rluzinski

Very interesting look at AJ Burnett's best and worst starts in 2009. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-do-stats-tell-us/

I don't think the Brewers were financially in a position to take on Vazquez's $11.5 mil salary. That's pretty much a given, no? Of course, based on his projections, he's probably worth closer to $18 mil. You would have throught the Braves could have gotten more for him.

For some players certainly. Some players do better, some players do worse, some players do about the same. How does that begin to prove that performance correlates to a player's contract status? You are silly if you dont think they are going to train harder, work harder in games, stay longer in games and be more focused when they are going into a contract year. It is human nature my friend. The majority of players who are being hyped in their contract years are soon to be, first time free agent players. For almost as long as they played baseball, they have had the dream of making the majors. And the closer they got, the harder they worked and the more focused they got. When they finally did get there, they worked their buts off to stay there. After a couple of years, they were finally a year away from being arbitration eligible. The first chance to be a millionaire! They must have worked even harder and been even MORE focused! But after that first taste, they realized more hard work and focus would equal an even larger paydays in their second and third year or arbitration. Finally, it's the year before they become a free agent. Are you telling me that it should be obvious that not only will the player train even harder and be even more focused, but that the extra hard work and focus will translate into even greater performance? I don't think that's a common sense conclusion at all. If you simply mean that after years of the athlete maximizing his on field performance, we should expect a noticeable drop off the first year of his new contract, I find that much more reasonable. But the plausibility of a theory is not evidence, nor is a mountain of cherry picked, anecdotal evidence. A systematic study is needed. Here is a slideshow from one such study, which also includes a summary of some previous studies: http://www.philbirnbaum.com/freeagent.ppt While it's hardly a settled matter, there is not some obvious and significant "contract year" effect that can be seen from a mile away. I would not be surprised if some professional althletes' performances suffer through lack of effort after a contract year. But there simply is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a systematic effect. If you want to point to an individual player and suggest that his new contract MAY have factored in a drop in his permance the following year, great. When can speculate all day long.

Chone projections have Suppan at a 5.35 ERA next year. Marquis is at 4.73 but that's league and park neutral. He'll have something like a projected 4.5 ERA in Washington. I agree that Marquis is probably much better than Suppan, let's not restrict ourselves to just one year of data.

This contract year silliness has to stop. Players do not perform better in contract years than they otherwise would be expected to.

There's tremendous value in healthy league average pitching. A starter like that might be worth oh, say, $10 million a year. At least that was about right in the market where Suppan was signed. I simply don't understand why people act like the value of an "innings eater" is somehow magical. The value of ANYTHING is its quality times its quantity. In this case, "quality is measured as the difference between Suppan and the alternative. The worse case alternative is the AAAA scrub. A 5.5 ERA is often used for them but the exact ERA is certainly up for debate. Suppan had averaged about a 4.65 FIP the previous 3 years before being signed, which made many of us concerned that his averagish ERA was helped by the Cardinals very good defense. But let's presume that Suppan WAS an average starting pitcher going into the 2007 season (I didn't think he was). Let's also assume that $10.5 mil per year was the going rate for an average starting pitcher (it wasn't). Suppan was 32 years old! As a GM, you simply HAVE to assume his production is going to get worse over the course of his contract. And no matter how durable one presumes a starting pitcher to be, to project a 30 something pitcher to average 190 (or whatever) innings over a four year deal is setting yourself up to be wrong. It's just not going to happen. Even is you assume Suppan's makeup (crafty soft-tosser) suggested Suppan would age gracefully, there's no way you or anyone could have thought he was going to be average in 2010. I sure hope not. As for Hall, my mistake. His UZR doesn't "prove" he was an above average CFer that year but it suggests I was wrong to call him bad. In the broader sense, I think Melvin has shown a disregard for defense above and beyond the average team. I could throw a bunch of anecdotal evidence out there but there's no real point. It's just my opinion. For the record, I'm not suggesting I think Melvin is a bad GM that needs to be replaced. Maybe he's an average one. But there are such terrible GMs out there at I can appreciate the value of average in this case. I just wish Melvin would get better.

If Melvin wants to use 75% scouts + 25% stats for defense, I wouldn't argue. 0% stats would be disappointing. Melvin doesn't exactly have the greatest track record for valuing defense very well. Hart and Braun at 3B were complete disasters. If melvin's scouts were telling him that either could be even passable 3B... Hall in CF was pretty bad as well.. Weeks at 2B is debatable. Gamel at 3B is yet to be seen but I don't have high hopes. Seems like the Brewers are always trying to force a square peg in a round hole, defensively speaking. With Escobar and Gomez, it looks like Melvin is starting to put more value in defense but still.

How accurate in general are these sites like CHONE anyways in predicting team wins? Enough to even bother caring what they predict? If we flip a coin 162 times, will get vastly different results from trial to trial. That doesn't mean it's not useful to know that we should expect 81 heads. To be clear, there's a whole layer of uncertainty involved with projections that don't exist with flipping a coin, though. It's an educated guess but Melvin needs to use educated guesses to make decisions. As for IP projections, I agree with kromnoj. We know a lot more than the projections systems do.

He got 1 yer of Lee for about $8 mil less than he is worth. That is a huge chunk of the value of this trade.

JonnyLungs, I don't think we are in major disagreement. My question about the level of sophistication of Lawson's analysis wasn't a rhetorical one. I have little to go by, so I can't begin to come to any strong conclusions. He coauthored a book in 1994, which intoduced his TOPR metric, among other things. It's almost identical to a couple of other metrics that had already been invented (base-out Percentage and Total Average). They all have the same basic structure, total bases divided by outs: http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2008/02/beating-dead-horse-pt-4.html There are much better ways to measure offensive performances these days. And while it's unfair to speculate about the quality of Lawson's present work based on what he did 15 years ago, the fact that he mentioned these stats in the above interview only a few years ago is concerning. Any metric that weights all bases equally is going to be inferior to one that recognizes that a walk is not equal to a single. Perhaps he's since updated TOPR to weight each batting event correctly but then it's basically not TOPR anymore, so why even call it that? As for the Kendall batting 9th thing, here's a quote from Mark A: "We didn't bring somebody in just to look at this," Attanasio said. "But it was one we did look at. It showed 30 to 40 more runs a year. I think this shows we were willing to think outside the box, bring a fresh perspective." http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/31973384.html Another account credited both Lawson and Tony Blengino (who now runs Seattle's statistical research department) with the estimate and put it at 25-30 runs. 2.5 - 3 wins? That's the difference between an average player and a star. Around $12 mil in free agent value. 27 runs is about 34 less outs. I can't imagine how someone could come up with that number. Were they assuming 35 less double plays? It doesn't begin to pass the smell test. The whole situation was odd, as the Brewers, despite repeatedly advertizing the suposedly HUGE benefit of batting the pitcher 8th, abandoned it after a short time. How do go from having everyone from the owner to the janitor saying it's the most brilliant strategy ever to saying "Nevermind, it's not worth the bother"? A more minor objection, in the Brewcrew interview, he said, "Miller Park is more of a neutral park that has only some small, relatively subtle effects on how one should put together a team or play the game." Traditional park factors agree that Miller park is neutral overall but shows a pretty significant HR park factor. Traditional park factors are pretty "low tech" though, so perhaps he has his own way of estimating them. And... that's about it. The few other times that he's been quoted that I could find, he sounded intelligent and knowlegeable (although he never really talked about anything too specific). So yeh, I'm just speculating. I'd much prefer that Melvin's moves were so brilliant that I'd have no other choice but to believe that he was both receiving and utilizing top notch statistical analysis.

If he's been working for Melvin since his Texas days, wouldn't it be impossible to be at the forefront of public sabermetric research? Wouldn't all his research be proprietary information? Why would you add a word ro my statement (public) but act like you are disagreeing with something I said? There is both public (largely amateur) and private (professional) research. How does the Brewer's research stack up all of it?

Melvin has claimed that he utilizes statistical based analysis, but I question the quality of the analysis and to what extent Melvin uses it. I don't recall the name of the stat guy Melvin uses (some fansite interviewed him a few years ago) but he's been paired with him since Melvin's time with the Rangers. Is this guy at the forfront of sabermetric research? Does he have people working under him? While limited, some of statistical conclusions Melvin has made public have been out there. For instance, it was claimed that batting Kendal 9th would result in something like 20+ extra runs scored over the course of the season. I'm sorry but that is completely unbelievable based on the research I've seen. There have been a few other headscratchers as well. Some of Melvin's moves have also made me question whether good statistical analysis is being used. Some of Melvins quotes during the Suppan signing made me want to gag (Innings eater, proven winner, knows how to pitch in big games, blah blah). The average baseball fan eats that kind of stuff up but come does Melvin believe that stuff? I've always been under the assumption that Mark A. forced Melvin's hand on that deal. I sure hope so. In contrast, Zduriencik formed an entire Department of Statistical Research when he became GM. Many of his moves suggest he's using them.

Nice article but I would have liked to see a more in depth assessment of his trades so far. Just listing the 2009 WARs doesn't tell us if the trade was good long term. A very bad trade could look great using that methodology. "Length of Contract" projectied value minus salalary would have been more enlightening. I think many of those trades would still look very good. Melvin needs to trade with the Royals more. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Also, while the fact that Seattle had the worst offense in the league was mentioned, the fact they were outscored by 52 runs was not (640 RS, 692 RA). They outperformed their pythag record by 10 games! I don't think a first year GM should get much credit or blame for his team's record (real or sabr-imagined) but it should have been mentioned. Is Seattle really the favorite in the AL West? The article makes that claim but offers up no good eidence to back it up. All they do is employ the very unsabre "Last year's record + offseason moves" approach. Felix and Lee obviously make their top of the rotation awesome but what about 3-5? How much has the AL's worst offense last year been upgraded? Lose Branyan and gain Figgins. What else?

Ceteris Paribus? When proper team projections start rolling out, I think we are going to see them predicting closer to 83 wins for the Brewers. The offense has been downgraded and we can't presume continued good fortune in the pythag. record area. The Brewers need some combination of Hart, Gamel/McGehee, Parra and Suppan to beat their projections. Perhaps a darkhorse starting pitcher to be found.

What does it even mean to be a "legit world series team"ace? Like one of the top 3 starting pitchers in the NL? According to CHONE, Yo projects to be the 6th best ace in the NL. If that's not good enough to be considered a true ace than I think the label is basically meaningless. I guess the Giants are the only team that have a true ace... looking forward to seeing them in the World Series next year. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Keep in mind, Lee is going to make $8 mil in 2010 and is worth twice that. Seems like the Phillies should have been able to do better.

There's no need to speculate on what a Melvin quote from 5 months ago meant. (I don't see how it infers that Hall's contract doesn't apply to the 2010 budget anyway). In a recent JS article, Melvin specifically said that Hall's contract counts with regard to the 2010 budget. He also said something about allocating $2 mil for in-season allocations. Not sure if that article is online. Cot's Contracts says that the Brewers are on the hook for "up to" $7.1 mil of Hall's 2010 salary, so at least Melvin recouped a little cash.

If I'm trying to judge the value of a player's projected perfomance, one of the last thngs I care about is clutch performance from the previous year. It simply has little or no predictive value. If a fan wants to be objective, they need to accept that. If they just want to be a fan, by all means, hold a grudge. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Melvin has already said that Hall's salary "counts". And insurance isn't free, so I don't see why we should assume they had it on Riske's contract. Looks like the Brewers have about $94 mil committed to 2010 salaries. Can't see Melvin spending more than $1-$2 mil more.

I'm not a big fan of the Hawkins signing but he probably cost $3 mil over the alternatives. I can't see Melvin having almost any money left to spend ($1-$2 MIL?). Another good starter was never in the cards.

I think James' projections are crazy. CHONE looks much more reasonable: Wolf - 164 IP of 4.17 ERA Gallardo - 145 IP of 3.60 ERA Parra - 159 IP of 4.75 ERA Bush - 161 IP of 4.64 ERA Suppan - 170 IP of 5.24 ERA #6 starter - 165 IP of 5.5 ERA Average: 4.65 ERA Much better than last year but still well below average: http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/127/league/nl Replace the #6 starter with someone like Davis (4.6ish ERA) and you still only get a 4.5 ERA out of the starters. A couple of these guys are going to have to surprise to make the Brewers legitimate playoff contenders.

The playoffs are a coin flip, relative to a 162 game season. A true 95 win team is going to make the playoffs more often than not. That same team might have only a 25% chance of winning the World Series, however. The most dominating teams in history only win about 2/3rds of their regular season games. Now, they have to go to the playoffs and play against above average teams. The difference between good and great in the playoffs isn't all that.

That's what WAR is doing. It's measuring the difference between the starter and a 5.5 ERA scrub. So if Harden can't pitch because he's hurt, Burns does. 1/2 great + 1/2 terrible = 1/2 average. Now, I appreciate the argument that it's still better to have just 1 pitcher used instead of two (roster space, more available depth, etc...). But I'd use that more as a tiebreaker than anything else. If the argument is that Wolf is worth more to the Brewers because they don't have access to enough 5.5 ERA pitchers, that doesn't pass the smell test to me. Those 5.5 ERA guys cost almost nothing to aquire. We may just have to agree to disagree. I'm sure fans and GMs don't like to ever have to trot out a AAA fill-in, so sometimes I think average inning eaters are overvalued, especially since yesterday's inning eater is today's hurt pitcher.

Man, I just could not get into the episode. It's all just recycled gags to me. Yeh, let's just tell Michael confidential information. He won't tell anyone. This characters are not developing. They've become caricatures of themselves.

I think Wolf will be a little above average next year but mediocre over the length of the contract. Mediocre to me means a little below average.