Which is more likely to happen in that timeframe: that he costs his team a run or that he gains his team a run? In fact, he'd be more likely to produce three or four runs in a five-game series and four or five runs in a seven-game series than he is to cost his team even one run on the bases.

So a team that devotes itself fully to a Moneyball philosophy will be able to compete over the long-haul of a 162-game season, but it may struggle when it only has four or five games to be successful.

A team like the Red Sox is successful because it blends both, recognizing that sometimes you need a hitter who just wreck a game as much you need one who can do all the right things on the bases and in the field.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

Same mistake repeated.

He costs his team 5 runs against *average*.

He drives in 120 runs against *zero*.

You can't compare the two meaningfully unless they are indexed to the same starting point.

It's like not understanding the difference between a $5 raise on your paycheck and a $5 paycheck.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

Also, that's the first time I've ever heard someone accuse the "Moneyball philosophy" of caring too much about little things like baserunning and defense.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

You wouldn't be the first:

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

This is all about the marginal benefit that he brings. The Tigers were already a contender. What is the extra benefit worth to "put them over the top" or at least give them the opportunity to contend for the WS? What extra value does that bring to the franchise next year and then the next 5 years? At this point its not just about winning on the field, its about marketing. Is the difference between a potential contender and a juggernaut worth say an extra $15M to the Tigers? You bet. The Tigers are now viewed as an elite franchise. Think about how they were viewed just a few years ago, even last year. Nice novelty. Now think about the perception. They just have to prove it now.

As for A-Rod, the Yankees may have only won 1 championship with him but he's helped keep them elite (well at least until the past couple of years).

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

If they wanted to spend $23 million to make themselves a juggernaut, there were better options this offseason.

Heck, you might as well go all the way up to Pujols if you are paying that much for half a Pujols.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

That I agree with, Rick. But when Martinez got hurt, Pujols was already gone and Fielder wasn't. Decisions made under the gun like that are more likely to be poor ones, but as emergency decisions go, this one has merit.
Evaluating these contracts really boils down to the issue of what a World Series is worth. And that question boils down to what's inside the head of the guy who signs the checks. It's only partially quantifiable.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

I actually never said it cares too much about baserunning and defense. I said YOU are placing too much emphasis on those to facets of the game in determining Prince's value.

My point was that Moneyball is designed to extract value out of players over the larger sample size of a full 162 games, but those principles aren't as effective in the small sample size of a postseason series. Prince's baserunning, which was part of our discussion, fit neatly with that premise that the runs he costs his team over the long haul are likely to have little effect on the team in the postseason.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moneyball places value on runs and preserving outs, yes? So running into an out on the basepaths would be something Moneyball frowns upon, yes? Moneyball philosophy doesn't believe stealing bases is worth the risk, but sound baserunning I think would fall under its umbrella of valuing outs.

Understood. Yes, a silly mistake on my part.

The average 1b drives in 71.7 runs per year (those in the top 30 at least), so we'll round it to 72 for sake of ease. If Prince is driving in 120, that's 48 above average, or one every 30 innings or so (3.3 games). He's still substantially more likely -- about 10 times more likely -- to drive in more runs than the average first baseman during a short series than he is to cost his team a run on the bases.

 

Re: 2011 Hot Stove Thread

Not entirely.

Yes, I get that flags fly forever. Like I said earlier: On the list of mistakes a baseball team can make, paying too much for a good player is the least bad.

But there's always an opportunity cost.