[qwerty49]

Just a guess — Bumgarner could get nine figures; say 150-250M over 4-5 years. That’s in the neighborhood of 30-50M a year. 3-5 Pillars.

Maybe the Giants might think about the lower end of that scale but no way they will pay the higher end.

And he’s thrown a LOT of pitches. (Cue Mick with the stats). Just watching him ever since that (dirt bike?) injury a couple of years ago, he’s lost velocity and also a little command. Hitters are always taking him deep in the count these days, and it always seems to me like he’s up near 90-95 pitches after 5 innings. I’m just not sure how much he has left in the tank.

Those aren’t the kind of metrics that Farhan would like for that level of investment. 

One can argue that Kershaw is the #2 or even #3 starter on the Dodgers right now. But they can afford to keep him around because they aren’t as desperate as the Giants are.

[qwerty49]

Just a guess — Bumgarner could get nine figures; say 150-250M over 4-5 years. That’s in the neighborhood of 30-50M a year. 3-5 Pillars.

Maybe the Giants might think about the lower end of that scale but no way they will pay the higher end.

And he’s thrown a LOT of pitches. (Cue Mick with the stats). Just watching him ever since that (dirt bike?) injury a couple of years ago, he’s lost velocity and also a little command. Hitters are always taking him deep in the count these days, and it always seems to me like he’s up near 90-95 pitches after 5 innings. I’m just not sure how much he has left in the tank.

Those aren’t the kind of metrics that Farhan would like for that level of investment. 

One can argue that Kershaw is the #2 or even #3 starter on the Dodgers right now. But they can afford to keep him around because they aren’t as desperate as the Giants are.

[magnus]

Just a guess — Bumgarner could get nine figures; say 150-250M over 4-5 years. That’s in the neighborhood of 30-50M a year. 3-5 Pillars.

Probably more like 20-25M a year.  Similar to what Zack Wheeler got (5/$118M) who while not as accomplished, does not have the same wear and tear and apparently has unlocked potential that teams were hoping to untap.

[magnus]

Just a guess — Bumgarner could get nine figures; say 150-250M over 4-5 years. That’s in the neighborhood of 30-50M a year. 3-5 Pillars.

Probably more like 20-25M a year.  Similar to what Zack Wheeler got (5/$118M) who while not as accomplished, does not have the same wear and tear and apparently has unlocked potential that teams were hoping to untap.

[Phogge]

Anybody who thinks Duggar will EVER be as productive as Pillar was this year is mistaken. Is overmatched on the MLB level. Bruce Jenkins today wrote that he’d love to see Belt in a Yankee uni so his soft fly outs could find the stands at The Stadium.

The Giants outfield is a steaming pile of h********.

[Phogge]

Anybody who thinks Duggar will EVER be as productive as Pillar was this year is mistaken. Is overmatched on the MLB level. Bruce Jenkins today wrote that he’d love to see Belt in a Yankee uni so his soft fly outs could find the stands at The Stadium.

The Giants outfield is a steaming pile of h********.

[OutsiderFan]

If you don't have The Athletic you are being a sports fan wrong:
https://theathletic.com/1436440/2019/12/...ng-valued/

The nut of it:

- MLB teams are paying more per win for guys with higher WAR and less per win for guys with lower WAR
- Pillar is eligible for $10 million in arbitration, but he's only a 1 WAR player
- These 1 WAR players will be paid roughly $5M per win, while 5+ WAR players will be paid $8M per win
- There is a much greater supply of 1 WAR players than 5+ WAR players, so that explains the first point

With how MLB teams assign values to players in terms of salaries they will commit, the Giants would be paying 2x Pillar's value to tender him a contract under arbitration. They made the right decision by not doing so.  If Pillar comes back for $5M/yr, the Giants will probably take him. 

Do you think your employer is going to pay you 2x what you can get on the open market?  The old Giants regime might have, but not the new one.

MLB teams are basically killing the arbitration system by not tendering contracts to arbitration-eligible players who aren't worth what the years of service say they should get paid according to CBA. The MLBPA will have to push for higher minimum salaries and faster free agency if they want their realities to change.

[OutsiderFan]

If you don't have The Athletic you are being a sports fan wrong:
https://theathletic.com/1436440/2019/12/...ng-valued/

The nut of it:

- MLB teams are paying more per win for guys with higher WAR and less per win for guys with lower WAR
- Pillar is eligible for $10 million in arbitration, but he's only a 1 WAR player
- These 1 WAR players will be paid roughly $5M per win, while 5+ WAR players will be paid $8M per win
- There is a much greater supply of 1 WAR players than 5+ WAR players, so that explains the first point

With how MLB teams assign values to players in terms of salaries they will commit, the Giants would be paying 2x Pillar's value to tender him a contract under arbitration. They made the right decision by not doing so.  If Pillar comes back for $5M/yr, the Giants will probably take him. 

Do you think your employer is going to pay you 2x what you can get on the open market?  The old Giants regime might have, but not the new one.

MLB teams are basically killing the arbitration system by not tendering contracts to arbitration-eligible players who aren't worth what the years of service say they should get paid according to CBA. The MLBPA will have to push for higher minimum salaries and faster free agency if they want their realities to change.

[BostonCard]

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[BostonCard]

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[BobK]

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

[BobK]

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

[Mick]

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

[Mick]

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

[Phogge]

You take him Mick. Takes too many strikes. Another Belt.

[Phogge]

You take him Mick. Takes too many strikes. Another Belt.

[lex24]

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder 

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

---

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[lex24]

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder 

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

---

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[Giants]

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.  

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder 

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

---

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[Giants]

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.  

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder 

I just knew there was a good reason to cut our HR and clubhouse leader. BS to WAR

Tell you what.  I'll take Stanford product Austin Slater to start in favor of Pillar.  Better OPS, Better OBP, more walks, fewer strikeouts and was having a killer season until September.  In the field, he's a MUCH better fielder, as evidenced by Slater's #1-in-NL Total Zone Runs rating (+8, best in NL) and Slater has played in six different positions in the field in the last two years.

---

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

A team full of replacement level players would be expected to win 52 games in a season.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20...team-wins/

Therefore a team full of 1 WAR on the 25-man roster guys only gets you 77 wins, so it is, on its own, not enough to get you into contention.  One ten WAR player gets you to 62 wins, plus he leaves 24 roster spots to get you another 30+ wins you need in order to be in contention.

BC

[Phogge]

Bobbbbbb and I are disgusted. Bobbbb has the 10 million to loan the Giants.

[Phogge]

Bobbbbbb and I are disgusted. Bobbbb has the 10 million to loan the Giants.

[cardcrimson]

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

Nice. I was thinking this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0assIBlNIB4

[cardcrimson]

“War, humph, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing.”  

Nice. I was thinking this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0assIBlNIB4

[Mick]

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.   

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder.

I'll take Dickerson in left, Yastrzemski in center and Slater in right.  Find me a better outfielder in right...Pillar's not it.

BTW, Slater is better than you think in RF.  His range factor (ability to get to balls along with assists) in RF is 2.25, considerably better than to that of Cody Bellinger (2.05), MVP and NL gold glove winner in RF.  League average for RF is 1.98, btw.  Also, the NL leader in assists played 150 games and had 12 assists.  Slater had three assists in 25 complete games, 1/6 the number of games.  I don't know that he'd have 18 assists, but let's just say I think Slater's better in the field than you're making him out to be.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a show of hands.  Will Pillar get $10 mms. from a team?  I don't think so.  Sounds like the vast majority of you think he's a bargain at $10 mms.

[Mick]

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.   

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder.

I'll take Dickerson in left, Yastrzemski in center and Slater in right.  Find me a better outfielder in right...Pillar's not it.

BTW, Slater is better than you think in RF.  His range factor (ability to get to balls along with assists) in RF is 2.25, considerably better than to that of Cody Bellinger (2.05), MVP and NL gold glove winner in RF.  League average for RF is 1.98, btw.  Also, the NL leader in assists played 150 games and had 12 assists.  Slater had three assists in 25 complete games, 1/6 the number of games.  I don't know that he'd have 18 assists, but let's just say I think Slater's better in the field than you're making him out to be.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a show of hands.  Will Pillar get $10 mms. from a team?  I don't think so.  Sounds like the vast majority of you think he's a bargain at $10 mms.

[lex24]

And you will have by far the worst outfield in the NL West. Maybe the league. You will never sell me on defensive metrics, Mick. Slater has a good arm. But I don’t consider him to be an above average defensive outfielder. And he doesn’t hit enough to play everyday. I think he’s a good utility player. As for Dickerson – let’s see if he actually can stay healthy for more than two weeks. Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

 I doubt Pilar gets 10 Million. But given the state of the Giants outfield – he’s more valuable to them then he would be to most other teams. Let’s see if the Giants bring in a couple of veteran outfielders. I hope so.

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.   

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder.

I'll take Dickerson in left, Yastrzemski in center and Slater in right.  Find me a better outfielder in right...Pillar's not it.

BTW, Slater is better than you think in RF.  His range factor (ability to get to balls along with assists) in RF is 2.25, considerably better than to that of Cody Bellinger (2.05), MVP and NL gold glove winner in RF.  League average for RF is 1.98, btw.  Also, the NL leader in assists played 150 games and had 12 assists.  Slater had three assists in 25 complete games, 1/6 the number of games.  I don't know that he'd have 18 assists, but let's just say I think Slater's better in the field than you're making him out to be.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a show of hands.  Will Pillar get $10 mms. from a team?  I don't think so.  Sounds like the vast majority of you think he's a bargain at $10 mms.

[lex24]

And you will have by far the worst outfield in the NL West. Maybe the league. You will never sell me on defensive metrics, Mick. Slater has a good arm. But I don’t consider him to be an above average defensive outfielder. And he doesn’t hit enough to play everyday. I think he’s a good utility player. As for Dickerson – let’s see if he actually can stay healthy for more than two weeks. Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

 I doubt Pilar gets 10 Million. But given the state of the Giants outfield – he’s more valuable to them then he would be to most other teams. Let’s see if the Giants bring in a couple of veteran outfielders. I hope so.

Agree.  Slater is a fourth OF but not a starter.  He is a mediocre fielder and inconsistent at the plate.  SF needs an every day guy in CF.  Given Duggar’s injury history, unless they swing a deal for a center fielder, I anticipate Yaz playing that position.   

Slater is not an everyday player. He’s a nice utility guy. If he’s starting in the OF it spells trouble. He can’t pull the ball. Has trouble with hard stuff in. Offensively I like his speed. But he strikes out too much, given his lack of power. 

As for defensive metrics - you can have them. Hocus pocus. My memory of Slater in RF was of him butchering a couple balls near the foul line in a series. Not at Oracle. Can’t remember where. That and misjudging a line drive that zoomed  over his head. Nice arm and decent speed. But far from a polished outfielder.

I'll take Dickerson in left, Yastrzemski in center and Slater in right.  Find me a better outfielder in right...Pillar's not it.

BTW, Slater is better than you think in RF.  His range factor (ability to get to balls along with assists) in RF is 2.25, considerably better than to that of Cody Bellinger (2.05), MVP and NL gold glove winner in RF.  League average for RF is 1.98, btw.  Also, the NL leader in assists played 150 games and had 12 assists.  Slater had three assists in 25 complete games, 1/6 the number of games.  I don't know that he'd have 18 assists, but let's just say I think Slater's better in the field than you're making him out to be.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a show of hands.  Will Pillar get $10 mms. from a team?  I don't think so.  Sounds like the vast majority of you think he's a bargain at $10 mms.

[qwerty49]

Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

Sophomore slump?  Here's an easy one.  Name the guy whose 2nd season BA dropped 116 points from his rookie season.

[qwerty49]

Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

Sophomore slump?  Here's an easy one.  Name the guy whose 2nd season BA dropped 116 points from his rookie season.

[lex24]

Not easy. Fred Lynn?

Edit: Looked at Lynn’s numbers. He dropped a whole 7 points. Embarrassing effort. Bobk and Phogge will know.

quote="qwerty49" pid='263924' dateline='1575770745']

Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

Sophomore slump?  Here's an easy one.  Name the guy whose 2nd season BA dropped 116 points from his rookie season.
[/quote]

---

Put another way, really good players will make more money.  But you are right the players association is going to demand some changes. One of the major ones will be to shorten the amount of time a team has control over a player.

Pilar is a flawed player. He has no plate discipline and is a low on base percentage guy. Defensively he plays too deep.  Having said that, he also brought a ton of energy and some power to a team that had none. Not to mention some flair. Which made him worth more than one win to the Giants – no matter what the WAR figure says. 

Also, the last time I checked it’s an entertainment industry. And the guy was fun to watch. Which counts for something. 

If you don't have The Athletic you are being a sports fan wrong:
https://theathletic.com/1436440/2019/12/...ng-valued/

The nut of it:

- MLB teams are paying more per win for guys with higher WAR and less per win for guys with lower WAR
- Pillar is eligible for $10 million in arbitration, but he's only a 1 WAR player
- These 1 WAR players will be paid roughly $5M per win, while 5+ WAR players will be paid $8M per win
- There is a much greater supply of 1 WAR players than 5+ WAR players, so that explains the first point

With how MLB teams assign values to players in terms of salaries they will commit, the Giants would be paying 2x Pillar's value to tender him a contract under arbitration. They made the right decision by not doing so.  If Pillar comes back for $5M/yr, the Giants will probably take him. 

Do you think your employer is going to pay you 2x what you can get on the open market?  The old Giants regime might have, but not the new one.

MLB teams are basically killing the arbitration system by not tendering contracts to arbitration-eligible players who aren't worth what the years of service say they should get paid according to CBA. The MLBPA will have to push for higher minimum salaries and faster free agency if they want their realities to change.

[lex24]

Not easy. Fred Lynn?

Edit: Looked at Lynn’s numbers. He dropped a whole 7 points. Embarrassing effort. Bobk and Phogge will know.

quote="qwerty49" pid='263924' dateline='1575770745']

Yaz - I hope he can repeat but I am concerned about a significant sophomore slump.

Sophomore slump?  Here's an easy one.  Name the guy whose 2nd season BA dropped 116 points from his rookie season.
[/quote]

---

Put another way, really good players will make more money.  But you are right the players association is going to demand some changes. One of the major ones will be to shorten the amount of time a team has control over a player.

Pilar is a flawed player. He has no plate discipline and is a low on base percentage guy. Defensively he plays too deep.  Having said that, he also brought a ton of energy and some power to a team that had none. Not to mention some flair. Which made him worth more than one win to the Giants – no matter what the WAR figure says. 

Also, the last time I checked it’s an entertainment industry. And the guy was fun to watch. Which counts for something. 

If you don't have The Athletic you are being a sports fan wrong:
https://theathletic.com/1436440/2019/12/...ng-valued/

The nut of it:

- MLB teams are paying more per win for guys with higher WAR and less per win for guys with lower WAR
- Pillar is eligible for $10 million in arbitration, but he's only a 1 WAR player
- These 1 WAR players will be paid roughly $5M per win, while 5+ WAR players will be paid $8M per win
- There is a much greater supply of 1 WAR players than 5+ WAR players, so that explains the first point

With how MLB teams assign values to players in terms of salaries they will commit, the Giants would be paying 2x Pillar's value to tender him a contract under arbitration. They made the right decision by not doing so.  If Pillar comes back for $5M/yr, the Giants will probably take him. 

Do you think your employer is going to pay you 2x what you can get on the open market?  The old Giants regime might have, but not the new one.

MLB teams are basically killing the arbitration system by not tendering contracts to arbitration-eligible players who aren't worth what the years of service say they should get paid according to CBA. The MLBPA will have to push for higher minimum salaries and faster free agency if they want their realities to change.

[triangle2]

Stretch...

Here's a little thread hijacking.

I was reading an article about the veteran's committee candidates for the HoF for this year. I've also been doing some thinking about Wins Over Replacement (WAR) since it seems like WAR has taken over the conversation for player evaluations and also HoF criteria.

I go back and forth about whether WAR is capturing an accurate sense of a player's worth - either within a season or over a career.

McCovey's lifetime WAR is 64.5 WAR using the Baseball Reference calculation. That was quite a bit lower than what I would have guessed. I think his career WAR suffers from 3-4 fairly bad seasons at the end of his career.

Check out the lifetime WAR for the vet committee candidates below:

Dwight Evans 67.1
Steve Garvey 38.1
Tommy John 61.5
Don Mattingly 42.4
Thurman Munson 46.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Dave Parker 40.1
Ted Simmons 50.3
Lou Whitaker 75.1

Here's a random comparison group:

Buster Posey 42.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Orlando Cepeda and Fred Lynn 50.2
Jack Clark 53.1
Evan Longoria 54.2
David Ortiz 55.3
Will Clark 56.5
Darrell Evans 58.8
Ichiro 59.4
Mark McGwire 62.2
Andruw Jones 62.8
Juan Marichal 62.9
Graig Nettles 68.0
Edgar Martinez 68.4
Carlos Beltran 69.6
Alan Trammell 70.7
Paul Molitor 75.7
Yaz 96.4
Albert Pujols 100.3
Ted Williams 123.1
Willie Mays 156.4
Barry Bonds 162.8
Babe Ruth 182.4

For what it's worth, the only candidate who I think merits serious consideration from the Vet Committee this year is Lou Whitaker. And, interestingly, his WAR does seem to suggest that he merits consideration.

[triangle2]

Stretch...

Here's a little thread hijacking.

I was reading an article about the veteran's committee candidates for the HoF for this year. I've also been doing some thinking about Wins Over Replacement (WAR) since it seems like WAR has taken over the conversation for player evaluations and also HoF criteria.

I go back and forth about whether WAR is capturing an accurate sense of a player's worth - either within a season or over a career.

McCovey's lifetime WAR is 64.5 WAR using the Baseball Reference calculation. That was quite a bit lower than what I would have guessed. I think his career WAR suffers from 3-4 fairly bad seasons at the end of his career.

Check out the lifetime WAR for the vet committee candidates below:

Dwight Evans 67.1
Steve Garvey 38.1
Tommy John 61.5
Don Mattingly 42.4
Thurman Munson 46.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Dave Parker 40.1
Ted Simmons 50.3
Lou Whitaker 75.1

Here's a random comparison group:

Buster Posey 42.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Orlando Cepeda and Fred Lynn 50.2
Jack Clark 53.1
Evan Longoria 54.2
David Ortiz 55.3
Will Clark 56.5
Darrell Evans 58.8
Ichiro 59.4
Mark McGwire 62.2
Andruw Jones 62.8
Juan Marichal 62.9
Graig Nettles 68.0
Edgar Martinez 68.4
Carlos Beltran 69.6
Alan Trammell 70.7
Paul Molitor 75.7
Yaz 96.4
Albert Pujols 100.3
Ted Williams 123.1
Willie Mays 156.4
Barry Bonds 162.8
Babe Ruth 182.4

For what it's worth, the only candidate who I think merits serious consideration from the Vet Committee this year is Lou Whitaker. And, interestingly, his WAR does seem to suggest that he merits consideration.

[cardcrimson]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Stretch...

Here's a little thread hijacking.

I was reading an article about the veteran's committee candidates for the HoF for this year. I've also been doing some thinking about Wins Over Replacement (WAR) since it seems like WAR has taken over the conversation for player evaluations and also HoF criteria.

I go back and forth about whether WAR is capturing an accurate sense of a player's worth - either within a season or over a career.

McCovey's lifetime WAR is 64.5 WAR using the Baseball Reference calculation. That was quite a bit lower than what I would have guessed. I think his career WAR suffers from 3-4 fairly bad seasons at the end of his career.

Check out the lifetime WAR for the vet committee candidates below:

Dwight Evans 67.1
Steve Garvey 38.1
Tommy John 61.5
Don Mattingly 42.4
Thurman Munson 46.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Dave Parker 40.1
Ted Simmons 50.3
Lou Whitaker 75.1

Here's a random comparison group:

Buster Posey 42.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Orlando Cepeda and Fred Lynn 50.2
Jack Clark 53.1
Evan Longoria 54.2
David Ortiz 55.3
Will Clark 56.5
Darrell Evans 58.8
Ichiro 59.4
Mark McGwire 62.2
Andruw Jones 62.8
Juan Marichal 62.9
Graig Nettles 68.0
Edgar Martinez 68.4
Carlos Beltran 69.6
Alan Trammell 70.7
Paul Molitor 75.7
Yaz 96.4
Albert Pujols 100.3
Ted Williams 123.1
Willie Mays 156.4
Barry Bonds 162.8
Babe Ruth 182.4

For what it's worth, the only candidate who I think merits serious consideration from the Vet Committee this year is Lou Whitaker. And, interestingly, his WAR does seem to suggest that he merits consideration.

[cardcrimson]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Stretch...

Here's a little thread hijacking.

I was reading an article about the veteran's committee candidates for the HoF for this year. I've also been doing some thinking about Wins Over Replacement (WAR) since it seems like WAR has taken over the conversation for player evaluations and also HoF criteria.

I go back and forth about whether WAR is capturing an accurate sense of a player's worth - either within a season or over a career.

McCovey's lifetime WAR is 64.5 WAR using the Baseball Reference calculation. That was quite a bit lower than what I would have guessed. I think his career WAR suffers from 3-4 fairly bad seasons at the end of his career.

Check out the lifetime WAR for the vet committee candidates below:

Dwight Evans 67.1
Steve Garvey 38.1
Tommy John 61.5
Don Mattingly 42.4
Thurman Munson 46.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Dave Parker 40.1
Ted Simmons 50.3
Lou Whitaker 75.1

Here's a random comparison group:

Buster Posey 42.1
Dale Murphy 46.5
Orlando Cepeda and Fred Lynn 50.2
Jack Clark 53.1
Evan Longoria 54.2
David Ortiz 55.3
Will Clark 56.5
Darrell Evans 58.8
Ichiro 59.4
Mark McGwire 62.2
Andruw Jones 62.8
Juan Marichal 62.9
Graig Nettles 68.0
Edgar Martinez 68.4
Carlos Beltran 69.6
Alan Trammell 70.7
Paul Molitor 75.7
Yaz 96.4
Albert Pujols 100.3
Ted Williams 123.1
Willie Mays 156.4
Barry Bonds 162.8
Babe Ruth 182.4

For what it's worth, the only candidate who I think merits serious consideration from the Vet Committee this year is Lou Whitaker. And, interestingly, his WAR does seem to suggest that he merits consideration.

[BostonCard]

In this context it is a career stat.

BC

[BostonCard]

In this context it is a career stat.

BC

[triangle2]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Those numbers above are "career" WAR numbers - i.e., the sum of a player's individual season WAR totals. What Career WAR doesn't capture very well are players who have an incredible peak period but careers cut short by injury (Koufax, Career WAR of 48.9), or tragedy (Munson, Career WAR of 46.1). It does give some insight into players who had a great period but then declined into a player who is closer to league average for a variety of reasons, such as Darryl Strawberry (who had two seasons with WAR over 6 before his personal problems destroyed his on the field performance) or Dave Parker (4 out of 5 seasons over 6 from 1975-79 before similar problems arose). If someone has a year with WAR over 7, that's an incredible season. For instance, Edgar Martinez's 1995 season where he hit .356, .479 OBP, 52 doubles, 29 HR, and 113 RBI - that was a 7.1 WAR season. Buster's 2012 season, .336 average, .408 OBP, 39 doubles, 24 HR, 103 RBI and catching - that was a 7.6 WAR season. Of course, Barry had some outrageous WAR seasons both early (1990 9.7 WAR) and late (2002, 11.8 WAR)...

[triangle2]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Those numbers above are "career" WAR numbers - i.e., the sum of a player's individual season WAR totals. What Career WAR doesn't capture very well are players who have an incredible peak period but careers cut short by injury (Koufax, Career WAR of 48.9), or tragedy (Munson, Career WAR of 46.1). It does give some insight into players who had a great period but then declined into a player who is closer to league average for a variety of reasons, such as Darryl Strawberry (who had two seasons with WAR over 6 before his personal problems destroyed his on the field performance) or Dave Parker (4 out of 5 seasons over 6 from 1975-79 before similar problems arose). If someone has a year with WAR over 7, that's an incredible season. For instance, Edgar Martinez's 1995 season where he hit .356, .479 OBP, 52 doubles, 29 HR, and 113 RBI - that was a 7.1 WAR season. Buster's 2012 season, .336 average, .408 OBP, 39 doubles, 24 HR, 103 RBI and catching - that was a 7.6 WAR season. Of course, Barry had some outrageous WAR seasons both early (1990 9.7 WAR) and late (2002, 11.8 WAR)...