My understanding of the USSM post was somewhat different from how you seem to be presenting it. I took the point to be simply that if the Mariners only have about 25-30 million to spend, putting 25 million into Fielder isn't going to be an effective strategy if you want to compete next year. In other words, they are addressing the particular situation of the Mariners right now, not the more abstract and general issue of whether stars and scrubs is more efficient than lots'o'civics. As regards the latter issue, you do a nice job of explaining why Stars and Scrubs has legs. As regards the claim by USSM, though, it seems right to me. If we assume that the Mariners have 25 million dollars to spend, and need to get X wins for that 25 million dollars, then investing that 25 million dollars in any strategy that nets you less than X wins isn't going to cut it. "Buy Fielder" is a strategy that doesn't get you X wins and hence isn't a good strategy given the budgetary assumptions made. In some ways, this strikes me as a fairly uninteresting and somewhat trivial point.
................
=== Baked Bean (Counting) Dept. ===
Dr. D will try and present this in (yet) one more way so as to --- > make this so accountant-friendly that we all, accountant and fanboy alike ... just stop arguing about it. :- )
Allow SSI to introduce -- apparently!? -- the concept of pre-arb run purchase opportunity.
| $4.5M | Cost of 10 runs, on FA market |
| $2.0M | Cost of 10 runs / 1 win, arb players* |
| $0.9M | Cost of 10 runs / 1 win, pre-arb players* |
(*Just estimating. We know that FA wins cost $4.5M, and we know that all wins (FA + arb + pre-arb) cost $2.5M. So those guesses must be sensible, right?)
So a consolidation of FA money into fewer roster slot -- as opposed to FA money dispersed to more roster slots -- allows you to purchase MORE of your runs from the super-efficient arb and pre-arb scales, correct?
Here are three models of roster construction. Each gives you more opportunity to exploit the collective bargaining agreement than the last:
| $9M Civic + $9M Civic + $9M Civic | $27M = 5.0 WAR |
| $18M Civic + $9M Civic + $450k Seager | $27M = 5.0 WAR + Seager = 7.0 WAR |
| $27M SuperStar + two rookies | $27M = 5.0 WAR + Seager + Paxton = 9.0 WAR |
SSI readers are well familiar with the contrasts between Line 1 and Line 2. However, on Line 3, observe the awesome leverage gained with the THREE-player Star.
Some players are so monstrous that they equal not two, but three ordinary Civics. Prince Fielder, if he amasses 6.0 WAR as he did in 2009 and 2011, personally gives the production of three league-average players.
So Fielder gives you two extra roster opportunities to buy runs on the arb and pre-arb scales, does he not?
............
At 5.5 WAR as in 2011, Fielder is worth $24.6M in personal production.
However, if he clears the way for two Michael Pinedas -- and the 2012 Seattle Mariners indeed appear to have those -- he clears the way for another 6.8 WAR. This is another $30.4M.
Stop and think about it. Is there anything up Dr. D's sleeves here? If not, that's a cool thirty million PER YEAR in "hidden value" for Fielder.
........
You can spread $25M in free agent money around to get 5.5 WAR in fair-market deals.
Or, if you find the very best Civics on the market as Big Blog did, and everything works out perfectly, you might get 8.0 WAR back, grossing $36M in smart buys from your $22M.
And that's if you're Pat Gillick. But sabermetricians-turned-GM's Paul DePodesta and J.P. Ricciardi found the going rather tougher than Gillick did.
Are you sure that you can get $36M back for your $22M? Will you bet your job on it, one year, one chance? How sure are you that your NL pitcher will survive the AL? Gonna bet your baseball career on that one pot?
.........
Or, if you get Prince Fielder and then feed in James Paxton and Danny Hulzten, you might get 12.3 WAR and gross back $55M. Yes, sir, I will bet my job on that one. One year, one chance, I'm good with my cards.
(Remember, I get to swap my four rookies out as much as I want, all year. That's Stars & Scrubs.)
Fielder's $15 to $30M in "hidden value," the way he clears lineup slots for arb and pre-arb runs and wins, that is the reason these monster FA's get 8-year deals.
One Albert Pujols comes with two extra arb- and pre-arb slots included, no extra charge. There's a collective bargaining agreement in place. You need to exploit it to the full.
Stars and Scrubs babe,
Dr D
Comments
Stars and scrubs.
Opportunity Cost.
Accounting vs. Finance (two totally different, but related arenas, whose members should talk to each other more).
Great business success stories aren't about accountants who carefully counted every penny. They're about enterpreneurs who carefully weighed leverage versus reward.
Great series Jeff. I hate it when you take breaks from writing.
By the way, since moving to Georgia, the most common attitude about Seattle's sports franchises is that they are irrelevant....not my attitude, just an observation. Boldness matters.
The reason I want to see the M's sing Fielder is because I like to watch baseball and want to be entertained. Yeah, I'd like the M's to win World Series like the Yankees, but I don't expect the Mariners to be the Yankees. I follow baseball because I find it fun to watch and listen AND bond with my dad, sons, and friends. I don't watch it just because of Wins and Losses. It is entertainment and I want to be entertained.
I'd much rather watch a game with Prince and a bunch of young guys who may become stars than a pile of mid or end of career veterans who are average ball players. The 2011 Mariners were far more interesting to watch than the 2010 version because of the young guys.
Which team do you want to watch? Prince and all of these actual prospects Z has accumulated? Or Chris Capuano, Ryan Doumit, etc.? Both avenues could bring a World Series win - most of the discussion is which direction is more likely and there are good, logical points brought up by both sides. For me, the choice is easy.
It's [Prince + 4 rookies] vs [5 Civics]. That's true for 2012, also.
Ted's a sharp guy, and this point was the basis of the whole series. If he missed it, I'm wondering how many others missed it.
Prince = 5 WAR
5 Civics = 8 WAR (per USSM's optimistic projection)
4 pre-arb rookies = 6 WAR (probably more in this case)
5 > 8 > 11.
If you leave the [4 rookies] line out, you're going to have confusion, yeah.
I'm honestly intrigued as to how many Civics supporters are unaware of the third line?
Yep, the best reason for signing Fielder is that not only do you get (if there is no crash-and-burn) a predictably large payout from the big guy and then you have to go with all the young guys you have. They're cheap and good and this strategy maximizes (out of necessity) their playing time. I like that.
The same might well be said for an Ethier deal, however. For half the salary over a shorter period of time you get practically the same performance (OPS+) every other year. He too, means you put all those young guys on the field.
I can live with either.
Although I'm not sure if anybody has mentioned it, part of the Fielder strategy might well be what ownership intends to do with Ichiro after '12. If there is no intent to sign him...of if such a signing comes with a sweet discount...the Fielder, in effect, gets much cheaper.
I know that the current concensus perception of Fielder is that he is a vastly superior bat than Sexson was (at the time he was acquired). And, of course, he's better than Beltre, too. But, how much?
Here is the Sexson career line from '97-'04 compared to the Fielder line through today:
Sexson - .271/.349/.528 - (per 162 = 39-HR; 120-RBI; 67-BB; 157-K)
Fielder - .282/.390/.540 - (per 162 = 37-HR; 106-RBI; 92-BB; 126-K)
Basically, Fielder walks more than Sexson did.
How joyous was the 2005 season when Sexson went .263/.369/.541 (.910) with 39 HRs and 121 RBI? Honestly, does anyone remember truly enjoying watching Sexson in his prime while the club was winning 69? Or even when he hit 34 HRs the next season while winning 78? Those seasons certainly didn't translate into ticket sales as attendance dropped 2,200 a game his first year and another 3,000 a game his second.
My point here is not to suggest Sexson was as good as Fielder. He wasn't. But, the difference is tied up almost completely in walks. In regards to "excitement generation", Sexson was, in fact, what Fielder is today.
Me? I love guys with good eyes. I'd much rather have Fielder at age 28 than Sexson at 30. But, the actual excitement level of new players is the most fleeting of all. When signed, Cliff Lee fever erupted. By the end of May, any enthusiasm about the 2010 season was over.
Yes, die hard fans will come out to see a superstar on a bad team. I grew up watching Dale Murphy, Bob Horner and Phil Neikro slogging through losing season after losing season. But, die hards are not most fans. Most fans want winning and winning alone. And most don't give a hoot as to how the winning is done. The Dodgers and Oriole pitching dominated teams drew just as well as the lumber dominant Red Sox or Reds teams from the 70s.
Did Toronto attendance soar when Bautista became the premier HR hitter in baseball? No. Toronto had their worst attendance since 1982 in 2010 when Bautista was hitting 54 HRs. The notion that a "star" player will sell tickets for a perennial losing team sounds true. But, it isn't.
My position is that Fielder will not speed up the rebuilding process. Best case, he'll slow it down. Worst case, he'll completely derail it - and effectively 2012 will reset the franchise clock to 2005 as the club repeats the same basic mistake it made when it bought in Sexson and Beltre.
Sandy,
You're exctly right on the worst case scenario, the M's get derailed for years to come. There is substantial risk of some degree. I suppose you could argue the chance of a Fielder crash/burn is relatively low, but investment is so high that the effect of such a burnout is magnified. It ripples outward for years to come.
That's why I've said I prefer an Ethier (or Ethier-like) approach.
Ethier is a reliable 3 WAR guy. Fielder is a reliable 5 WAR guy. How much d you pay for 2WAR is a decent question. So is asking how much more disasterous for the franchise will be the collapse of the 5 WAR guy?
moe
I suspect that USSM would think your projection of 6 WAR for the 4 pre-arb rookies was also optimistic. Furthermore, the Prince Fielder plus rookies vs. 5 civics isn't the real comparison. The real comparison is 5 civics plus rookies vs. Fielder plus rookies. Roster depth has to count for something, no?
Treating available pre-arb rookies as 1.5 WAR each means that on your calculation the civic strategy counts as an investment of something like 20 million dollars for a net effect of .5 WAR. Obviously this is a bad investment, and the net of say, 4 WAR that Fielder gives you is a better play. Hence, I suspect that the USSM assumptions differ from your own about the performance of the available pre-arb talent. The more general point about the advantages of Stars and Scrubs is not one I object to.
Fielder is very different from Sexson.
It's not just walks, but that is a very significant difference. 10.3% BB/PA for Sexson's career vs. 13.4 BB% for Fielder. Both started out poor, but Sexson peaked at 13.7% and Fielder has been running 15+% the last three seasons.
10.3% BB rate is very low for a power hitter: Thome 17.0; Ryan Howard 12.3; Branyan 11.9. (Just picking out some guys with similar HR power [5.5% HR/PA or higher].) Sexson's walk rate was lower than any of them.
But strikeouts are the key difference between bashers (Howard, Dunn, Branyan) and hitters with power (Pujols, Manny, Ortiz). Bashers who strike out well over 20% of PAs succeed only when they have both very high HR% and high BB% (like Thome and Dunn).
Compare to hitters with power:
Pujols K/PA 9.5% (Ted Williams-like -- nobody else is remotely close to him right now); Teixeira 17.3%; Manny 18.4%; A-Rod 18.0%; Ortiz 18.4%. But those guys all have HR/PA over 5%, just like the bashers do.
Fielder: 18.5% career K/PA
Sexson 23.4% career K/PA
Sexson was like Branyan, a guy trying for the Thome/Dunn approach, but not having enough power or walks to quite make it. Those guys will be streaky and fade quickly. (Is Ryan Howard already in decline? His whole game was keeping up his unnaturally-high 6.5 HR/PA%. He hasn't done it for two years in a row, and he's been below .900 OPS both years.)
Fielder is much more like Tex, Manny and Papi. Hitters who take it over the wall.
Show me the guys with HR/PA over 5% and K% under 20% and BB% over 15%, and it's gonna be a short list, especially if you exclude guys who were juiced.
Prince Fielder will be on it and Richie Sexson won't.
The guys on it will be worth their $20M+ contracts, I think, almost without exception.
Three guys in all of MLB met the 5% HR/PA, 15% BB/PA and
And is more likely to turn into Figgins than Fielder is to turn into Ethier. He might be worthless as soon as next year.
Jim Thome came down from an OPS+ in the 170s to having one in the 140s as he aged. Is it possible that Fielder crashes and burns 3 years early, or blows his back out or something?
Sure.
Felix could blow his arm out pouring a cup of coffee and never be the same either, and in fact a serious injury to Felix is more likely than one to Fielder. I didn't see that holding us up on his 5 year extension, and if we'd had to go 7 I probably would have. Just as I'd go 7 or 8 for Fielder.
I've advocated trying to pry Billy Butler out of KC for an arm or two. That's an Ethier-level bat who is young and could help us quite a bit. It would be far cheaper monetarily than Fielder. But one of the best things about Fielder is that ALL he costs us is money. Trading 4 prospects for Upton or Butler means you have 4 fewer prospects for your lineup or other improvements via trade.
I guess I just have trouble understanding the hangup. Will Fielder make a lot of money? Yes. Will he be worth it? Almost assuredly, for the next 5-6 years at minimum. If I could pay for Jim Thome's age 28-35 years (he missed most of one due to injury and still put up about 37 WAR in that timeframe), or Lance Berkman's (32ish WAR), or Ortiz's, or Edgar's...I would absolutely do it.
Is the fear that we pay all that money and he becomes Griffey? Couple of great years, followed by injury after injury robbing him of usefulness?
We have a DH. Let him play there. It's how Thome kept playing, and Ortiz, and Gar.
Or maybe it's that he's like Vernon Wells? Over-rated and then overpaid? I don't believe he is - I believe he's a tremendous hitter. Is Ryan Braun a better one? Maybe. A-Rod might have been a better hitter than Edgar, but I wouldn't cry at adding Edgar.
He could fall off a cliff like Hafner or HOFer Eddie Murray in a couple of years, I guess, ALLL the way down to an Ethier/Ibanez level hitter, which would be really expensive...but not worthless to the offense.
I still don't think we're gonna be adding Fielder. I'm keeping an eye out for any news on possible trades with KC or the Reds, or whomever. We may very well go with some lesser-light FAs and a trade to try to make this team into a contender going forward.
But the idea that Fielder costs too much/is too risky/isn't worth it is still strange to me. We already know how much it hurts to have our "safer, cheaper, shorter contract" choices blow up in our faces. We know what it's like to trade for a great player and have that player fail to keep his health.
We really DON'T know what it's like to pay a marquee free agent the going rate, step into the big-boy ring and compete with Texas and the Angels going forward. I guess if you think Beltre and Sexson were on the level of Fielder, then we do...but I don't believe they ever were.
Sexson had an OPS+ over 140 twice in his career. Fielder's career OPS+ is 143, and he's just hitting his prime.
Sexson is like Fielder only if Bret Boone is a comparable hitter to Edgar. No, I would not pay Boone an 8 year max contract. We were lucky we didn't HAVE to pay it to Gar, but he would have been worth it.
To whomever signs him, I expect Fielder to be worth it.
~G
No dispute on the value of a healthy Fielder. I like him a lot. He would quite likely be worth the big dough he would get.
But if I'm a GM I proceed very cautiously down that road because of the potential of wrecking a franchise's flexability for years to come. But then, I'm a cautious guy.
I am aware of Ethier's knee issues, which is why I suggested "Ethier-like."
I would be all over a 4 year $25M contract for Fielder. Probably 5 years. But years 7 and 8 in the numbers being suggested begin to scare me. And it isn't that you could just say that his productive years would indeed work out to $25M per. If he failed, the damage done in the following years, when a gimpy shell of his former self guy still consumes 20%+ of the teams salary, completely hamstrings the team.
I proceed cautiously, which doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't end up signing Fielder. It's just that I wouldn't sprint to that signing without very carefully looking at other options first. My first option might be to do nothing this year and let the young guys eat, although I know that isn't a popular choice around here.
Fielder would be a ttreat to watch for the next 4 years. Beyond that, I'm not yet convinced. I will continue looking at it though.
moe
I would be all over a 4 year $25M contract for Fielder. Probably 5 years. But years 7 and 8 in the numbers being suggested begin to scare me. And it isn't that you could just say that his prodcutive years would indeed work out to $25M per, because of the damage done in the following years when a gimpy shell of his former self guy still consumes 20%+ of the teams salary.
I absolutely get that, but for me I'd rather spend 7 or 8 years on the best young FA hitter than 5 or 6 on the best pitcher. If you'd told me I could have Fielder for the next 7 years or Felix for the next 5, I would take Fielder. And that's with me believing that Felix is a Roger Clemens sort of horse.
Johan Santana came out of Minnesota at age 28, signed a 6 year, $137 million dollar contract ($23 million/year), pitched great for a year, well for a couple more years with nagging injuries, then missed this year completely and who knows how he'll be for the next two.
Santana was a MONSTER pitcher. He may never be again.
That sort of thing happens to a pitcher at the drop of a hat. It's rarer for hitters. But the idea that you CANNOT take that risk, that I don't understand.
Fielder is not likely to take 25 million a year and take entire years where he never contributes. It happens with pitchers where their contributions go from TOR to zero.
But you can still WIN with a guy like that on the shelf - the Giants did in 2010 with Zito. The Cardinals won in 2011 with a guy WORTH 20 million on the shelf (though he wasn't making it, so it didn't kill their payroll as much). The idea that having a $20 million guy on your payroll means that if it gets shelved you are worthless just isn't true.
Especially for the Mariners, who've stated that attendance = payroll. If we win with Fielder, then payroll goes up when attendance does and he doesn't hamper us much at all.
Man, I wish we'd get some movement in this offseason so we can see the plan. Can't they hurry up? Don't they know how impatient I am?
~G
Man, I wish we'd get some movement in this offseason so we can see the plan. Can't they hurry up? Don't they know how impatient I am?
I just got off a jingle with Jack. He's WELL aware of your impatience, and he told me in particular that he's bearing your situation in mind as conducts team affairs over the next week or so. He said if the situation presents itself... (you know the drill after that).
Jack has continued to collect cheap, effective SP via trade (Vargas, Beaven, and Furbush) and through the draft (Paxton and Hultzen).
When I look at the SP and 'pen, I am left wondering where the M's are going to spend their $ if not on Fielder.
The M's, playing half of their games in a pitchers park, NEED elite hitters. We have all seen what the Safe does to good-but-not-great hitters. Elite batsmen are worth more to the M's than to any other team in the AL. Fielder seems to me to be the kind of special batter that can overcome the home field.
I hope Z is able to take advantage of the pile of cheap SP and RP and invest the M's cash in the kind of hitter they need.
It really comes down to how you view your prospects.
Biggy-B seems to think our minor leaguers utterly suck. Or something like that. Otherwise, you wouldn't place your season in the hands of Bedard, Capuano and Doumit.
In the meantime, in that model, you're basically leaving your prospects in the minor leagues slowly rotting away.
And we actually have prospects now!
I don't think the M's have had a farm like this, ever. And it's about time we start betting on it to do something.
The M's are pitching rich, which in theory allows us to spend money on the offense. We have some parts that look worthwhile. Why not bet on that and not against it?
Sometimes you run into a paradigm that simply parts the clouds and leaves a crystal-clear sky.
If you ain't going to bet on Paxton, Hultzen, Ackley, Carp, Smoak and Seager, then you ain't never going to bet on any kids.
Jack ain't in player development so as to never bet on any kids. Billy Beane also makes the Paxton-Hultzen (Anderson-Cahill) dice rolls part of his decisionmaking.
Now that Boras is babbling about Prince > Pujols, I've mentally crossed him out. Thats a contract that is not going to be reasonable.
If you're going to go all in, I could actually see a better argument for Pujols himself at this point.
Not saying I'd do it, but Pujols is an absolute monster. Makes contact like Ichiro, draws BBs like Lance Berkman, hits the ball as hard as prime-Vlad Guerrero, and plays good D to boot.
Tough to project his next 9 seasons, but if the contracts are similar Pujols is probably still going to be the best player in baseball for a while.
Usually I just assume that *some* 2 or 3 teams are going to do the Teixeira-type bidding frenzy, but in this case I do wonder whether Boras is going to get embarrassed.
Fielder looks a lot better at DH, restricting him perhaps to one league, and the richest clubs in the AL have already bought their big 1B/DH's.
Maybe.
Maybe, but Boras' opening line is too rediculous. Fielder shouldn't get anything remotely close to Pujols. Asides from 2011 (injury year for Pujols), Pujols has been twice as valuable.
Fielder is a 5+ WAR player in his good years, Pujols is a 9+ WAR player in his good years.
Pujols is scary good. His batting eye, contact ability, and power are so good that he likely won't stop being an elite hitter for quite a long time.
Fielder is a great hitter. Pujols is one of the greatest players of all time.
May not dovetail into the discussion per se. But I have a couple of questions about some of the valuation components and perhaps some more SABR qualified folks can answer them. Here goes:
A) WAR is calculated (depending on website) using some form of fielding metric. UZR? That fielding metric is proprietary, and from what I understand somewhat subjective in nature, true or false?
B) Player X is 80% of player Y. Does WAR treat this line of value equally? In other words, is there no premium allowed for the player who out performs player X? Or is his contribution weighted as simply X (call it average, for argument's sake) + 20%? I'm not explaining my point well but suffice to say, I wouldn't be on board with any system that normalizes performance in this matter.
C) I have argued (with increasing frustration) against some of the concepts behind advanced pitching statistics, not as much the conclusions, as the assumptions made at the outset. I know that pitchers have the most input into batted ball profiles, BABIP theory discounts this influence to zero, basically stating that after releasing the ball, there is no more involvement from the pitcher as to where it ends up. Is this the gist of the theory, or have I simplified the position too much?
D) I'm certainly no statistician but I question the need for regressing the performance of individual players towards the mountain of numbers that make up league averages. Does SABR convention assume that for example: Clayton Kershaw allows 4 HRs/100 fly balls in 2011, that he will move towards 9/100 (or whatever league average is) the next season? I don't get this, if league averages are made up of wildly different totals, what is the magnetism towards the middle? Are we to assume that essentially individuals will find equalibrium with the collective? If so, how could we ever predict a kid to outperform another significantly?
E) I like Fielder to get signed. I also like 15 million additional added to the payroll for this season. That 15 million would hopefully get another RH bat, 3-4 starter, and one reliever. I'm not real confident that this will happen.
Believing that you don't know the answers to all those Q's, Billy1 :- )
But just humoring the rhetorical Q's for a second ... to take an example, part B ...
This article argues that teams pay the same amount for a player's 4th WAR as it did for his 3rd: that is, it pays him $4.5 mill for creating 10 runs above a Rainier, and pays him $9.0 for giving them 20 runs, and pays him $18.0 for giving them 40 ...
What the article overlooks is that the players collect longer contracts, far more guaranteed money, for the 4th and 5th WARs ... you see the exponential benefit of WARs 4, 5, 6, etc by comparing guaranteed dollar totals at each WAR level.
.............
You know and I know that the Boston Red Sox will give Felix more guaranteed dollars, than they will give to two Derek Lowes ...
Felix and your best rookies will put you in a much better position than will an equally-paid Jeff Francis and Carl Pavano combo.
This chaps the Fangraphs amigos' hides because POOF goes the cherished "a WAR is a WAR is a WAR" paradigm ... but GM's are smarter than the internet, for a few more years at least :- )
As time goes on, saber purists have softened their positions on "after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand" ...
Of course, the first realization was that some pitchers sustain ground balls. The GB/FB split is obviously "after the ball leaves the pitcher's hand."
Later, they grudgingly acknowledged some ability to sway BABIP from .270 to .320 at the pitcher's skill point .... mostly from changing speeds effectively...
These days, sabers are beginning to realize that certain F/X pitches (slider, changeup etc) are batted differently, so pitch selection is a factor...
Heat maps for command are cherished by sabes, which connects to the old Shandler idea of Mistake Avoidance...
............
The upshot is, these days most sabes will allow *some* ability to notch an ERA above or below your xFIP, but not much ...
A case in point - in 2006-07, Felix' xFIP was just as good as it is now, but his ERA was over 4 for the two years. I always argued that it was due to over-challenging. High mistake rate, high HR/FB rate, and it warn't luck. He came out-and-over, they waited for the centered FB's, and so he gave up the jacks.
The xFIP was 3.3, the ERA 4.3. Seems to me that a pitcher can easily "earn" an ERA that is 1.00 higher than random batted balls would usually predict.
Fielder + Seager + Paxton = 9.0 WAR.
I would 100% agree that this is the kind of roster construction that ultimately wins. I'm for getting there as much as Doc or anyone. Of course, that simplifies the roster to just 3 players ... and one of them is a guy who just posted a 1/2 year of solid WAR as a rookie that nobody on the planet (outside of Z, maybe) was projecting to be in Seattle for even a cup of coffee at the start of 2011. The other is viewed as a tip top "can't miss" prospect by most.
My problem with going for Fielder today (rather than waiting one more year) comes down to this. Look at 2011 ... and even with all its success stories ... what were all the WAR totals for *ALL* the prospects - (not just the ones who worked out)?
Trayvon ... (-1.2)
Peguero ... (-0.7)
Halman ... (-0.6)
Saunders ... (-0.5)
M.Wilson ... (-0.3)
Moore ... (0.0)
Gimenez ... (0.0)
LROD ... (0.1)
Liddi ... (0.2)
Wells ... (0.8)
Smoak ... (0.8)
Seager ... (0.9)
Carp ... (1.0)
Ackley ... (2.5)
That's 14 hitting prospects who totaled 3.1 aggregate WAR as a group. The missing part of the equation ... the one that is most commonly ignored when discussing stars and scrubs is that a LARGE portion of the scrub pool do not generate replacement level stats, (especially historically in Seattle).
In what was probably the best aggregate single season result of Mariner hitting prospects this millenium, which included the guy voted the best college hitter of the decade, the club managed a net 3.1 wins. They got a net 2.8 wins by Brendan Ryan alone.
The club had to shuffle through Saunders (-0.5) and Peguero (-0.7), Halman (-0.6) and Wilson (-0.3) before even really taking a look at Carp. That doesn't even count Langerhans (-0.6) or Guti (-0.4) or Ichiro (-0.4) in the train wreck of an OF.
Seager's positive as a 3B was partially negated by the (-0.5) that Figgins produced before the rookie stepped in.
Out of 10 positions (including first bat off the bench), the Ms have only two positions which could be reasonably described as 'stable' production candidates: Olivo and Ryan. IMO, many are counting their chickens too soon in regards to production from Ackley, Smoak, Carp, Seager, Casper.
NOBODY gets projected to hit under .500 OPS and almost nobody gets projected to hit under .600. Yet, in 2010: Figgins (.484), Guti (.534), Jack Wilson (.577), Saunders (.424), Trayvon (.586), Bard (.589), Gimenez (.585), M. Wilson (.364), A. Moore (.500). That's 9 players - an entire team of guys who couldn't hit .600. Three of them were in the starting lineup the second day of the season.
No, they didn't all have juicy sample sizes. But Figgins and Guti and Wilson and Saunders were starters for 1/3 of the season or more.
But, outside of all the uncertainty regarding production from the prospects, the club is returning a trio of veteran starters with more or less guaranteed starting positions who failed to hit .650. Olivo (.641), Ryan (.639) and Ichiro (.645). That's 1/3 of the starting lineup.
It's one thing to do a WAR example with a trio of players. It is another thing to start projecting aggregate WAR for a team when one of the first steps is plugging in $17 million for 0.0 WAR (Ichiro), which would be an improvement over his -0.4 from 2011. Whose 2012 projections start with negative WAR values for Guti and Ichiro and Figgins? Doesn't that play a part in the calculations over the efficacy of going after Fielder?
For that matter, Safeco has a history of wearing down hitters, especially righties. Is it really a reach to project Olivo to a negative WAR value for 2012 and beyond? Is Ryan going to suffer the same fate that Jack Wilson did the longer he stayed?
I believe the club has one more year of prospecting to do where it will have to wade through more negative WAR than one would like to find the pieces that will stick. And then, in 2013, not only will it know what it needs, it will also have Ichiro's money available. The combo should allow the club to extend the home grown parts that work AND go out and get a star from outside to fill an actual position of need.
Mathematically, the star + 4 rookies paradigm is only valid if one admits that it will likely take 6-8 rookies to find the 4 ... and there's certainly no guarantee of getting positive WAR from any of the rookie slots, much less an aggregate plus. That's part of the reality of prospects and a prime reason fans (and owners) are so ready to pay for Civics.
the one that is most commonly ignored when discussing stars and scrubs is that a LARGE portion of the scrub pool do not generate replacement level stats
Right-O amig-O.
This applies also when we add up a team's run differential in February. We forget to add in the players who will cost us runs. :- )
............
Agreed also that you've got to be prepared to run a Billy Beane-style carousel; that's part of Stars & Scrubs.
Where that carousel costs you 20 draws at the deck, you're going to burn some -RLP debt doing it. You bet.
..........
If the Mariners are forever doomed to flip through OF's of Saunders, Peguero, Halman, Wilson caliber, then they're forever doomed to pencil in low WAR returns from their Scrubs.
The hope is that the Mariners pulled 80% of those draws in 0H 2012, and that in 1H 2012 they are well-organized to make those Scrub draws work well.
For example, the 2012 Mike Carp has a better chance of offering 3.0 WAR for $450,000 than do a random collection of AAA left fielders.
One thing to be riffling through Beavan, Vasquez and Co. A different thing, we hope, to be riffling through James Paxton, Danny Hultzen and Co. :- )
Great response, Doc.
In closing, let me just say that I think the time to go big is after you have shrunk the number of 'likely' negative WAR positions (meaning, likely to have somebody generating negative WAR for a decent portion of the season in a given lineup slot), to a small number - (3, perhaps).
At this instant, I look at Mariners 2012 and see:
CA - negative WAR likely for large chunk of season
1B - probably okay - but - negative WAR possible
2B - safe
3B - negative WAR likely for some portion of season
SS - pretty safe - negative WAR unlikely - (glove holds up bat)
LF - negative WAR for chunk very likely
CF - negative WAR for chunk extremely likely
RF - negative WAR for entire season possible
DH - possibly safe, but negative WAR possible
I only see one position (2B) that can be tagged as safe from a significant portion of the PT being negative with a second (SS) in the vicinity. Part of the reason SS is questionable is that with Nick Franklin in the wings, the club may want to bring him up and he could potentially become Ryan's backup in the 2nd half. As with all prospects, when Franklin arrives, the risk of negative WAR will be present.
With Figgins still on the roster, his money means he's still likely to get a fair amount of PT. So, 3B takes a hit.
The OF situation is a nightmare. I like Casper and hope that Guti bounces back, but mostly I view the entire OF as again becoming a revolving door of auditions. If Ichiro gets more time at DH (to try and give him psuedo-rest), then that's more OF PT to cycle the prospects through.
The 2011 pattern suggest Jack can take the first half, look at what he's got and either call up new talent, or if it just isn't working, he'll trade for it.
But, ultimately, I view the middle infield as the only relatively safe bets for positive WAR for 2012. I just don't agree with the idea that the big move is a good idea when you're looking at 7 positions likely to generate negative WAR for a significant portion of the season.
Ideally, I'd want to feel comfortable with 6 positions before going long, (though I could settle for 5 if there's legitimate reason to be up on the specific prospects elsewhere). But, I personally only feel comfortable at one position, and think there is little data to support being comfortable with more than 2. I'm optimistic at several spots - but not comfortable.
So, WAR is a non-standarized statistic based in large part on defensive metrics that are subjective and prone to very large fluctuations, and to top it off Baseball Reference, Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus all calculate it differently - screw WAR, but for the purposes of this discussion...
Fangraphs had Ichiro at a positive 0.2 for last year and Gutierrez at positive 1.1 (they think Guti's pretty darn good at defense.)
In the past five years they have Guti at 1.8, 2.3, 6.3, 1.9, and 1.1. His second half of 2010 and all of last season where pretty dismal. But expecting him to run a negative WAR value presumes a further decline and precludes a bounce back after an offseason of recovery.
Predicting Ichiro for an entire season of negative WAR, in my opinion is pretty pessimistic. In fact predicting Ichiro at all seems to be a bit of a fool's errand. Past Fangraphs WARs run 6.1, 4.5, 5.6, 7.2, 3.4, 5.5, 6.0, 4.6, 5.4, 4.5, 0.2. If you can spot the pattern there - or spotted something in his actual game that indicates the aberration that was last season wasn't just bad luck driven (Ichiro's BABIP was .56 points below his career norm) - then good on yah.
-----
On the broader point, I'm in complete agreement. The 2012 Mariners have way too many question marks. However, wasn't the entire point of our second half of last season (2012.0) an effort to reduce the amount of question marks? Especially in regards to the OF, almost all of last year was spent sorting through the pile to find adequate options. Carp and Wells certainly elevated themselves to the top of that list.
You calculate 7 spots as "likely to generate negative WAR for a significant portion of the season" - (side note - going from "some" and "chunk" to "significant portion of the season" is a bit of a stretch). I take a much more optimistic view.
I see Ackley, Ryan, Smoak, Carp, and Ichiro as solid bets to produce positively. I view Gutierrez as a solid bounce back candidate and Olivo as likely to contribute a very small but somewhat positive number, but agree that both are question marks. I see Wells and Seager as very likely to contribute positively in platoon or part-time rolls, but again, agree that this is also a question mark.
So if you run an outfield of Carp, Guti, Ichiro with Wells as primary back-up. And an infield of Seager, Ryan, Ackley, Smoak? Are we really talking "7 positions likely to generate negative WAR for a significant portion of the season" - I just don't see that. I see the need to upgrade DH or LF depending on where you play Carp. Need an additional CF/RF back-up option. 3B could use a full time upgrade to shift Seager to super IF sub. And C needs a long term answer. I got 4.
Fielder makes it 3.
Guess it's really coming down to how people feel about the prospects we showcased last fall. I saw enough in Smoak, Carp, Wells and Seager to pencil them into contributing rolls. We all saw enough in Ackley.
----
Tragic news about Halman today - just goes to show that for any of us life is but a question mark - need to make the most of it.
- Ben.
Terrible thing about Halman. Just terrible.
---
Sandy, I just don't understand how you can "micromanage" the "arrival date" of your "big FA addition" so that they only come when you exactly need them.
Pre-2011 Fielder was an elite hitter. In 2011, he was one of a very, very few super-valuable hitters. Whacking the ball all over and only striking out in 15.3% of PAs.
You can't just count on being able to get a very highly elite hitter "on demand."
Moreover, you can use scouting and minor-league track record to make some educated guesses: At the very least during the period of a Fielder contract, it is very unlikely that Smoak, Carp and Seager all fail. It is very likely that one or more of Catricala, Chiang and Franklin will succeed.
Such was not true when Sexson, etc. were imported. There were no prospect hitters with a good chance of success, and none really in the pipeline.
Now, we have guys at the MLB level with a good chance of success, guys at the AA level with a good chance of success and guys at the lower levels with a good chance of success. It's just a different equation.
---
That being said, while I would strongly advocate signing Fielder and even overpaying for him, I don't think that it will actually work out.
Way to make the most of your last paragraph.
Wonder if there is ANYbody in the M's blog-o-sphere who sees more than a 10%, 20% chance of actually reeling Fielder in.
It's a theoretical discussion :- ) that is igniting quite real passion. LOL.
..........
Most of the time -- lemme say good-naturedly -- we take our visceral reaction to Fielder into the room, and then unravel 9,000 intellectual arguments for or against, to justify our visceral reactions. Guys like, or dislike, Fielder muchly, and then the debate begins ....
My own preference for Stars & Scrubs is probably visceral too -- I go to sports events to witness extraordinary things -- but it's a preference that I think happens (in this rare instance) to coincide with truth. ;- )
...........
Gimme [a Felix and a Paxton] any day, over [a Jeff Francis and a Shawn Marcum], and I'll go to war with my guys. But that makes a ball game.
Ha! Your comment Jeff that:
Most of the time -- lemme say good-naturedly -- we take our visceral reaction to Fielder into the room, and then unravel 9,000 intellectual arguments for or against, to justify our visceral reactions.
reminds me of oh so many arguments I had in school. I have always found that those who pride themselves the most on being "logical" as opposed to making "emotional" opinions are in fact full of it. I argue that we all start with what is essentially an emotional response - inherently a "first impression" or your "visceral reaction." And then, through the filter of our own life experiences, we puruse through the data at hand. We latch on and identify with the data points that fit into our initial hypothesis. Why? Because they feel right.
A logical mind would argue that they think in a manner of "given X and Y therefor Z " - whereas I think it's much more human to go "I think Z, therefor lets find X and Y that agree with me."
Believing that, I have come to respect those who look at a dataset as a way to disprove their current beliefs much more than those who look to find data that reinforces those beliefs. Science pretty much operates on this principle. You put forward a hypothesis. You test it. You reject it. You put forward another one.
All to often, as evidence by your many posts today, we find in the baseball "sabermetric" world an intellectual dishonestly that is the search for reaffirmation of their ideas, rather than the realizing that their proferred idea is a hypothesis, and only by testing and rejecting an hypothesis can we get closer to the truth.
In politics, in baseball, in whatever forum really, be wary of the echo chambers.
-Ben.
-----
Dropping this response into this thread instead of the many other more recent ones seems somewhat inappropriate - oh well.
Anyone who loudly asserts that they are a "free thinker" who is entirely driven by reason and facts is likely to be just as dogmatic as anyone else, if not more so. Such claims are the product of arrogance, not honest self-analysis and as such lead to an insufferable, demeaning attitude. Such people can not distinguish between their opinion and fact because they have deluded themselves into thinking that they are soooooo smart and sooooo worldly and soooooo logical that their every belief is unassailable truth. Therefor, if someone disagrees with them it MUST be because the other person is ignorant and irrational.
This is exactly the issue with Cameron and his post is the perfect demonstration. He claims to be driven by facts, yet belittles someone for having a differing point of view and writing a "screed"... and then launches into a long, angry rant. What Cameron wrote is not insightful, it is not fact driven, it is not the product of deliberative thought. It is a partisan outburst of anger whereby the author reflexively takes the most extreme opposite position in order to avoid granting the the other person even the slightest degree of legitimacy.
As for the argument itself, the huge logical failing with what he wrote is that when a team does terribly, then obviously a lot of bad decisions were made (this is why not mentioning the good decisions isn't a problem; if the team had a lot of things work out then it wouldn't have been so awful). But merely listing the bad decisions doesn't explain WHY those decisions were made, and simply stating the the team was the "worst run baseball operations department" isn't an answer. So not a single word in that "screed" actually supports the central claim which is that the "Mariners failures over the last 10 years have absolutely nothing to do with desire to win". Such an incredibly strong assertion would require a completely different line of argument and body of evidence than that proffered. It would also require an enormous amount of inference which is inherently subjective and limited which makes it even tougher to support such an absolute claim.
Spec,
Maybe my position can be viewed as micromanagement. I dunno.
I accept that there are no guarantees about being able to land any particular player at any particular date. As many have noted, the odds of landing Fielder this year are not good.
My view is that signing Fielder *at this time* would ultimately be detrimental to the Ms win/loss column - both short and long term. But, I believe a Fielder (or a similar star) could quite likely be the best move the Ms could make a year from now. This is not just an objection to Fielder - but any superstar bat.
The truth is, 5 years ago, I would've probably been just as eager to add someone like Fielder. The math says its a pretty safe way to add 5 wins, and with Ichiro money freeing up in 2013, another 5-win addition then (plus the expected improvement from the prospects) seems to add up well.
But, having watched the Bavasi plan unravel ... having watched the piston engine win totals from 2006-2010 ... I came to realize that (as many have stated) it is very true that building a winning team is about more than math. And my studies of history and examination of winners and losers has led me to the conclusion that it is far more critical to build your CORE internally than is generally appreciated.
The typical reality is that if a team adds an every day player that is the "best bat" the day he arrives, it is 4+ years (or never) before they reach the playoffs in nearly every case. Detroit has been raised as an example of building through purchase. But the year BEFORE they acquired Mags, they added 30 wins with Inge, Monroe, Guillen and Pena all making the transition to solid MLB regulars with FULL seasons of success under their belts. Yet, even when Mags arrived, the club got 1 game worse that first season. This was despite the fact the club added Shelton and Granderson to the mix in 2005.
Detroit actually had 5 different non-star players hit over .800 the year BEFORE they added Mags. The club didn't build around Mags. They added Mags to a base. And it was Guillen, not Mags who was the offensive leader of that 2006 WS team. Guillen hit .900 the year before Mags arrived. And he hit .900 the year they went to the WS.
Seattle did not have 5 developing players hit .800 this year. They had 1 guy (Liddi) finish over .800. They had two guys (Ackley and Carp) finish over .750, and neither of those guys got 400 PAs this year.
I think 2012 for Seattle has a good shot at becoming the 2004 season in Detroit. But I firmly believe bringing in a better bat than anyone already in place will be detrimental to the team. Just I noted bringing Griffey back could help for one year, (but would hurt for two).
I do, however, appreciate that while I have plenty of historical references to support me, I have no math. There isn't any math that says "adding a star to a bad team will cost you X games". But, history certainly suggests that adding a star to a bad team is unlikely to add wins. AROD to Texas -1 win. Mags to Detroit -1 win. Griffey to Cinci -10 wins.
Adding a 100 (ish) meh bat who jumps up and becomes an MVP candidate (Pendleton in Atlana -- Guillen in Detroit -- Huff in San Fran ) seems to be the much more common thread in regards to turning bad franchises around than adding high priced superstar players.
My belief is that absent Fielder, the 2012 Ms will make greater strides forward. My belief is that absent Fielder, a true star will emerge in Seattle that CAN be built around. My belief is that if the above is true, then the odds of landing a high priced FA improve, and the cost to bring them in also drops. I believe that with Fielder, prospect development is more likely to move backward than forward. I believe that after a decade of trivializing the importance of player development, Seattle is more prone to losing ground they've gained recently than most other organizations, (it matters where you were yesterday as well as where you are today).
I also accept that it is impossible to ever know the results of the route not taken. I accept that if this club wins 85 games this year (w/o Fielder), many will suggest that if he had been acquired, the team would have won over 90. I believe that the complexity of clubhouse chemistry makes that unlikely. In fact, I believe adding Fielder would be more likely to cost an 85-win Mariners team 5 wins than add to them. But, there's certainly no way to ever prove this.
I believe that the first year you spend large on a FA, the odds of being patient thereafter go down. Not just because Bavasi wouldn't wait on Morse or Dobbs or Jones. But, because I've seen the same thing in other orgs. Detroit saw their payroll balloon to $137 million chasing after titles via FA ... and they only made it back to the playoffs after they started cutting payroll and developing talent internally again.
It's important to remember that in 2003, the club still had Carlos Guillen, (who would go on to lead Detroit to their WS in 2006). They had guys like Choo and Morse and Asdrubal Caberra and Adam Jones in the pipe line. The club ELECTED to purchase the services of guys like Jose Guillen, Jose Vidro, Carl Everett rather than give legitimate auditions to guys like Choo and Morse and Cabrerra and Jones.
And, of course, picking up major FAs typically costs you draft picks. So, the system is set up to penalize player development when you spend large on the big name FAs.
I readily admit that my position is significantly intuitive. While there is some history to back me up, it's certainly not a scientifically rigorous methodology that I am relying on. I could be wrong. I've been watching teams like the Mets and Cubs play the FA Tango for years. At this point I think it obvious that roster construction is about a lot more than simple numbers. And while I claim no monopoly on explaining clubhouse chemistry, I have a working theory and some data that supports it.
For those arguing that bringing in a big bat like Fielder will help make the rest of the team better ... I've looked for supporting data and found far more refuting data.