rluzinski

A team's 7th best reliever isn't very good by definition, so what are you going to do? I didn't like seeing Julio called upon there but I can understand Macha's thinking. I doubt his replacement is very good, either.

We are talking in circles now. You think Sheets performance wasn't worth $20 mil because he wasn't available in the playoffs? That's fine. Fangraphs is looking at the regular season only. They are saying his 3.1 ERA over 200 IP during the regular season is worth $20 on the open market. Duduct whatever you deem appropriate for Sheets not playing in the playoffs. I agree that in your hypathetical, teams wouldn't pay as much but it's pretty unquantifiable. Now if you or anyone else want to continue arguing that his missed starts during the regular season is not being considered, I will continue to contend that it is. I've already explained why I think if anything, it's overstated. No where else to really go with it. I think there's a very good chance Sheets doesn't play this year. That means teams will have to come up with their ERA and IP estimates for Sheets next year. It will be interesting to see what he's offered, if healthy. Trying to project playing time for Sheets is tough, to say the least. A 3.5 ERA over 80 innings is worth $7 mil. I could see him getting a 1 year deal in that range.

Don't think it is as true as he claims, but I do believe Suppan recieved more money because of his durability. Right, Melvin thought Suppan could pitch above replacement level for more innings than some other options. Value = Value over Replacement Level x Playing Time I used to hate the term "innings eater" but I've come to realize the value of having even a below average starting pitcher who can log 200 innings at the back of the rotation. Exactly Rluz, so then how you can definitively say what Sheets is worth? I've already made it clear that I don't even agree with all of Fangraph's methodology. You can define "value" in all kinds of ways, afterall. I think it's a reasonable method but there's nothing definitive about it. It was initially designed by Tango to be used with projections to predict what a player will get in free agency, which it does pretty well.

Why would you consistently wear out your best pitcher in games you have little chance of winning. Why would you consistently wear out your closer in a game that would almost certainly result in a win (3 run lead in 9th). Like I said, an elite closer makes that situation a win 2% more often than an average reliever. You don't think a manager could find a more important spot to use his best reliever? The problem is that people value holding onto a lead more than they do trying to win a game in which they are losing. What you need to look at is the swing in win probability, not just the chance of winning. I know blown saves aren't always charged to the closer, but this pattern amplifies the fact that teams who kept leads simply made the playoffs over teams who didn't. That tells you absolutely nothing about the optimal use of your best reliever. All it tells you is that if you win more games, you have a better chance of making the playoffs.

Man, Florida just has TERRIBLE defense. I have a question. To me, a team could have the bases loaded and 1 out and hit 5 consecutive 1 RBI singles. It seems though, that if they then get the last 3 outs, it's still characterized as "a missed opportunity". Am I missing something? How many runs before it's OK to leave the bases loaded?

Am I the only one that wishes they still had Duffy instead of Gerut? At least Duffy made an attempt at taking pitches and working a count. I'd rather have the guy who get's on base more than the guy who sees more pitches. I think it's a pretty good guess that Gerut is the superior hitter.

So for the anti-boo people... you still wouldn't boo this performance or decision by Macha if you were in the stands? I don't boo players for not playing well. I don't see the point. I might mutter a few naughty words under my breath, however. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Julio pitched like crap but he could have gotten out of the inning after 1 run, had the defense not let him down. This game has just fallen apart.

That 8% difference in probability in a round about way is the difference between having Kendall (.299 OBP) batting instead of Cameron (.379 OBP). The difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is huge, so why wouldn't an 8% more likely to score a run scenario not be? It's .08 runs. If you did that once every game, you'd expect to lose about 1 win over the course of an entire season. Again, with Mcgehee batting, it's even smaller.

A good team just wins more games period, no?

You want to put your best relievers in when they have the greatest influence on the odds of winning a game. Let's compare two scenarios: 1. Down by 1, top of the 7th inning, down by 1, the opposition has the bases loaded and 1 out. 2. Middle of the 9th, up by 3. In the first scenario, the trailing team still has a decent shot at winning the game if they can get out of the inning. In the second, the elite closer is going to get the win about 2% more often than an average one, so it's almost a waste to use him there.

I think the point mkm13 is trying to make and that many are overlooking is that if you look at the number of $20 million dollar players there are according to Fan Graphs, then look at the actual number of $20 million dollar players there are around MLB... something doesn't quite add up. The distinction is true talent vs. actual production. Actual production has a far greater spreader than true talent, which is what teams pay for. More players will hit .300 than are actual .300 hitters. For the sake of a contract, should we be considering the last 3 or 4 years worth of data as an average, instead of his best season? You would look at his projections, so basically, yes. Even next year, his IP projection is going to be terrible, so he'll probably go the 1 year route and hope to significantly improve on it. rluzinski, please point out where I was specifically talking about "regular season" as you point out. Never did. But that's what Fangraphs is calculating. The value of regular season production. If you think that's a limitation of their methodology, so be it. I don't even know how you would weigh playoff production. 10x? That would sure make Sabathia's value look worse. ALL of them teams would not spend that much on someone they knew would miss the end of the year and not be able to pitch in the playoffs. Playoffs aside, you keep saying he missed the end of the regular season. As several people keep pointing out, that's completely irrelevant. He had a 3.1 ERA in 200 innings. That's specifically the part of the system you seem to be struggling with. He traded 20 IP of 3. ERA for replacement level ERA. And again, all the calculations are context neutral. You think they shouldn't be. You think they should consider the odds a team has of making the playoffs. That's fine. You aren't wrong or right.

How do you know that? McGehee wouldn't have stood a better chance with a runner on 2nd base there? There is no way to know that. First of all, I said "probably", so I wasn't claiming to know alternate futures. This was my line of thinking: runner at first, 2 out: 0 runs scored 86% of the time runner at first, 2 out: 0 runs scored 78% of the time And considering that McGehee is a below average hitter, the odds of scoring were even lower. The CS was much more costly. No one likes base running blunders but one that results in an extra out is generally much worse.

It almost looked like Cameron was running with Fielder. Was that a double steal? That said, Cam's base running blunder probably had no effect anyway.

Ugh, Hall swung at ball four, twice. According to pitch F/X, 5 out of the 6 pitches probably could have been called either way. The last pitch was right at the top edge of the strike zone (which is more often called a ball than should be), so he probably would have walked there.

Kendall with 1 out and a runner at first....... don't do it!

Provus said a winning % in 1 run games is the hallmark of a good team, I think it's the hallmark of a somewhat lucky team. He also can't go 5 seconds without talking about how important momentum is in sports. I think I miss Powell.

I know how it works, you don't need to explain. I simply can't reconcile that claim with your continued objection to how the system handles Sheets' missed time during the regular season. The system is as conservative as it can get in that regard. You are replacing Sheets' production with a AAAA starting pitcher (around 5.3 ERA in the NL, last year, IIRC). On the flip side, when CC pitched 9 innings instead of 8, he didn't get credited the difference between him and a MLB reliever. He was credited the far greater value of him over a AAAA starter. Many teams have far better replacement options in the event of an injury, so this system is assuming a very bad scenario. Like I said earlier, if you read that 8 part explanation of the system's methodology, there's plenty of stuff to argue about in regard to the methodology. I don't really like that it's based on FIP, for one. It doesn't consider the context of that production at all. Do we want the context to be runs, wins, playoff appearances or World Series rings? A person could argue that a 1.0 ERA over 250 IP is worth nothing if it was done on a team that won 30 games. And the system doesn't look at anyone's post season performances, good or bad. I agree that if you signed a starting pitcher that could never play in the post season, he would be worth less. How much less? I have no idea. But Sheets had about a 3.1 ERA in 200 IP. Even if he wasn't available in the post season, that has tremendous value to a team in general and had tremendous value to the Brewers specifically in 2008. I didn't think that was going to be a hard sell. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Sheets and Jenkins kept the Brewers from winning 5 World Series. Facts are facts. It's just so painful to have to read posts that try to blame one specific player for whatever. When ever people feel wronged, they want to be able to point to one person and say, it's your fault! JohnBriggs is bitter and he need to direct it at a face. It's the collective performance of every player that dictates the success the failures of a team. I can point to any player and say that if he had played better or more, x would have happened. What's the point?

People really need to do some independant research before criticizing something. Fangraphs has 8 articles on their (mostly Tango'san really) methodology. There's plenty to disagree on after you read it. Google, Pitcher Win Values Explained Sheets was found to be worth $20.6 mil because his performance was deemed 43 runs better than an average AAAA starting pitcher . They are saying that every 9.4 runs saved is equal to 1 win, so Sheets was 4.6 wins better. Whether that win occured on opening day or during game 162 is largely irrelevant in terms of making or not making the playoffs. Anyway, teams on average pay about $4.6 mil for every win over replacement level through free agency, so that's the last piece of the puzzle. Teams get plenty of above average talent from pre-arby guys, which is why this calculation is only relative to free agents and why the average payroll is not $150 mil.

15-13 / 15-12 15 HRs

Penny might be a 4.75 ERA type pitcher who can't be counted on to pitch 200 innings anymore. He's getting paid $5 mil dollars, which is in the ballpark or what he's worth. The idea that a reliever and Penny could get Hardy is pretty out there.

I guessed that Parra is around a 4.5 ERA pitcher and Peavy at around 3.5. That's probably what I would use as well, right now. Parra is the younger guy though, so it's difficult to get a very accurate projection. I'd also be tempted to assume something like 20 extra innings a year from Peavy. It's a huge difference but not enough to justify all that money, injury risk and prospects, I don't think.

What is the loss in wins going from a #1 starter to a #6+ starter? In other words, if you plug in Sheets replacement and include that in his stats what does that tell us? That's exactly how estimate pitcher value. A pitcher is worth the difference between them and a AAAA type pitcher for the number of innings they pitch in a year. If a starter only goes 100 innings, they have no value for half a season.

I'm reluctant to sign any starting pitcher long term, whether they look in great shape, like Cappy always did, or not great shape, like Sheets and CC do. There is just a lot of risk for injury. And at this point, Sheets certailnly has a higher probably of injury becuase of his injury history and the number of innings he's already logged. For the right price, I'd sign any talented pitcher to a 1 or 2 year deal, though. I just wouldn't pay them at a level that assumed 200 IP/year.