collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by PGsHeroes32
[Today at 08:31:01 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Uncle Rico
[Today at 08:22:05 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by Goose
[Today at 07:54:34 PM]


Where is Marquette? by MU Fan in Connecticut
[Today at 07:52:45 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by MarquetteVol
[Today at 07:30:33 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Goose
[Today at 07:05:04 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by Judge Smails
[Today at 07:02:27 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: MLB 2016  (Read 166028 times)

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6315
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #675 on: July 27, 2016, 01:31:58 PM »
That's the problem with opt-outs.  They just ensure the team is hurt.  You commit long term to a guy, but if he plays up to his deal, he opts out and you didn't get him long term.  If he isn't good you are stuck with him.  It is all the risk of a long term deal with none of the benefits.

I mean, it's not like the Sox are paying Shields salary. (or at least all of it) Really what Shields decides to do doesn't affect the Sox in the slightest.

Wally Schroeder

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #676 on: July 27, 2016, 02:05:03 PM »
That's the problem with opt-outs.  They just ensure the team is hurt.  You commit long term to a guy, but if he plays up to his deal, he opts out and you didn't get him long term.  If he isn't good you are stuck with him.  It is all the risk of a long term deal with none of the benefits.

Given Heyward's age and value this past off-season, I was completely okay with taking the Cubs taking the risk. If not, he probably only signs with the Cubs if it's something like $210M+ (another $3M plus annually) over 8 years. His leaving after three years would mean he's earned the contract. Unfortunately, the poor man's Eaton may prove correct. The risk with the opt out is the reality of the market today.


Wally Schroeder

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #677 on: July 27, 2016, 02:06:10 PM »
His hands are too high and close to his body - there's so much movement just to get them to where he can swing the bat. And if he doesn't move them he ties himself up. Think his struggles continue unless his mechanics change.

Ugh. Agree.

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #678 on: July 27, 2016, 02:11:55 PM »
Exception?

Hayward's typical season is 16 HR and 58 RBI. His career averages are .264 BA, .349 OBP, .416 SLG for a .768 OPS. His averages with RISP are even lower. His WAR is nothing special.

Almost every team, including the Cubs, has a half-dozen players every bit as productive.

He is a heck of a fielder, absolutely. Defensive specialists sure have become expensive!

I'm a big believer in saying that an athlete is "worth" whatever a team will pay him. Still ...

It appears Theo was so desperate to fill a perceived need -- and to do so at the expense of the Cardinals -- that he may have hung an albatross around the Cubbies' necks for the rest of the decade and beyond.

I mean you're wrong about Heyward's past from an offensive perspective, so there's that. 

Heyward was never a dominant offensive player but he was a good offensive player, and combined with his defense, base running, and age, that made for an excellent player. 

Here are his WARs over each of the last 4 years.  The numbers below absolutely do not equate to "nothing special".  They are excellent.   

ESPN WAR:  5.5, 3.6, 6.4, 6.5
Fangraphs WAR:  6.5, 3.4, 5.2, 6.0

Here are some additional numbers over the last 4 years:

OPS:  .814, .776, .735, .798.  So far this year - .630
wRC+: 121, 120, 110, 121.  So far this year - 74
OPS+:  117, 114, 109, 117.  This year - 72

Not only are these the lowest numbers of his career but they are so incredibly far away from his track record that they almost defy belief.  Epstein added him not because he was desperate or to stick it to the Cardinals but because he was a 26 year old free agent with an excellent track record just going into his prime.  Both Washington and St. Louis, two good organizations, offered him over $200 million.  It certainly hasn't worked thus far but the logic made sense.  Hopefully he is currently at rock bottom. 

And please don't use a counting stat like RBIs to represent the quality of a player. 

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #679 on: July 27, 2016, 02:18:21 PM »
So, that James Shields trade maybe not so bad after all for the White Sox.
Stat line in last six starts:
3-3,   1.71 ERA,  42.0 IP, 32 hits, 8 earned runs, 12 walks, 21 Ks, .209 average against, 1.05 WHIP

Shields was never going to be as horrendous as his first few starts with the Sox.  He is also not going to continue to be as good as above because those numbers are will not continue.  Prior to the start last night, over his last 5 starts, he had a 5.10 FIP, a horrible 11.8% strike out rate, a .208 BABIP, and a 100% strand rate.  That type of luck will not continue. 

With what the Sox are paying him he'll be an decent innings eater.  But I'll be surprised if he is anything more than an average to mediocre pitcher for the next 2 plus years. 

He would also be crazy to opt out of his current deal. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 02:23:32 PM by Vander Blue Man Group »

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6315
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #680 on: July 27, 2016, 02:39:40 PM »
Shields was never going to be as horrendous as his first few starts with the Sox.  He is also not going to continue to be as good as above because those numbers are will not continue.  Prior to the start last night, over his last 5 starts, he had a 5.10 FIP, a horrible 11.8% strike out rate, a .208 BABIP, and a 100% strand rate.  That type of luck will not continue. 

With what the Sox are paying him he'll be an decent innings eater.  But I'll be surprised if he is anything more than an average to mediocre pitcher for the next 2 plus years. 

He would also be crazy to opt out of his current deal.

You wanna talk about meaningless stats like RBIs, then look no further than strike out rate and BABIP. His changeup gets so much soft contact I wouldn't call it "lucky"

DegenerateDish

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2531
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #681 on: July 27, 2016, 02:39:58 PM »
The thing about the Heyward signing is the macro level concern. As good as he is for trading for talent, and maybe the best in the game at drafting talent, Epstein's free agency track record is abysmal.

Renteria 4/$40, bought out after one year, Boston paid him $22 mil for that one terrible season
Lugo 4/$36, only played three years in Boston
Matsuzaka 6/$52 + $52 posting fee, in essence 6/$104
Drew 5/$70
Lackey (Boston) 5/$82.5, beer/chicken fiasco
Crawford 7/$142
EJax 4/$52

Yes, he did sign Ortiz his first winter as a GM in Boston to on a one year flyer, and that worked out tremendously well.

Jury is still out on Heyward, Lester looks good now, but I'm worried about paying him $27.5 per at ages 34 & 35 (with one additional year at $20, and an option at age 37 of $25). It's not that the Red Sox or Cubs couldn't/can't absorb bad money deals, but free agency decisions have not been a strength for Theo.

Blackhat

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #682 on: July 27, 2016, 02:46:56 PM »
What was the point in the White Sox getting Shields?   They suck.   And he'll opt out if he finishes the year a stud.

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #683 on: July 27, 2016, 03:12:05 PM »
You wanna talk about meaningless stats like RBIs, then look no further than strike out rate and BABIP. His changeup gets so much soft contact I wouldn't call it "lucky"

Strike out rate and BABIP are absolutely not meaningless. Shields career BABIP is .297 and it has been between .292 and .299 the last 5 years. So yeah, .209 or anything close to it will not last.

His career K rate is 20.7%. This season he is at a career low 16.1%, which is still higher than the rate during his recent hot streak. Not a good sign.





Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #684 on: July 27, 2016, 03:12:46 PM »
Shields was never going to be as horrendous as his first few starts with the Sox.  He is also not going to continue to be as good as above because those numbers are will not continue.  Prior to the start last night, over his last 5 starts, he had a 5.10 FIP, a horrible 11.8% strike out rate, a .208 BABIP, and a 100% strand rate.  That type of luck will not continue. 

With what the Sox are paying him he'll be an decent innings eater.  But I'll be surprised if he is anything more than an average to mediocre pitcher for the next 2 plus years. 

He would also be crazy to opt out of his current deal.

Unless they flip him in the next few days for more than they gave up for him (looking at you, Texas), Sox will pay Shields $20 million over the next two seasons, assuming he doesn't opt out. That's very much a bargain for what he is, i.e. a veteran middle of the rotation starter who will eat up 200+ innings every year.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #685 on: July 27, 2016, 03:18:39 PM »
Strike out rate and BABIP are absolutely not meaningless. Shields career BABIP is .297 and it has been between .292 and .299 the last 5 years. So yeah, .209 or anything close to it will not last.

His career K rate is 20.7%. This season he is at a career low 16.1%, which is still higher than the rate during his recent hot streak. Not a good sign.

You're right, he likely won't fare as well as he has over his last several starts.
So what?
He'll very likely serve as a solid mid-rotation inning eater costing the team only $10 million per.
And that's a very good deal for the White Sox (should they keep him).

« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 03:20:33 PM by Pakuni »

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #686 on: July 27, 2016, 03:25:47 PM »
Unless they flip him in the next few days for more than they gave up for him (looking at you, Texas), Sox will pay Shields $20 million over the next two seasons, assuming he doesn't opt out. That's very much a bargain for what he is, i.e. a veteran middle of the rotation starter who will eat up 200+ innings every year.

I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think he's anywhere close to a #3 in a playoff caliber rotation at this point in his career. (From a previous discussion).

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #687 on: July 27, 2016, 03:50:44 PM »
I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think he's anywhere close to a #3 in a playoff caliber rotation at this point in his career. (From a previous discussion).

Well, the Giants just won a World Series with Ryan Vogelsong as their #4 starter, which is what Shields would be in this current version of the White Sox (Sale/Quintana/Rodon/Shields).
The Sox aren't a playoff caliber team, but it's not because of the quality of their #4 starter.

buckchuckler

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #688 on: July 27, 2016, 04:18:14 PM »
I mean, it's not like the Sox are paying Shields salary. (or at least all of it) Really what Shields decides to do doesn't affect the Sox in the slightest.

I meant that for Heyward.  Sorry about the confusion.  Yeah, the Sox arent really paying Shields much so not the biggest deal.

Vbmg is just irritated a mediocre pitcher made his cubs  "embarrassing "-his words- his Cubs.  Especially in k-ing Bryant 3 times. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 04:37:55 PM by buckchuckler »

buckchuckler

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #689 on: July 27, 2016, 04:28:47 PM »
I seem to remember Edinson Volquez being the number 1 starter on a team that just won the World Series. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 04:56:36 PM by buckchuckler »

buckchuckler

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #690 on: July 27, 2016, 04:29:45 PM »
I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think he's anywhere close to a #3 in a playoff caliber rotation at this point in his career. (From a previous discussion).

He did just completely dominate one of the best offenses in the NL, so there is that.

Will he be dominant every start of the year, of course not.  But he sure has the potential to do that each time out.  In his career he has been great at keeping his team in games.   That is all the Sox, or any other team would need out of a mid rotation starter. 

« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 04:34:06 PM by buckchuckler »

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #691 on: July 27, 2016, 05:12:53 PM »
I meant that for Heyward.  Sorry about the confusion.  Yeah, the Sox arent really paying Shields much so not the biggest deal.

Vbmg is just irritated a mediocre pitcher made his cubs  "embarrassing "-his words- his Cubs.  Especially in k-ing Bryant 3 times.

I'm certainly irritated. Shields has owned Bryant in their limited matchups.

The Cubs have been shut down a lot recently by pitchers I wouldn't consider to be very good. They are scuffling big time.

My thoughts on Shields aren't based on an anti White Sox bias. I just don't think he's particularly good anymore, and I'm not alone as far as that's concerned.

Vander Blue Man Group

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3749
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #692 on: July 27, 2016, 05:14:44 PM »
He did just completely dominate one of the best offenses in the NL, so there is that.

Will he be dominant every start of the year, of course not.  But he sure has the potential to do that each time out.  In his career he has been great at keeping his team in games.   That is all the Sox, or any other team would need out of a mid rotation starter.

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of that. I think to a certain extent our disagreement is based on semantics.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #693 on: July 27, 2016, 08:09:05 PM »
The thing about the Heyward signing is the macro level concern. As good as he is for trading for talent, and maybe the best in the game at drafting talent, Epstein's free agency track record is abysmal.

Renteria 4/$40, bought out after one year, Boston paid him $22 mil for that one terrible season
Lugo 4/$36, only played three years in Boston
Matsuzaka 6/$52 + $52 posting fee, in essence 6/$104
Drew 5/$70
Lackey (Boston) 5/$82.5, beer/chicken fiasco
Crawford 7/$142
EJax 4/$52

Yes, he did sign Ortiz his first winter as a GM in Boston to on a one year flyer, and that worked out tremendously well.

Jury is still out on Heyward, Lester looks good now, but I'm worried about paying him $27.5 per at ages 34 & 35 (with one additional year at $20, and an option at age 37 of $25). It's not that the Red Sox or Cubs couldn't/can't absorb bad money deals, but free agency decisions have not been a strength for Theo.

Wow! I had no idea Theo's record with free agents was that bad. Even Jim Hendry's success rate was better than that.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #694 on: July 27, 2016, 11:05:04 PM »
I mean you're wrong about Heyward's past from an offensive perspective, so there's that. 

Heyward was never a dominant offensive player but he was a good offensive player, and combined with his defense, base running, and age, that made for an excellent player. 

Here are his WARs over each of the last 4 years.  The numbers below absolutely do not equate to "nothing special".  They are excellent.   

ESPN WAR:  5.5, 3.6, 6.4, 6.5
Fangraphs WAR:  6.5, 3.4, 5.2, 6.0

Here are some additional numbers over the last 4 years:

OPS:  .814, .776, .735, .798.  So far this year - .630
wRC+: 121, 120, 110, 121.  So far this year - 74
OPS+:  117, 114, 109, 117.  This year - 72

Not only are these the lowest numbers of his career but they are so incredibly far away from his track record that they almost defy belief.  Epstein added him not because he was desperate or to stick it to the Cardinals but because he was a 26 year old free agent with an excellent track record just going into his prime.  Both Washington and St. Louis, two good organizations, offered him over $200 million.  It certainly hasn't worked thus far but the logic made sense.  Hopefully he is currently at rock bottom. 

And please don't use a counting stat like RBIs to represent the quality of a player.

Yes, sir!

We'll see how Heyward works out over several years.

I've never been overly impressed, but who the hell am I?
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

🏀

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8467
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #695 on: July 27, 2016, 11:44:10 PM »
BABIP is a useless stat? And K rate?

Easy there Hawk, you'll be calling Russell a Latin player in no time.

🏀

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8467
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #696 on: July 27, 2016, 11:48:42 PM »
Wow! I had no idea Theo's record with free agents was that bad. Even Jim Hendry's success rate was better than that.

The difference is Hendry would outbid himself,  Theo just spends the money he Is given.


Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #697 on: July 28, 2016, 09:08:34 AM »
BABIP is a useless stat? And K rate?

Easy there Hawk, you'll be calling Russell a Latin player in no time.

Holy red herring.

For pitchers, BABIP isn't quite useless, but it's not particularly valuable either. It tells us nothing about why or how a pitcher is giving up more or less hits than the mean. Is he getting hit harder than the average pitcher? Is he coaxing more fly balls than line drives or ground balls? Is he just unlucky? The stat, while interesting, ultimately provides little insight because it lacks any context.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 10:38:50 AM by Pakuni »

🏀

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8467
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #698 on: July 28, 2016, 11:03:03 AM »
Holy red herring.

For pitchers, BABIP isn't quite useless, but it's not particularly valuable either. It tells us nothing about why or how a pitcher is giving up more or less hits than the mean. Is he getting hit harder than the average pitcher? Is he coaxing more fly balls than line drives or ground balls? Is he just unlucky? The stat, while interesting, ultimately provides little insight because it lacks any context.



It lacks context in itself, but provides context to why a pitcher may be experiencing a a downturn or upturn.

buckchuckler

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: MLB 2016
« Reply #699 on: July 28, 2016, 04:18:42 PM »
No stat matters on its own.  If a guy is hitting .400 that looks great.  If it is in 10ABs, eh, no big deal.  You have to look at everything together.  There are some that stand better on their own merits than others, but you need to whole picture to have it make sense. 

 

feedback