Printable View
He fielded a competitive team last year, whether or not they're underlying statistics say they "should have" been competitive. This year's team isn't a joke and if Bedard gives them 25-30 starts, they do have a reasonable chance of at least staying in the race until September. I'm not saying they're going to be close to the Angels, but they have a chance of competing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Well one of the major problems with the M's this year is the fact that Vidro is their DH. This forces Ibanez, an awful outfielder, to man left field and the equally awful Brad Wilkerson to man right field. Also it blocks Wladimir Balentien and Jeff Clement from having any role on the Major League team at any point this year. That fact that he thought Vidro would be an acceptable DH makes that trade terrible. Add in the money owed him and the possible vesting option for 2009, and it just makes the situation worse.
I really don't think so, HGM. The Mariners really aren't a great team. They might "compete" until July, but that's probably it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The Mariners are bad, and Bedard is hurt. This really isn't about who is worse, it is about Bavasi and how bad he is. It may look he might compete...but in the reality of it all, he is barely surviving. He is the worst GM in the MLB.
Giants Payroll: $76,904,500
Mariner Payroll: $117,993,982
Difference: 41million dollars... So I guess Sabean is smart, he can spend 41million dollars less and still suck.
Hey, we've had some bad ones in Chicago over the years. 100 years of losing should prove that fact.
Competive != great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
So, which is it? Is it about how bad he is, or about who's worse? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I agree that he's horrible.
That's not much of a difference when you actually get down to the make up of the payroll. Carlos Silva, Adrian Beltre, and Ichiro Suzuki make up that $41 million. Silva was a poor signing, but compare that to Sabean's recent free agent pitcher signing...Quote:
Giants Payroll: $76,904,500
Mariner Payroll: $117,993,982
Difference: 41million dollars... So I guess Sabean is smart, he can spend 41million dollars less and still suck.
You have to be good to compete though. The Mariners aren't good.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
We'll see. They did compete last year, which is my point. At least Bavasi has fielded a competitive team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
The last time the Giants were competitive was 2004...the last year of Barry Bonds' monstrous peak. Coincidence?
Without Barry Bonds there to make Sabean's teams look respectable, Sabean would've been gone a long time ago. Bonds impact was clear.
Look at this:
2004, the team had an OPS+ total of 111, which is really good for a whole team (Boston in 2007 was 107, for example). They had 3 even semi-regular players above 100 - Snow who played 107 games, Durham who played 120 games, and Bonds.
2003, team OPS+ of 106. This team was more balanced, with but take away Bonds, and they're highest OPS+ was 118 by part-timer Andres Gallaragga, and they had a total of 4 players above their previous average of 106...and that's even including every player, regardless of playing time.
2002, team OPS+ of 116. Jeff Kent and Bonds were the only guys above 110.
2001, team OPS+ of 117. Kent, Aurilia, and Bonds were the only players above 110.
To illustrate just how much Bonds affected those averages, look at the afformentioned 2007 Red Sox with a team OPS+ of 107. They had 6 players above 110. Bonds was routinely the only, or one of a couple, players above 110, yet his team's routinely had an OPS+ above 110 - because his OPS+ was 16 billion.
Bonds is the only reason Sabean still has a job - Bonds made Sabean's teams good.
And that was my point. At least Bavasi has fielded a competitive team. Sabean sans Bonds hasn't, and we shouldn't give Sabean credit for Bonds.
You mean 100 years, not having won it all once. The Cubs have not posted 100 years of <.500 seasons. Tired of hearing Cubs fan *****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
Well first of all, I wasn't *****, I was actually making fun of that fact that its been forever since we've had a WS winner.
Plus we are just as tired of hearing you people ***** about us because we support our team even when they play bad, unlike most fans.
You know, the funny thing about that is it creates an atmosphere of mediocrity. Cubs fans support their team regardless, so what's the motivation for the Front Office to really lay out the cash to get that last piece of the puzzle and win a championship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
exactly, we've always been happy with having that one or two good players and I believe until recently the front office worried more about making money than spending it.
Actually, I get pretty pissed when when we lose.:mad:
It doesn't matter how pissed you get. You still go to the games, watch on TV, and/or purchase merchandise. That's the real measure of fan satisfaction.
I don't know about GM's, but Jeffrey Loria is not only possibly the worst owner in baseball, but probably all of professional sports.
He makes Mark Cuban and Dan Snyder look competent (at least those two have fielded winning teams without feeling the need to fire sale the whole roster the next season).
He gripes incessantly about the poor quality of Dolphins Stadium (admittedly, football stadiums aren't great for baseball), but there are plenty of worse stadiums in the majors...Shea, Oakland Coliseum, the Metrodome, and, until last year, possibly the worst stadium ever used for Major LEague Baseball, RFK...which succeeded the second worst ever, Olympic in Montreal.
He fired the brightest young managerial prospect in the sport for disagreeing with him over arguing with the umpires. I know the talent level is disparate, but if Girardi could make the 2006 Marlins competetive, imagine what he can do with the Yankees lineup...and I say this as a Red Sox fan.
On top of which, this is the second MLB franchise he's raped, pillaged, and destroyed. If not for him, I think the Expos might have survived.
And now that the city of Miami and the state of Florida have caved in and are giving him his new stadium, do you think he'll actually field a competetive team? Will he raise payroll? Or is he simply going to rake in the profits from the new yard a la Peter Angelos and watch his record stay in the cellar?
In regards to Loria, don't forget all the untold millions he pockets from the league revenue sharing system. As far as I know, this data is unavailable to the public as to just how each team spends the revenue shares they receive annually. But it seems fairly apparent that all Loria has done with the money is to pocket it and continue to lament the poor financial situation down in Miami. I agree, he is truly awful.
But I am curious as to why you referenced Mark Cuban when you said Loria makes Cuban look competent. I'm also an NBA fan and think he has done a lot for basketball in Dallas. He revitalized the Mavericks franchise, made it a destination for free agents when it previously wasn't, presided over a team that should have won the title(but got absolutely jobbed by the refs and their infatuation with DWade and Shaq), and other than the knee-jerk Jason Kidd trade this season, has done a pretty good job in drafting/scouting/trading. Sure he runs his mouth every now and then, but personally, I think it's kind of refreshing. Juuuust thought I'd ask.:D
Mostly in reference to his interfering in the operations of the franchise. Cuban and Snyder (I'm a Redskins fan, so I'm intimately acquainted with this one) are both famous for interfering to an extreme amount in on-the-field (court) operations. Cuban has had more success than Snyder, who has had more success than Loria, but none of them have been successful to the point that I believe it justifies their involvement on-field this way.
By the way, I think Barry Zito is single-handedly proving Brian Sabean to be the worst GM in baseball. :p Of course, it's only a little more than a year into the contract, but players that throw 90 and have been progressively losing veocity and then drop to 83 generally don't gain that velocity back. I wholeheartedly believe that Barry Zito will go down as the worst free agent contract in history. Handing out that much money for that long to a player who showed signs of decline is just incompetence at its worst.
I brought this up on another forum. Darren Dreifort got $55 million, he hadn't accomplished anything in his career up to that point, and only lasted 2 out of 7 years on the contract before he was out of the game. At least Zito had previously accomplished something (even if that Cy Young Award was the voters endorsement of Moneyball more than a deserved honor)
Zito did accomplish more prior to the contract, but Dreifort hadn't accomplished "nothing." He had 3 consecutive years of league average performance, and his contract was only 5 years. It cost the Dodgers $70 million less than Zito is costing the Giants. The gigantic cost of the Zito salary is why it's way worse than the Dreifort contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Yes, but he had shown many signs that he was declining, from both a statistical and a scouting viewpoint, and Sabean completely ignored it (or didn't even bother to look) before handing out a gigantic long-term contract. It's incompetence. Dreifort had been the same pitcher for 3 consecutive years, and nobody can foresee injury, which is what ruined Dreifort's career.Quote:
At least Zito had previously accomplished something
:confused: :eek: Voters endorsement of Moneyball? I'm sorry, but that's hilarious. If there's any group of people that don't endorse Moneyball, it's the BBWAA. His Cy Young award was not an endorsement of Moneyball - it was, in fact, because the voters follow a principle that is one of the most basic tenets of "Moneyball" and statistical analysis. The voters believe that the W is the ultimate pitching statistic. Barry Zito had 23 wins, 2 more than runner-up Pedro Martinez, despite Pedro Martinez being the far better pitcher that year. He won the award because of an outdated view of pitching statistics, not because of an endorsement for a book which preached sophisticated statistical analysis, the very thing that many BBWAA members refuse to look at it.Quote:
(even if that Cy Young Award was the voters endorsement of Moneyball more than a deserved honor)
Haha its so true. Although it looks like Andruw Jones might be finished as well. It seems odd that he is over the hill at what, 31?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
one word-- lazyQuote:
Although it looks like Andruw Jones might be finished as well.
Yep, but the Jones deal is only two years, so while it may turn out to be a waste of money, the team wasn't on the hook for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by QHowes
Jones drop-off may seem odd, but it's nothing that's never happened before. Take a look at Dale Murphy, who went from one of the greatest hitters in the game to a dud at age 32. (His 1982-1987 peak was very impressive, especially considering he only missed 5 games in all those 5 years)
I dont get much coverage of Dodgers games in Ontario but he looks terrible at the plate. Bat speed just isnt there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
Jones peaked early, too. Remember he debuted - spectacularly - in the 96 Series at only 19. His production declined in his contract year, too, from the monster 2005 he had, when he completely carried the Braves team to a division title, almost single-handedly, and should've been the league MVP.
Are you a Braves fan, by any chance?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Not necessarily the book "Moneyball" but the concept as applied by Billy Beane. Perhaps I should have said it was an expression of the voters crush on Beane. Or do you want to say that Tejada and Giambi deserved their MVP's too? I'm sorry, I just don't see that any of the three of them were deserving of those honors - or the big contracts that followed them, and I think the media was enamoured with the small-market, feel-good success story of the early-2000's A's.
No, actually, a Red Sox fan. I do have a soft spot for certain Braves since I grew up watching them in the minors (I live in Virginia, soon to be ex-home of the Braves AAA team), but I honestly think that Andruw Jones was the most valuable player in the NL that year. Take him and his bat, and his defense, off that team, and they don't finish .500, much less win the division.
The same voters that routinely write articles about how much they hate Billy Beane? The same voters, some of which have claimed Brian Sabean is a better GM?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Barry Zito did not deserve the Cy Young award, but as I said, it wasn't because of Moneyball that he won. He won because he had 23 wins.Quote:
Or do you want to say that Tejada and Giambi deserved their MVP's too? I'm sorry, I just don't see that any of the three of them were deserving of those honors - or the big contracts that followed them, and I think the media was enamoured with the small-market, feel-good success story of the early-2000's A's.
Miguel Tejada did not deserve the MVP award - Alex Rodriguez did. Tejada won it because he was on a playoff team and A-Rod was on a last place team.
Jason Giambi did not deserve the MVP award - Alex Rodriguez did, but Giambi wasn't a bad choice, like Tejada was. He had a legitimately phenomenal season, as did Frank Thomas and Carlos Delgado. Giambi won it because the voters are too dumb to take into account position - A-Rod's offensive performance, which was lower than Giambi but close, is much more valuable than Giambi's because he was a shortstop, but the voters don't understand that.
Albert Pujols hit .330/.430/.609 (168 OPS+) with 41 homers, 16 sb (only 2 CS), 117 RBI, and ridiculously good first base defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
Jones hit .263/.347/.575 (136 OPS+) with 51 homers, 128 RBI,and good center field defense.
Using some more advanced stats, such as Equivalent Average - which is total offensive production, adjusted for league and park, and put on the same scale as batting average (.260 is average). Pujols had .340, Jones had .300.
Using WARP3, which is Wins Above Replacement Player and includes defense - Pujols had 10.5, Jones had 7.6.
The only category where Jones was better than Pujols was home runs. Pujols was a much more valuable overall player.
Statistically, perhaps. But that "V" in MVP to me means value to his team. The Cardinals probably would have been a playoff team without Pujols...they had Rolen, Edmonds, Mark Mulder, Chris Carpenter...
The Braves were, on paper, the fourth best team in that division that year. And that was before they lost Chipper Jones for the whole year. They had more rookies starting by the end of the season than any other team in the league. And sure, some of those rookies have panned out okay...Francoeur and McCann, to name a couple...but that was a team that realistically should have finished behind the Mets, Phillies, and Marlins, and they won the division. Now, I could talk about the chronic underachieving of those other teams, too, but I still think the biggest criteria for an MVP is to look at where his team would have been without him.
Not to say Pujols didn't have a great season, but he didn't carry the Cardinals single-handedly the way Jones did the Braves. But, then, Pujols deserved the MVP a couple of times before that, but lost to Bonds' astronomical and artificial numbers, so perhaps it was justice for Albert.
Okay, but that doesn't lessen Pujols' value...He provided more value to his team than Andruw Jones did.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckwillard
According to an advanced metric like WARP, the Cardinals would have been roughly 10 wins worse if they had a replacement-level player instead of Pujols. The Braves would have been roughly 7 wins worse with a replacement-level player instead of Jones.Quote:
Now, I could talk about the chronic underachieving of those other teams, too, but I still think the biggest criteria for an MVP is to look at where his team would have been without him.
We can also look at win shares. Jones had 23 win shares. 3 win shares = 1 win. Jones was worth roughly 8 wins accoridng to win shares. Pujols had 38 win shares. Pujols was worth nearly 13 wins according to win shares.
Overall, including both Pujols and Jones, the Braves and Cardinals had nearly equal offenses. They each had 104 OPS+. The Cardinals scored about 35 more runs (which, statistically, is roughly 3.5 wins...which is roughly what win-based metrics say Pujols was worth above Jones...). The Braves had more above-average hitters overall. Disregarding playing time, the Braves had 9 hitters with a 100 OPS+ or better, all of which had 200+ plate appearances. The Cardinals had 6, 4 of which had 200+ plate appearances. The only player that the Cardinals got nearly a full-season of production from besides Pujols was Jim Edmonds. Larry Walker and Reggie Sanders were good, but played 100 and 93 games respectively.
Looking at the numbers more, Pujols did single-handedly carry that offense, with help from Edmonds. Jones didn't single-handedly carry the Braves' offense. The Braves had a much more balanced overall offense.
Without Pujols, the Cardinals would have had a below average offense. The Braves had a solid offense with or without Jones.
He lost to Bonds because Bonds provided more value to his team than he did.Quote:
Not to say Pujols didn't have a great season, but he didn't carry the Cardinals single-handedly the way Jones did the Braves. But, then, Pujols deserved the MVP a couple of times before that, but lost to Bonds' astronomical and artificial numbers, so perhaps it was justice for Albert.
I watch as many Dodgers' games as I can and Jones has been terrible. His swing is just awful and making us wish for the return of Pierre to centerfield (which is saying a lot because I hate Pierre and we're saddled with his contract for another four years).Quote:
Originally Posted by QHowes
You also have to remember what a replacement player is. It isn't the guy on the bench but an Average Triple Player...
So if Pujols had a decent backup on his team, he wouldn't be as valuable as if Jones had no backup, or a Triple Type player.... just for example.
Whoever the team has behind a player as a backup doesn't change the value of that player though. When comparing players, we need to compare them based on the value of what they themselves did, and comparing players to the same baseline (in WARP's case, replacement level), is one way to do that. Comparing players while taking into account who their actual replacement would be is unfair to those players.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Take two players of the same position on different teams - one who hits .300/.400/.500 and another who hits .280/.340/.450. The first player is obviously more valuable. His team, though, has a backup capable of hitting .280/.340/.450 himself, while the second player's team has a backup that hits .230/.300/.330. Does that change what those two original players actually provided to their team? No. The first player still gave his team more production than the second player.
I mean, take this to the extreme. A player hits .350/.450/.700 and his team is so outstanding that his back-up hits .330/.430/.600. Another player hits .270/.330/.430 and his team sucks so much that his backup hits .200/.230/.250. Is the .270/.330/.430 player more valuable than the .350/.450/.700 player? No way. The backups don't change the production of the starters.
yes but the backups change the value of that player.
No, they don't. If they did, in my example, the .280/.340/.450 hitter is more valuable than the .300/.400/.500, and the .270/.330/.430 hitter is more valuable than the 350/.450/.700 hitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
They change the production that that specific team would get if the starting player went down with an injury - and that's the value of the backup player. They don't change the value that the starting player provides while he plays.
What happens if the productive hitter gets hurt, who replaces him?
Whoever the backup is..Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
The drop of production, though is not reflective of the productive hitter's value, but the backup's value.