Dumbest GM in Baseball

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

At least Zito had previously accomplished something

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.

(even if that Cy Young Award was the voters endorsement of Moneyball more than a deserved honor)

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 He won the award because of an outdated view of pitching statistics, not because of an endorsement for a book which preached sophisticated statistical analysis, the very thing that many BBWAA members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.

[QHowes]

By the way, I think Barry Zito is single-handedly proving Brian Sabean to be the worst GM in baseball. 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.

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?

[Reade]

Although it looks like Andruw Jones might be finished as well.

one word-- lazy

[HoustonGM]

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?

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.

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)

[QHowes]

one word-- lazy

I dont get much coverage of Dodgers games in Ontario but he looks terrible at the plate. Bat speed just isnt there.

[chuckwillard]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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?

[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.

[chuckwillard]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

Albert Pujols hit .330/.430/.609 (168 OPS+) with 41 homers, 16 sb (only 2 CS), 117 RBI, and ridiculously good first base defense.

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.

[chuckwillard]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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...

Okay, but that doesn't lessen Pujols' value...He provided more value to his team than Andruw Jones did.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He lost to Bonds because Bonds provided more value to his team than he did.

[nuzzy62]

I dont get much coverage of Dodgers games in Ontario but he looks terrible at the plate. Bat speed just isnt there.

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).

[boomboom]

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.