=== There are RLP's and then there are RLP's, Dept. ===
Mega-League20 champ Cool Papa Bell, justifably, chokes on my use of the term "replacement level player" in this fine post.
..................
1. As Papa notes, sabermetricians "formally" use "replacement-level player" to refer to a "freely available" player -- usually a AAAA journeyman -- that we assume to be easy to quickly pick up in an emergency.
Hot debates rage about how good this player actually is!, LOL, but the consensus is usually about -20 runs worse than an MLB-average player. -20 runs is the same as -2 wins in the standings.
.
.......................
2. I tend to use "replacement level player" more informally. I'll stop this.
I think of a "replacement level player" as being a GOOD Scrub that I, Cool Papa, and Billy Beane are confident that WE can find -- precisely because our rosters are agile and flexible.
Rob Johnson will probably givethe Mariners about $2-4M worth of performance this year.
That's about $5-6M less of performance than an "average" ML catcher (who theoretically makes close to $10M in salary), but it's also about $2-3M more than what sabermetricians figure you'd usually be able to pick up on the fly.
Jason Vargas would provide about $4-5M worth of performance this year, given 20-25 starts. He's a quality Scrub, but he's not "RLP" in the mathematical sense. To me, he's "RLP" in the Billy Beane sense.
When I think of "replacement" players, I think of the kind of "replacements" that the Seattle Mariners will now be feeding into their starting rotation for the remainder of the Zduriencik era. In other words, guys a lot better than -20 to league average.
Agreed 100% with CPB that my informal "Scrubby" use of "replacement level" does NOT match the formal definition of the RLP term.
Gracias CPB.
.
......................
3. Veterans -- year 7 and beyond -- cost you $4.5M to $5.1M in salary per +10 runs added above mathematical RLP.
Club-controls players, however, cost you only $2.4M per +10 runs added (or check me if the number has changed lately).
Our original point was that, since Zduriencik is totally willing to add the costly $5M/win vet, we should pause and remember that the cheapie $2M/win young players aren't as easy to come by as we think.
.
This point stands. Sabermetricians often seem madly in love with minor league players, believing that they will come up and add the $2M/win in smooth, seamless fashion.
But Cool Papa's point is definitely well taken. Wilson's $10M or so in salary -- and performance -- does not recalibrate the formal RLP = $400,000 metric.
We'll use "RLP", and the entire argument, with more considered framing in the future.
Caught me by surprise that anybody was listening ;- )
.
.........................
4. Wilson himself, the more I look at him ... well, he's a pretty fine little ballplayer. I've been kinda treating him as a kick-around-the-league mediocrity, but the more you look the more you like.
:- ) Unless and until Safeco wipes him out -- which I don't expect it to -- I'm pulling off the entire Wilson-as-fungible theme.
.
............................
5. The broadest point remains.
Bill Bavasi signed Raul Ibanez? The point of reference would be the best values on the market, the couple of players that this or that blog would have chosen as overlooked, underpaid bargains.
Jack Zduriencik obtains an $8M shortstop? The point of reference becomes the guy currently playing the position, and performing at -34 runs below average.
Over Bavasi's term here, he took a lot of abuse for his choices *as compared to this or that bargain alternative.*
I'd have rather had Scutaro, and that's the standard that Bavasi would have been held to. But, again, the standard that Zduriencik is being held to is the better one. I approve of the sea change.
Cheers,
Dr D
I think we now see what the Z team has in mind for SS: sharp defense, leadership, not a disaster at the plate. That might be worth $8M to them.
Most folks panned Nick Franklin in the 1st round as someone who aspired to be Bloomquist. It seems to me that what Z & Co. saw was a future Jack Wilson, except a switch-hitter.
To them, that was worth a first-round pick.
should have a blog. Like, maybe this one.
:- )
Hopefully will collate your great stuff here and mix in some shtick in the next few days amigo. Always look forward to it.
I tend to have more questions than answers.
Here's my question for the day: how can it be that a team is in first place when two of their most important pitchers are Joel Piniero and Ryan Franklin? (OK, other than that they have Albert Pujols too)
And here is some more video of Kyle Seager, with some different angles and some defense:
http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=3996591
And I do appreciate the hospitality. This is the only site I ever had the urge to post at, so I've just kept doing it.
I'll assume that Cards question is TIC ... and, just imagine, if only they could add Meche from KC...
Always nice to see a lot of ex-Mariners playing well. The alternative would be a realization that our org never had any talent.
You mean any player who isn't hard to acquire who could provide some value. Well, that's exactly the type of guy Z has been amassing since the day he got here. Over-and-over-and-over again he has scooped up low cost players whenever he's had the chance. His very first move was to sign Russ Branyan for peanuts. That's the epitomy of a savy Saber move! He also grabbed Jason Vargas and Garret Olson for the back of the rotation, loaded up on cheapy relievers (including David Aardsma), used a $2 million Endy Chavez (the OF equivalent of Jack Wilson) in left to start the year and then traded for Ryan Langerhans when he went down, traded for Jack Hannahan who was toiling in AAA when Beltre had his surgery, and has shown a fondness for big sluggers he can stash in Tacoma like Brad Nelson.
Basically EVERY player he has acquired has been super cheap, and many of them are exactly the types of guys saber-dweebs clamor for. Remember, you were ridiculing the decision of Z to side with the likes of Dave Cameron and Tango when he went with Chavez in left! To now claim that a single move proves that Jack doesn't buy into the notion of freely available talent isn't just inaccurate, it's a 180 on your previous position of Z following the computer geeks too far down the esoteric numbers path. Wilson is the first mediocre player Z has gone after who is paid a full free agents salary so he's the exception that proves the rule.
*****
Quick note: the cost of a club-controlled player depends on how much service time he has. The first three years of his career cost practically nothing (basically minimum wage). In year four (first year of arbitration eligibility) he makes about 40% his free agent value; year 5 60%; year 6 80%. So there isn't a single formula for all six years.
... and the heavy rebukes are best leveled *after* we understand what both sides are saying.
........................
++ Remember, you were ridiculing the decision of Z to side with the likes of Dave Cameron and Tango when he went with Chavez in left!
To now claim that a single move proves that Jack doesn't buy into the notion of freely available talent isn't just inaccurate, it's a 180 on your previous position of Z following the computer geeks too far down the esoteric numbers path. ++
Just to clarify a few of my beliefs, then and now, that for some reason I haven't communicated clearly to you:
.....................
1. I don't hold "Endy Chavez, LF" to be an example of a guy that we followed too far down the numbers path. ONE CANNOT BE TOO SABERMETRIC!
I hold "Endy Chavez, LF" to be an example of a guy that you choose because you do not recognize the mathematical problems with the current defensive metrics.
You put Endy Chavez in LF because you assume too much about the way his glove impacts the game, and because you have not respected the domino effect on roster construction by closing off the LF position with an at-best-mediocre regular. Bill James' positional spectrum is completely sabermetric.
.......................
2. I don't believe for a moment that Jack Zduriencik imported Endy Chavez with any enthusiasm for playing him 150 games in LF. I believe that he brought Chavez in to compete with others for short-term OF playing time -- and that Chavez wound up playing LF by default.
I believe, and I could be mistaken, that USSM recommended a sort of revolution in baseball thinking, that backup CF's could start in the corners in big parks, and it be a great way to play Moneyball. THAT, I did and do believe to be a gross misjudgment.
.........................
3. I've never ridiculed Jack Zduriencik for anything. If he *did* come to a belief that (say) Charlton Jimerson were a good choice to start in RF, I would attribute that to a reasoned, open-minded paradigm that meshed both tools scouting and sabermetrics, as opposed to a sneering condescension that sees any decision not dictated by the Fangraphs $/WAR values as "incorrect."
...........................
4. I don't believe that the importing of any full-price, $5M/WAR veteran proves that a given GM doesn't want cheap players. Frankly, it's odd that you would interpret my position that way.
What I do believe is that the importing of a full-price, $5M/WAR veteran proves that a GM has to be agile about accepting a full-price (or even costlier) veteran where circumstances dictate. As opposed to the USSM habit of excoriating Bavasi every time that one of his acquisitions was less dollar-efficient than a hypothetical bargain somewhere.
............................
Does that make my positions more clear to you?
In all your alacrity to defend USSM for whatever reason -- and equal speech / free time are fine on THIS blog -- you haven't TOUCHED the essential theme of my article.
Zduriencik gets his players judged by delta vs. current internal catastrophes. Bavasi got his players judged by delta vs. current-and-past external best-case-situations.
Why have you spent so much effort on the fringes of the article and completely evaded its argument?
...........................
None of this quibbling would be necessary if we'd just concede, "Yeah, the Ibanezes and Sexsons got compared to guys like Dellucci and Kearns, and Wilson gets compared to guys like Cedeno and Betancourt." That would make the rest of this moot.
Or are you saying that the blog-o-sphere DID analyze Bavasi even-handedly?
From what I've read of Tango, he's an eminently reasonable man. Tango's blog, from what I've seen of it, is full of interesting and mostly polite idea exchange.
I might disagree with him on this or that paradigm, but would respect his point-of-view even where we disagree. I don't know what he thought about Chavez, but if he thought it was an interesting idea to start Chavez in LF, my operating assumption would be that it was a flexible position.
It's one thing to propose, respectfully, "Might Endy Chavez net out more runs than Bobby Abreu in LF?," .... and a different thing to come into the paint with an "it would be nice if everybody understood that a run prevented is as good as a run gained" scoop shot. :- )
It's the dogma and condescension locally, not the paradigm, that gets us into trouble IMHO.
Anyway, let's not involve innocent bystanders in our dweeby local 'net issues, what say -