kramnoj

Here is the list of the Top 10 Projected Hitters per John Dewan, owner of Baseball Info Solutions. Hitter Age 2009 Team Runs Created Albert Pujols 29 Cardinals 159 Miguel Cabrera 26 Tigers 135 Ryan Braun 25 Brewers 134 David Wright 26 Mets 134 Josh Hamilton 28 Rangers 131 Hanley Ramirez 25 Marlins 131 Ryan Howard 29 Phillies 130 Mark Teixeira 29 Yankees 130 Alex Rodriguez 33 Yankees 128 Lance Berkman 33 Astros 127 from: http://actasports.com/sows.php That's a pretty amazing projection for Braun. Basically it has him being about 90% as good as his rookie season over a full season.

"Seem", did someone use the word "seem"? Seems like an opinion based on watching Brewer baseball. I don't believe that I ever said that people can't have opinions based on observation. I don't even think I said people shouldn't share observations. But I do believe people shouldn't just ignore defensive data because it doesn't match what their own perceptions are. kramnoj, how well do you know the subject? Questions about the raw data and methodology aren't new. Most of what I know is based on this article: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/what_is_zone_rating/

AKA Pete, if you can't answer the simple question of what concepts are flawed, I question whether you really know the subject. It's not that difficult a concept. 3Putt, I'm not sure what the point of that was. If you can find one person here who said that Hall is so great he deserves a Gold Glove, that would be helpful. Not every point has to be dramatic. Hall's defense was valuable last year. That's really all that anybody has said here. I think one other thing should be emphasized. Hall did seem to improve as the year went on, which wouldn't exactly be unexpected as he gained more experience at the position. For some people, they may have formed the impression from early on that Hall wasn't doing well, which would make it more difficult to change that perception once Hall actually improved. That's the other tough thing about using one's own observation as a judgment of a players ability. Once an opinion has been formed, it is only natural to filter subsequent information through that opinion.

Again, visual evidence is a helpful compliment to stats. Either alone gives an incomplete picture. I'm not sure how this relates to the questions asked. What visual evidence are you talking about? The visual evidence of the scorer who rules on what an error is, which then becomes a stat? Or your visual evidence? You seem to have based the statement "You'll never convince me this guy is above average defensively" at least in part on Hall's error total.

I think zone ratings are conceptually flawed and use questionable raw data. There is no way to say that it is "objective" without an examination of the system and that is impossible. Why is it impossible? There are descriptions of what Zone Rating is for anybody interested. What concepts of Zone Rating do you think are flawed, and how is the raw data questionable?

I'm basing it on the fact that he led the league in errors before being platooned. So if you think that errors mean that a player is bad, what do you think of lack of errors? Where does Braun rank among LF while not being charged with an error all year last year? Just knowing that Hall lead the league in errors doesn't tell us much about his defensive ability. It doesn't tell us anything about plays that he makes that other players don't.

Why is observation the worst way? Why should range be rated so highly by defensive metrics when the fewest defensive plays will come at the extremes? Because the observation is made by people who are ruled by emotion, watching an event they care about. It would be incrediby difficult to ignore all the vested emotion from the observation of the play. Also because the average fan watching a game doesn't watch enough other games to truly know what "average" is at that position across baseball at any given time. he boots way too many routine plays and his arm is too inaccurate to be a plus defender yet he's consistently rated as such due to his range. I may be misunderstanding you, but Hall doesn't rate well in UZR because of his "range". He rated as above average last year because, of all players who played 3B last year, Hall made more plays than the average player. UZR doesn't differentiate if those plays are rangy, or if they are hit right to him. It's also important to realize that Hall being above average last year doesn't mean he is an above average 3B. It just means that he performed above average last year. In his career, Hall has played 197 Games at 3B and is rated as 4.6. But people who study defensive stats say that you need 2 full years of fielding data to equal one year of offensive data. And those people would say that you probably want two years of offensive data to get a better picture of a player than one year. So you almost need 4 years of defensive data to get a true definition of a players ability. And then there's the probability that any given player is going to change physically over 4 years. So defensive data is best used to determine their value after the fact.

His defense was not good to the human eye no matter what stat you bring up. His offense was offensive. He is selfish and does not like to make adjustments except for his stances. One of the coaches told me he was an "excuse maker." How can you separate your bias against him as you demonstrate here from your ability to evaluate his defense objectively? You already have the conclusion that you don't like him, so it's only natural for you to frame your observation of him to meet your belief of him.

He was below average defensively in 2008 as he's consistantly been from the start of his career. Think about what this means. If you are going to evaluate Hall based on your observation, then you have to compare him to all players at his position. That doesn't mean that you can just compare it to the games you watch. You have to compare it to every game that player makes. There is no way that anybody can truly evaluate a player based on the plays they observe and compare them to all players at their positions. You can compare their tools. You can compare the plays that you observed. But at some point, if you want to be fair in your evaluation, you need to rely on objective comparisons of all the plays that are made. Another thing to keep in mind is that one year of defensive data is not defining of a players ability. It only is meant to describe how that player did in that year. Think of it like batting average. BA can vary widely year from year. BA from one year wouldn't encompass the players ability. Just their performance in a single year.

I realize it's not the only stat out there but it's hard to believe the player leading the league in errors is above average defensively. Errors are only given when a player is close to a ball and the play isn't made. If a player doesn't even get to the ball, they won't get charged with an error. It's not that unusual for a player with a higher error total to be better defensively than other players at the same position (and the converse would be true as well). For a lot of fans, the only thing they know about a defensive player is errors, and they may look at fielding percentage. They couldn't tell you how many plays a player makes in a game, how that compares to other players at their position, and how that may be influenced by the pitcher on the mound.

My fault, VORP -5.4. Amongst the worst in the league and THE worst on the Brewers. But that is offense only, so it doesn't represent the total contribution of Hall.

Per http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090304&content_id=3915730&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb&partnerId=rss_mlb "Ramirez accepted the same deal the Dodgers offered last Wednesday -- two years, $45 million ($25 million in 2009, $20 million in 2010), payment deferred over five years without interest, with an opt-out clause after one season paid at $10 million each for the first four years and $5 million for the fifth. " McCourt just doesn't seem to have the cashflow to support this team. The Dodgers have done fairly well under his ownership, but I have to think that all this deferring is going to fall in the lap of somebody someday.

You have no way to claim that if he is overpaid, it will be significant. Why not? Are you sure you know what Lee's remaning contract is? He is owed $18.5M per year through 2012. Right now, if we just take Fangraphs value as the baseline, the Astros are ahead $4M for the first two years. Lee's highest value was last year at $15.3M and his second highest is 2004 at $14.9M. If I average the last three years, his average value has been $12.47M/year. If I just say that Lee will be worth $12.5M per year over the next 4 years, the Astros will have overpaid by $6M/year for 4 years. For the life of the contract, they will have overpaid by $20M. There's a lot of assumptions in there. There is the assumption that value wins are maintained at the same salary level over the next 4 years. Its my belief that they will decrease in 2009, and probably in 2010, and I don't have a reasonable guess for the last two years. There is the assumption that he will maintain a high level of performance and durability through his age 36 season. I think it's likely that the Astros will have overpaid by $20M, and I think it's highly possible that they will end up overpaying closer to $30-$35M by the end of the deal.

Lee's contract is not "bad" at this point Sure it is. In his career year he wasn't worth what he will be paid each year over the next 4 years. The only way that Lee's contract doesn't end up as a significant overpay is if the Astros revenue increases by an incredible, unforseen amount.

Leading off an inning other than the 1st inning, per baseball-reference.com on individual player splits. Weeks 119 PA Kendall 126 PA Fielder 178 PA Hall 99 PA Hardy 120 PA Braun 113 PA Cameron 121 PA Hart 128 PA

Fangraph is wrong on this one. Hall's value was negative last season. He was -5.7 games, the worst on the Brewers. He was overpaid. Where is -5.7 games from? One of the reasons that Hall does well in Fangraphs is because of his defense. Some people can't get past his errors, but he was a plus defender last year.

Per http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090302&content_id=3906464&vkey=news_oak&fext=.jsp&c_id=oak the A's have signed Orlando Cabrera to a 1 year $4M deal. Because the A's first round pick is protected, the White Sox will get the A's 2nd round pick (as well as the sandwich pick) as compensation. My first reaction was surprise that Beane would give up a 2nd round pick for a one year deal, but he probably figures he can offer arby next year and maybe get equivalent value (or possibly better). The A's have a decent shot at the division this year with a little luck for them and some bad luck for the Angels. Money wise it's a good deal, and Crosby hasn't been able to stay healthy enough or be good enough to rely on for this year.

Jacobs is awful defensively, worse than Fielder, according to some metrics. There are also projections out there that have prospects for the Royals who are expected to do almost as well offensively, while offering better defense at lower cost.

Thing is the Royals are already paying Farnsworth $4.5m and Mahay $4m while running Mike Jacobs and his $3.25m salary out to1B in the best 1B/DH market ever. As far as I can tell, the only 1B/DH market remaining is The Big Hurt. I'm not sure he would go play in KC for a couple mil. You could make the point that the Royals should have not traded for Jacobs and signed Abreu/Giambi, etc, but there was no way of knowing that those players would choose to sign in KC. Cruz is a nice player but the Royals are actually covered for set up men while thin almost everywhere else. Cruz is only making $2.25M this year. He will presumably be worth his salary and find enough IP.

This isn't a franchise-crippling Jeff Suppan-esque deal. I find it hard to consider Suppan's deal crippling, considering he was a major part of the two best teams the Brewers have had over the last 16 years. This year he will be significantly overpaid for his expected production, but he should be better than any other pitcher lower on the roster. Next year, sure, it could be ugly, but I don't think one out of 4 years is crippling.

Per http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090228&content_id=3897376&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb Juan Cruz has signed a deal that will pay him $2.25 million for this year, $3.25 million for 2010 and a club option for $4 million for '11 with a $500,000 buyout. The article says that the Royals are giving up their 2nd round pick to get Cruz. The Royals really seem to be trying to make a push. Who knows, with a fair amount of luck, they could maybe win the division with a mid-80 win season.

I think the Dodgers made the offer with deferred money because they don't have the money this year to give him the full salary guaranteed. If you look at some of the contracts the Dodgers have made recently, quite a few of them are backloaded. Look at the buyout they made with Andruw this year as well. It's not like the Dodgers were trying to defer money to make more payroll room for anyone else this year. The most likely reason is they did so because they have to. Maybe they will extend their line of credit and give in to Boras demands. But I don't think it's a sure thing.

Thank you for the link. So I was right in thinking that they were at their budget limit and wrong in thinking they wouldn't have room to make a move if one became available. Well, I thought they would think about it once the time came, but wasn't sure they had been vocal about it.

Attanasio has said they will be able to spend money mid-season if they're in a position to win again. I know he said this before the Looper signing, did he say so afterwards? I thought the discussion for awhile was that the Brewers could sign one more starter before ST or go with what they had and acquire something mid-season. It was my impression that with the Looper signing and the room for Gagne's incentives if he makes the team would eat up the rest of the Brewers budget.

So was the report about basketball, or was it about baseball? The sports are different enough that the troubles of the NBA can't be attributed directly to baseball. I also think it should be clarified if what you saw actually talked about teams not being able to make payroll, or if they would just cut bait early to save money. Those aren't the same thing.