[DC 86]

DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.

It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.

One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years. 

To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.

I agree completely, it's evident that teams have become much smarter about paying for older free agents, which is the underlying issue in the current labor dispute. However:

1. The Giants aren't being active for even younger free agents (Correa to play third base?) or players willing to sign short term deals, e.g. Stroman.
2. As one of the highest revenue teams in MLB the Giants can afford to take some chances. The Dodgers may be the most analytically inclined team in MLB (and Zaidi's former employer) but they are willing to deviate from optimal efficiency because they have the financial wherewithal to withstand bets gone wrong. They took a chance and signed Cole Hamels which proved to be insane, but it doesn't hamper them going forward because they're a wealthy club, as are the Giants.

You're absolutely right and SF is a very well run organization, but with their financial resources they should be able to find a way to intelligently raise payroll to the level of other high revenue clubs.

---

Yes DC I meant Pitcher wins.  That was your quote 

Yes I just wanted to be clear, since your reply could be interpreted as me claiming that front offices don't care about wins in general, which of course they do. I stand by my statement about pitcher wins, specifically.

---

Just asking DC. How many front office people do you have conversations with. Not trying to be a dick or to be snarky. Some guys do just enough to win. But they win. I get that front offices are metric driven. But as an old timer who cherished wins against Cal and others I loved W's 1-0 or 10-9. I've had both.

In answer to the first question, several, on almost a daily basis. I'm glad to elaborate offline or in person someday.

The narrative of "pitching to the score" has been debunked in numerous studies. Now that game logs are available going back to 1900 it turns out that pitcher statistics are remarkably consistent for individual pitchers whether pitching in a one run game or when the situation is a five run margin.

You should cherish every win that you recorded. They are meaningful, they're just not used in any predictive or evaluation models these days.

[DC 86]

DC, I wonder if taking a pass on big free agents is simply the most significant manifestation of the paradigm shift from analytics. Simply, the argument seems to be that in a (mostly?) non-PED era, peak performance years are much earlier than what we grew accustomed to during the 80's and 90's. Free agent signings are then considerably riskier since most players are likely to be very close to regression at the start of the contract rather than at the end. As a result, a team would stay away from the expensive free agents, prioritize the draft, international signings, and home growing quality players under team control.

It seems to me that this makes it much more plausible that a team might buy out a couple of arbitration years in exchange for a couple of extra years at a 'rational' price. Imagine you sign a developed college player at age 21 who makes the team at age 24. After six years of team control, that player might be already on the decline by the time he's a free agent. So, you buy out a couple of arbitration years and get a 4 year deal that expires at age 31 or 32. Every once in a while, you bite on longer deal for a Posey or Crawford with the hope that this is a franchise guy who gets another extension at age 32 because he's beloved, or has shown durability, or has three World Series rings.

One test is whether Farhan goes all in for Suzuki. At age 27, he could be exactly what the Giants want: a really valuable player who would come in at close to peak performance at an age where you can feel better about paying top dollar and see that top performance over several years of the contract. In contrast, look what happened when the Giants traded for Longoria for his age 32 season. Longoria had really terrific performance through his age 30 season and then fell off the cliff. The Giants got 125, 129, 53 (Covid year), and 81 games, one season of 20 home runs, and no 70+ RBI years. 

To me, this is why the most interesting part of the lockout is the dispute over the length and details of team control and arbitration, the service time manipulation issue, and how MLB doesn't seem to want to raise base salaries. I suspect a lot of people have done the math.

I agree completely, it's evident that teams have become much smarter about paying for older free agents, which is the underlying issue in the current labor dispute. However:

1. The Giants aren't being active for even younger free agents (Correa to play third base?) or players willing to sign short term deals, e.g. Stroman.
2. As one of the highest revenue teams in MLB the Giants can afford to take some chances. The Dodgers may be the most analytically inclined team in MLB (and Zaidi's former employer) but they are willing to deviate from optimal efficiency because they have the financial wherewithal to withstand bets gone wrong. They took a chance and signed Cole Hamels which proved to be insane, but it doesn't hamper them going forward because they're a wealthy club, as are the Giants.

You're absolutely right and SF is a very well run organization, but with their financial resources they should be able to find a way to intelligently raise payroll to the level of other high revenue clubs.

---

Yes DC I meant Pitcher wins.  That was your quote 

Yes I just wanted to be clear, since your reply could be interpreted as me claiming that front offices don't care about wins in general, which of course they do. I stand by my statement about pitcher wins, specifically.

---

Just asking DC. How many front office people do you have conversations with. Not trying to be a dick or to be snarky. Some guys do just enough to win. But they win. I get that front offices are metric driven. But as an old timer who cherished wins against Cal and others I loved W's 1-0 or 10-9. I've had both.

In answer to the first question, several, on almost a daily basis. I'm glad to elaborate offline or in person someday.

The narrative of "pitching to the score" has been debunked in numerous studies. Now that game logs are available going back to 1900 it turns out that pitcher statistics are remarkably consistent for individual pitchers whether pitching in a one run game or when the situation is a five run margin.

You should cherish every win that you recorded. They are meaningful, they're just not used in any predictive or evaluation models these days.