rluzinski

True indicator? There's no such thing. WAR is simply an estimate of the value of a particular performance over a particular time period. The defensive side of that estimate has significantly more uncertainty than the offensive side. I would never take a position player's WAR for one season and pretend I could make an accurate projection with it. Heck, good luck trying to project a batter's line with only 1 year of offensive data. If I'm trying to get an objective sense of a player's defensive talents, I take 3 years of UZR and combine that with the results of tango's fan scouting report. That what I did here and I think that is about the best we can do with publicly available information.

"But those who watch him regularly say..." How does a reporter use that as a source? I mean, WHO is that, exactly? Every KC fan? Sounds like something you say when you have an opinion and want to pretend others agree with you.

The important question is, do the BREWERS think Gamel is a third basemen anymore? I didn't think so but some are acting like he would still be considered there.

Looking for trends in yearly UZR results is like trying to look for batting trends in 200 AB increments.

He's had UZRs of -11, -17 and -10 the last 3 years. Fans saw him as the worst starting defensive SS in the league last year: http://www.tangotiger.net...index6.php?prim_fld_cd=6 He has a sub .300 OBP in 3000 career PAs. Over the last 3 years, he's compiled -.7 WAR. He'll be 29 years old. Platoon player at best, IMO.

Some background information: ZiPS Projections: PLAYER ERA/IP Axford: 3.62/70 Garza: 3.84/209 Shields: 4.38/216 You have to subtract at least a half a run from Garza and Shields' ERA if you want to translate their projections into the NL Central. I'm sure many will take great issue with Axford's ERA projection but statistically, there isn't much of a sample to go on. As a result, it is heavily regressed. I guess you have to rely more on scouting information in that case. Even then, I don't think we should pencil him in for a 3.0 ERA. I believe that both Garza and Shields have two years remaning before they are free agents? Rule of thumb is that they'll get paid roughly 60% and 80% of market value for those 2 years. Axford will be basically paid 0% of his market value for 2 years and then be eligable for arbitration. Because of the uncertainty in Axford's projection and the fact that he will only pitch about 70 IP/year, I guess I don't see him as that valuable but if another team does, I'd certainly use him as the major chip to aquire a starting pitcher. It just depends on what else needs to be thrown in.

Why would you think that? BA had him rated as the 15th best prospect in baseball in their midseason rankings ahead of Kyle Drabek (main piece in the Halladay deal), Casey Kelly (main piece in the Adrian Gonzalez deal). I told you exactly why. I simply looked at his very limited minor league stats and coupled that with the generally accepted opinion that he won't stick at 2B. Other, more informed people think he looks like a stud prospect? Great.

I few random thoughts: * I don't pretend to follow minor league prospects anywhere near as closely as many of you but Lawrie doesn't look like a stud prospect to me. Good? Of course. I see a future corner outfielder who so far has shown a very high BABIP, a little power, not many walks and a decent amount of K's. If he was a legitimate 2B prospect, I would be a lot more uncertain about this move but he apparently isn't. * I would think Marcum's velocity will likely be OK over the next couple of years, which is all the Brewers will likely have him for anyway. I don't WANT the Brewers to sign him to an extension, anyway. Unless Marcum wants to sign away his first year of free agency for below market, what's the upside of doing so? This always seems to come up when a player is traded for. "This trade will look a lot better if the player is signed to an extension." Is the assumption that the player WILL sign for below market? * Marcum might project to be something like a 3.5 ERA pitcher in the NL and will be affordable for two years. The Brewers are one average pitcher away from having a solid rotation, IMO.

Even if Garland is only a 4.5 ERA type starter, he can only make $8 mil at most and will be the Dodgers' 5th starter. Sound like a pretty decent deal.

http://www.texturemonkey.com/HCG/blog/bladesOfSteel_(13).gif

I would think it would make more sense to see how many runs they created ABOVE an average starting pitcher. Runs above average starting pitcher.... or something.

Having a sabermetric viewpoint on this topic doesn't mean I can't think Macha was too conservative on the basepaths the last couple of years (I don't actually know). It's entirely possible that the Brewers could have scored more runs and won more games being more aggressive. I'm just conserned about the possibility of the pendelum swinging too far in the other direction. It's apparent that others share my concern.

It's not too hard to get nervous when your new manager claims that part of the value of attempting a steal is that it results in improved defense and offense. If he uses that as part of his decision making process for anything more than a tiebreaker, he's going to overvalue a stolen base attempt. And yes, when he says that he wants to be more aggressive than one of the most aggressive managers, that makes me nervous as well. That's not to say I know it won't work out, though. You can be smart and aggressive. I just don't know if he's looking at it right, though. They are going to score "a lot" more runs being aggressive? I'm glad he sounds like a manager and he expresses a desire to connect personally with his players. That certainly can't hurt but I'm skeptical that kind of stuff translates into more wins for the club. Braun and Fielder would have performed better had they been buddy-buddy with Macha? I'm not going to assume that.

Thanks for your hard work. I think Homer is correct that the situation is going to heavily affect whether it's better to attempt a stolen base with 0, 1 or 2 outs. We can look at straight run expectancy to get an idea, though: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html Let's look at the just a runner at 1st: 0 out: SB = .236 runs, CS = -.656 runs, breakeven = 73.5%1 out: .152, -.456, 75.0%2 out: .093, -.251, 73.0% Doesn't matter much in terms of maximizing runs in a generic situation. But let's make something clear, this kind of stuff is just SO SMALL when you compare it to the WPA of everything else. Over the course of a season, teams generally win by doing the BIG things right. (cleaned out textless link --1992)

I just threw this together and it might not contain any meaningful information but it's interesting nonetheless. The first column is stolen bases plus "bases taken" from BR.com. "Bad" includes stolen bases, pick offs and "out on bases". Last year, the Angels were below the Brewers in terms of the net positive difference between the two: TMSB + BTBADDiffTBR375137238OAK333123210TEX322138184NYY26497167BOS22665161PHI23575160CLE265107158CHW309153156SEA277122155NYM267118149COL252111141KCR264128136BAL236102134MIN241108133FLA22391132SDP252127125LAD251129122WSN229110119DET20894114ATL20390113SFG20492112MIL21099111STL226120106CHC19290102LAA229128101HOU19494100TOR1798396CIN22412995ARI19610492PIT18011169

I've seen estimates of between 65% and 75%. What we need to keep in mind, though, is: 1. The breakeven point changes dramatically based on the base/out situation. 2. The breakeven point is based on maximizing runs. What we really care about is the probability of winning and how it is affected by a SB or CS. Early in the game, maximizing runs is a good proxy for maximizing your odds of winning, obviously. What I'd like to see is the "win probability added" (WPA) from stolen base attempts, caught stealing and pick offs for each team. That would tell us a lot more about how well the Angels were picking their spots. I am not aware of any site that offers that. Here is some team baserunning information: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2010-baserunning-batting.shtml#teams_baserunning_batting::none "Stats do not tell the entire story. Sometimes you can believe your eyes and my eyes told me the Brewers were a below average offensive team in 2010 despite their impressive numbers." Aggregate stats don't but there are plenty of stats that can tell you what you are looking for. Perhaps just look at the median runs scored per game, for instance. Your eyes told you that the Brewers were a below average offensive team in 2010 but what does that even mean? Most define that as the collective team talent to score runs but your definition is different. It's you definition, so you can't be wrong but if you want to compare your opinion to others, shouldn't we be comparing apples to apples? Because of it's makeup (lot's of HRs), I have no doubt that the Brewers are someone predispositioned to get runs in bunches but I don't think the effect is nearly as dramatic as it was in 2010. It was mostly a fluke, just like the Brewer's early home record last year. Reading some of Roenicke's interviews, I like to hear him emphasizing the value of getting runners on base. I also appreciate that he completely dismisses superstitions. I am a little concerned about him possibly being too aggressive on the basepaths but there's really no way to know how he's going to manage until he actually manages. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He may pick his spots perfectly and add a couple of wins next year. We shall see.

When Texas's ERA+ regresses next year, I'm blaming Maddux and Washington.

The pool is huge and the difference between them is small, or at least very difficult to quantify. So you end up with a bunch of guys that you estimate have roughly the same value. Your "wins above average" estimate for each is basically zero. So teams do what Kram said; they pick guys based on personality. Even when you look back, though, it's very hard to determine what a manager's performance was worth in terms of wins and losses. I mean, despite what some seem to suggest, it's not like Cox and LaRussa are/were constantly making teams with average talent into playoff teams. If they were, other teams would see that and pay them a hell of a lot more than $3 mil.

Hart has been consistently below average at one of the easier positions in the field (RF), so he'll probably eventually end up at 1B anyway. It might better fit him anyway. As others have said, McGehee simply doesn't hit well enough to justify moving him to 1B. If he can't play 3B well enough, he really can't really be a major league starter. Gamel needs to just be given RF for a year, to sink or swim.

Kramnoj, You took exception to my brief description of how a manager's value relates to his salary. That description was based on the assumption of a free market (teams are bidding for a service with an estimated value). You suggested it's possible that the managers might be making far less than they are worth. If your point is simply that MLB teams might be underestimating the value of managers, perhaps. There's no reason to believe that all teams are knowingly paying their managers less than they are worth, though (it's clear that you aren't suggesting that). Seems like you are saying that teams might not even be trying to properly value managers. I find that extremely unlikely. To clarify my initial position regarding manager salary vs worth, it's all about wins above average and what a win is worth to a particular team. We have some idea what baseball teams are willing to spend for a win, so either teams have no idea how to estimate the value of a manager or they think it's small, relative to their peers.

Wouldn't a discrepency like that break a bunch of free market assumptions? Are you suggesting collusion or something?

Coaches/managers are paid what their employers think they are worth. Professional baseball managers are simply worth less in general. If a team is willing to spend about $4 mil per win in free agency, they must think managers have little to offer the team and/or they are all roughly the same in talent. I find it hard to believe that a guy who hasn't even managed in the majors for years is still one of the most valuable managers in the world. This is also a guy who has been fired 4 times already. And yes, it is all but guaranteed that the Brewers will be the 5th professional team to fire him. It seems like, when you take a step back, it's all just a silly PR game.

Comments likethis by fans have always driven me absolutely crazy. Why do the fans care how much a player or a manager or coach might get paid?? The Brewers, like every other business, has a budget. If you pay Mark A. $10 mil, that's $10 mil less than can be spent somewhere else. That's the reality that the fans who drive you crazy are recognizing.

It didn't take long for your senses to be confirmed, I guess.

Bobby V would really be a Mark A "big name" type signing. If he get's anything close to $10 mil I would be disgusted. I guess it's the cheapest way to convince fans that you are "committed to winning". He'll give good quotes, though!