Weighing Hendry's good/bad moves

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.

[Gad]

<!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have no idea how accurate they are. I was merely explaining how Fangraphs had determined Neifi's value.

The ironic thing about Cedeno is that UZR/150 rates him as an exceptional 2B throughout his career. It's odd he would be rated so awful at SS and just exceptional at 2B.

Or perhaps that is just more reason to doubt the formula.

I do know that stat minded teams are putting more and more emphasis on defense which is why you see Boston go after Cameron etc. Pretty much the same group that revolutionized how we view hitters with stats like OPS+, are also the guys pushing Range Factor and UZR/150 as the new tools to evaluate fielders..

[BT]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->This is my argument, BT. Players who hit .274/.298/.383 don't earn $2.5M. They earn 400k. Or...at least they should.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have a few problems with this statement. First of all, you can't flatly judge any player based solely on his offensive stats. A right fielder with those numbers is an atrocity beyond belief. A shortstop with those numbers, while not ideal, is far more acceptable. You understand, if you show me those numbers, and flatly declare a player with those number isn't worth 2.5 million, you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.

I'll also add that Perez was paid ONE million dollars in 2005, not 2.5. Since he was given 2.5 in 2006 (some of which I assume the Tigers picked up when we traded him, but I can't be sure), and was awful, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and averaged the two. But if you want to go by specific salary, Perez was a freaking bargain at one million.

Before I bothered to look any of this up, I was more than willing to concede Perez's contract was a terrible one. But using every metric I can find to try and prove it, resulted in the opposite.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ozzie Smith might be the most overrated player in the history of the game. And yes -- whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72021:date=Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ozzie Smith might be the most overrated player in the history of the game. And yes -- whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's not what he asked though. He asked if he should have earned 400k a year.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=72024:date=Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72021:date=Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ozzie Smith might be the most overrated player in the history of the game. And yes -- whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's not what he asked though. He asked if he should have earned 400k a year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I answered it by saying "whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much." But fine -- I'll be more precise.

Given the era he played in, 400k would have been too much. Maybe near the end of his career, after he had all that service time.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72025:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:17 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72024:date=Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72021:date=Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ozzie Smith might be the most overrated player in the history of the game. And yes -- whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's not what he asked though. He asked if he should have earned 400k a year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I answered it by saying "whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much." But fine -- I'll be more precise.

Given the era he played in, 400k would have been too much. Maybe near the end of his career, after he had all that service time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I just want to know your feelings on the subject Butcher. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but that's a totally different question you answered.

If you don't mind, can I ask one if you think Ozzie Smith playing today is worth what Neifi was paid?

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=72028:date=Dec 17 2009, 12:34 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72025:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:17 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72024:date=Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72021:date=Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Dec 17 2009, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->you are stating that in at least 7 of his years in which he appeared in the All Star game, Ozzie Smith should have earned 400k. He also had a total of 12 years in which his OPS was roughly the same, or worse than Neifi's 2005 season.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ozzie Smith might be the most overrated player in the history of the game. And yes -- whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's not what he asked though. He asked if he should have earned 400k a year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I answered it by saying "whatever he was getting paid, I'm certain it was way too much." But fine -- I'll be more precise.

Given the era he played in, 400k would have been too much. Maybe near the end of his career, after he had all that service time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I just want to know your feelings on the subject Butcher. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but that's a totally different question you answered.

If you don't mind, can I ask one if you think Ozzie Smith playing today is worth what Neifi was paid?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I misread you. My bad.

I think if Ozzie Smith played today, there's a good chance that he'd be a bench player/utility guy. I don't think he would start on a big market team. As far as his salary, I think he'd probably be worth close what Neifi was paid -- maybe a little more near the end of his career. He could actually get on base a little (in '87, for example, his OBP was close to .400)...every third season or so. Of course, Neifi never did backflips on the field...so there's that.

The fact that "The Wizard" was a first-ballot HOFer and Ryno took three years to get in, still eats at my soul.

[kbwsb]

Butch, do you think the "Dempster for $52 Million" was a good signing?

As far as Jim being a good trader: the Aramis and DLee transactions were not "trades," they were salary dumps. For instance, at the time of the trade, Choi had a $350,000 contract, and Lee had a $21 <i>million</i> dollar contract. That is not a straight-up trade. That is a salary dump.

Still, as the GM of a huge-money team, it's Jim's job to clean out the low-revenue teams, so I still consider these great deals, and wish he had pulled another one off if the ensuing <i>six</i> years.

As many have said, Jim has his positives, but his biggest negative (by far) is his misunderstanding of how to outlay salary/budget. His biggest positive is that he engenders good feeling amongst his MLB players, and thus we got Z and Aramis on slightly discounted long-term deals.

[veryzer]

Butcher's right. Ozzie stole bases, was a great fielder, and that's it. The Padres traded him for a shortstop that could hit: Gary Templeton.

[ruby23]

Ozzie Smith did backflips.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=72049:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:08 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Butch, do you think the "Dempster for $52 Million" was a good signing?

As far as Jim being a good trader: the Aramis and DLee transactions were not "trades," they were salary dumps. For instance, at the time of the trade, Choi had a $350,000 contract, and Lee had a $21 <i>million</i> dollar contract. That is not a straight-up trade. That is a salary dump.

Still, as the GM of a huge-money team, it's Jim's job to clean out the low-revenue teams, so I still consider these great deals, and wish he had pulled another one off if the ensuing <i>six</i> years.

As many have said, Jim has his positives, but his biggest negative (by far) is his misunderstanding of how to outlay salary/budget. His biggest positive is that he engenders good feeling amongst his MLB players, and thus we got Z and Aramis on slightly discounted long-term deals.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Dempster contract wasn't good at all -- but it happened seemingly miliseconds before the market collapsed. It wasn't good before the market changed, but it looks a lot worse now than it would have. Some of that is bad luck.

Putting Dempster under the "good" column refers to the original pickup (one of Hendry's many reclamation projects).

As far as the salary dump issue...yeah -- if the Pirates and Marlins could afford those players, then they wouldn't be trading them. That's a no-brainer. But Hendry snapped those guys up -- no other GM out there did. He still gets points for making those deals.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.

If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).

Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.

Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?