The 2010-2011 MLB Offseason Thread

[Lights Out]

Wins are also a function of run prevention.

Yes, to a point, but run support is mostly what determines win/loss records. That's why pitchers often do well on great offensive teams but struggle when their offense sucks.

So is claiming that it's tougher to pitch for a last place team in front of 50 people than a playoff team in front of 50000 and a blood thirst media.

But a pitcher can't control the level of fanbase commitment or the bloodthirstiness of the media.

[BBTV]

Wins are also a function of run prevention.

Yes, to a point, but run support is mostly what determines win/loss records. That's why pitchers often do well on great offensive teams but struggle when their offense sucks.

So is claiming that it's tougher to pitch for a last place team in front of 50 people than a playoff team in front of 50000 and a blood thirst media.

But a pitcher can't control the level of fanbase commitment or the bloodthirstiness of the media.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. You can't judge a pitcher by how he might have done in a pressure situation, you judge a pitcher by what he has done in a pressure situation. Part of the beauty of sports is the chance factor that allows for less-talented players to be given the opportunity to shine in big moments while potentially great players toil in Kansas City. There are probably a lot of players not in the HOF who are better than a lot of players in the HOF, but chance plays a big factor (of course nowadays with free agency, the good teams who play in pressure situations can pluck the potentially good players from the crappy team.) Point being, if you're drafting or putting together a team, you can pick based on "I think" rather than "I know". When it comes to the HOF, it needs to be "I know."

[BBTV]

Wins are also a function of run prevention.

Do they tell the whole story? Of course not. But to dismiss them is absurd. So is claiming that it's tougher to pitch for a last place team in front of 50 people than a playoff team in front of 50000 and a blood thirst media.

They don't tell the whole story. In fact, I don't think they tell much of a story at all. It's just a matter of who's in the right place at the right time. You can pitch 7 shutout innings and leave a 0-0 game, only for some reliever to poach your win when someone finally scores for you later. Conversely, you can give up 4 over 5 while the other guy gives up 8 over 3 and get the win there. But you're no dummy; you know all this. It's the least telling statistic we have for assessing pitching (well, that and VORP). Even something as primitive as ERA tells you how many runs are being scored against you. Wins measure relative happenstance. Even blown holds/saves, a cousin of W-L, essentially says "you had to perform a specific task and you didn't do it."

I do agree that pitching successfully for a contender, with all its ramifications, is more valuable than pitching successfully for a cellar-dweller. Weak-ass as the 2010 Mariners' hitting was, there's still a different mentality in taking the mound for them than there is in taking the mound for a team that needs late-season wins lest all hell break loose.

Of course that's all true, but over the course of a 10+ year career, there's likely to be as many times that you suck but are bailed out as there are when you're awesome and get effed. You still need to accumulate innings to get a statistical "win", and you have to have pitched at least one-run better than your opponent (yes I know you can get a win even if you leave trailing, but that's pretty rare) at the time that you left. I have no idea what VORP is (nor do I think I care if it's that sabermetric stuff.)

If we're giving Felix Hernandez the Cy Young, then in 1972 they should have given Steve Carlton the Jesus Christ.

[Lights Out]

I have no idea what VORP is (nor do I think I care if it's that sabermetric stuff.)

See, there's your issue - sabermetrics are the most exact, best possible way we have to determine how good or bad a player is. Win/loss is outdated and not very exact compared to the more exact statistics (ERA+, FIP, WHIP, etc.)

I'd much rather see awards and Hall of Fame plaques given to players based on the most exact statistics that provide the most exact overall look at how great they were. Win/loss, which includes a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and events outside a pitcher's control, is not the most exact way of judging a pitcher, therefore it should not be the deciding factor of Cy Young voting or a pitcher's inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

[The_Admiral]

I have no idea what VORP is (nor do I think I care if it's that sabermetric stuff.)

Value Over Replacement Player. It calculates how much better a player is than a "replacement-level" player that exists only in theory. Nice try on the part of sabermetricians, but it's kind of pointless.

[BBTV]

I don't have an issue, because I don't really care that much. I don't watch much baseball other than my team, and I don't follow stats or play fantasy or anything like that. I'm not naive enough to argue that those new stats don't matter (even if I have no idea what they are), but you can't be naive enough to argue that there exist variables in sports that no statistic can measure.

[Lights Out]

But you can't deny someone an award because they didn't play in a "tough" (read: Northeastern) market or because they didn't face as many tough questions from the media or something like that. That's ludicrous.

[BBTV]

But you can't deny someone an award because they didn't play in a "tough" (read: Northeastern) market or because they didn't face as many tough questions from the media or something like that. That's ludicrous.

You can't look at it as denying someone who didn't... look at it as awarding someone who did.

(all things being close to equal of course... there are certainly guys who have proven to be the best even without the playoffs, bright lights, fans, etc.)

[The_Admiral]

My choice for AL Cy Young was David Price, for what little that's worth.

There is a major dilemma in awarding a superlative to a last-place pitcher (I purposely avoided the increasingly prevalent and toxic phrase "bad optics," used when people want to say something "looks bad," conflating the action verb "look" with the the state-of-being verb "look" which is synonymous with "appear." If you see or hear someone worry about "the optics" of a situation, you must act), one must admit. Now, I'd like to believe that all scoreless innings pitched are created equal, and that a home run in the 1st is the same as a home run in the 7th, or that a double play with the tying run on base is the same as a double play in a game out of hand, but that's not true. When you're asked to pitch well for the sake of a playoff berth, what you do is more valuable than what you do when you're asked to pitch because we have a game today and tomorrow and every day for two more godforsaken months. Yes, it's as out of control as the pitcher's run support, but it has to be accounted for.

[Shumway]

It's official -- Vlad to Baltimore: Link

Being that I go to a few Orioles' games every year, I'm pretty pleased about getting to see Vlad on a regular basis. Luke Scott looks to be the odd man out now, but I think they can probably platoon him in left or if Lee needs an off day at first. Although I'm an Angels' fan, it's nice to see Baltimore doing something in the offseason for once.

[gingerbreadmann]

Holy geez, so much to get to. I'll try to avoid being Sabermetric Sally as much as possible.

Wins are also a function of run prevention.

Do they tell the whole story? Of course not. But to dismiss them is absurd. So is claiming that it's tougher to pitch for a last place team in front of 50 people than a playoff team in front of 50000 and a blood thirst media.

And run prevention, more than one might think, is a function of defense. It just keeps going.

I cannot for the life of me comprehend this argument. Wins define value like SAT scores define intelligence. Scratch that--wins define value like the average of three SAT scores, just one of which taken by the subject in question and the other two taken by people chosen randomly from a pool ranging from those in expensive prep courses to those who can't even speak English, defines intelligence. What's absurd is taking them for more than what they are.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. You can't judge a pitcher by how he might have done in a pressure situation, you judge a pitcher by what he has done in a pressure situation. Part of the beauty of sports is the chance factor that allows for less-talented players to be given the opportunity to shine in big moments while potentially great players toil in Kansas City. There are probably a lot of players not in the HOF who are better than a lot of players in the HOF, but chance plays a big factor (of course nowadays with free agency, the good teams who play in pressure situations can pluck the potentially good players from the crappy team.) Point being, if you're drafting or putting together a team, you can pick based on "I think" rather than "I know". When it comes to the HOF, it needs to be "I know."

Well, I would argue that you judge a pitcher by what he has done in all situations, but it is totally reasonable to weight pressure situations more highly. And I would only pick based on "I know" if I had that kind of information. You're right about the fact that sports is often about making the most of unfair, small sample sizes and that is a beautiful thing, but I don't think that proves anything. It is more than likely that guys like Greinke and Hernandez will all get their shot at some point, but if someone dominates in Seattle, going forward you don't disregard that in favor of a little high-pressure success, from which drawing any conclusions is shaky at best anyway. Besides -- are we talking about the HOF or the Cy Young here? -- the Cy isn't about that stuff. It's about awarding the best pitcher every year, which in my opinion was done accurately this year. When someone accumulates a large number of such awards, even if he never plays a postseason game, it becomes something impossible to ignore.

Of course that's all true, but over the course of a 10+ year career, there's likely to be as many times that you suck but are bailed out as there are when you're awesome and get effed. You still need to accumulate innings to get a statistical "win", and you have to have pitched at least one-run better than your opponent (yes I know you can get a win even if you leave trailing, but that's pretty rare) at the time that you left. I have no idea what VORP is (nor do I think I care if it's that sabermetric stuff.)

If we're giving Felix Hernandez the Cy Young, then in 1972 they should have given Steve Carlton the Jesus Christ.

Again--why drive a Ugoh when you can drive a Prius? Assuming they're both freely available to you, which they are, one gets you where you want to go accurately, cleanly, efficiently, and quickly, and one you're used to but cramps you in and takes you on a bumpy ride that could end up anywhere. And you have 900 Priuses to choose from. Okay, two minor requirements of getting a win are more or less accepted, albeit extremely vague and nonstandard, measures of good pitching, so what? You don't need to "believe" in Sabermetrics, but arguing with wins is so lazy. Like someone said, even ERA is worlds better, and that has dozens of holes in it. At least it doesn't include offense.

See, there's your issue - sabermetrics are the most exact, best possible way we have to determine how good or bad a player is. Win/loss is outdated and not very exact compared to the more exact statistics (ERA+, FIP, WHIP, etc.)

I'd much rather see awards and Hall of Fame plaques given to players based on the most exact statistics that provide the most exact overall look at how great they were. Win/loss, which includes a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and events outside a pitcher's control, is not the most exact way of judging a pitcher, therefore it should not be the deciding factor of Cy Young voting or a pitcher's inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

I agree in general, but I think there is some merit to giving a voice to the Murray Chasses of the world who yabber about that time in the 1950s when as a young, awe-struck boy they saw Lefty McGooch stop and take a bow on the way to first base and still beat out a bunt. There needs to be a material debate to make the revealing of the inductees meaningful every year. Sabermetrics are statistics, and while extremely useful, they are the least dramatic instruments in the world. Either everyone will know who gets in the second a player retires, or MLB will have a BCS-style unveiling of proprietary, meaningless numbers once a year, to more controversy than fanfare. There needs to be a human aspect, something we can subjectively argue over. In a perfect world, statistics would provide indisputable objective evidence as to what players are better, but there wouldn't be much point to a Hall of Fame if that were the case. I think we are reaching the ideal balance where statistics are becoming as accurate as they can be (not saying they're close; but they're going in the right direction) so as not to mislead people or perpetuate blatant myths about value or skill, while remaining notably and admittedly far from perfect (which people would never accept anyway). Maybe the fans should have a voice too, but as long as stats aren't used to support lies (which they are, unfortunately by the Murray Chasses), I think the process is acceptable.

I have no idea what VORP is (nor do I think I care if it's that sabermetric stuff.)

Value Over Replacement Player. It calculates how much better a player is than a "replacement-level" player that exists only in theory. Nice try on the part of sabermetricians, but it's kind of pointless.

Think about it -- can you name a better benchmark? Using an absolute scale is silly, and understanding the theoretical replacement player is astoundingly simple: How much more valuable (if at all) is this guy than someone who is 30 years old and still in AAA, aka the guy we can find on top of the scrap heap at any time for essentially zero cost? In essence, that is precisely what one wants to know when evaluating players.VORP has tons of problems, but there's a reason it's not 264 Kelvin outside.

But you can't deny someone an award because they didn't play in a "tough" (read: Northeastern) market or because they didn't face as many tough questions from the media or something like that. That's ludicrous.

Totally agree (except for the inclusion of your standard regional-oriented complaint). Everything is relative, though at some point you have to accept that and try to balance small markets/big markets and bad teams/good teams -- it's overall body of work vs. situational excellence. Perhaps a few representatives from each team should convene in Philadelphia for 4 months to establish a solution.

[Jigga]

It's official -- Vlad to Baltimore: Link

Being that I go to a few Orioles' games every year, I'm pretty pleased about getting to see Vlad on a regular basis. Luke Scott looks to be the odd man out now, but I think they can probably platoon him in left or if Lee needs an off day at first. Although I'm an Angels' fan, it's nice to see Baltimore doing something in the offseason for once.

D-Lee and Big Blad Vlad. Woot! Oh, wait, it's 2011, not 2005? Well .

I would have preferred the something the Orioles did involved bringing in people that weren't so over the hill. Sigh.

[Gary]

It's official -- Vlad to Baltimore: Link

Being that I go to a few Orioles' games every year, I'm pretty pleased about getting to see Vlad on a regular basis. Luke Scott looks to be the odd man out now, but I think they can probably platoon him in left or if Lee needs an off day at first. Although I'm an Angels' fan, it's nice to see Baltimore doing something in the offseason for once.

D-Lee and Big Blad Vlad. Woot! Oh, wait, it's 2011, not 2005? Well .

I would have preferred the something the Orioles did involved bringing in people that weren't so over the hill. Sigh.

Baltimore looks pretty scary next year, Vlad, Lee and even Mark Reynolds. If Reynolds can reduce his strikeouts he could be a scary, scary player.

[Breakwood]

It's official -- Vlad to Baltimore: Link

Being that I go to a few Orioles' games every year, I'm pretty pleased about getting to see Vlad on a regular basis. Luke Scott looks to be the odd man out now, but I think they can probably platoon him in left or if Lee needs an off day at first. Although I'm an Angels' fan, it's nice to see Baltimore doing something in the offseason for once.

D-Lee and Big Blad Vlad. Woot! Oh, wait, it's 2011, not 2005? Well .

I would have preferred the something the Orioles did involved bringing in people that weren't so over the hill. Sigh.

Baltimore looks pretty scary next year, Vlad, Lee and even Mark Reynolds. If Reynolds can reduce his strikeouts he could be a scary, scary player.

And a manager who you know....knows how to manage a baseball team for the entire year. That should be good enought for 5th in the AL East

[Gary]

It's official -- Vlad to Baltimore: Link

Being that I go to a few Orioles' games every year, I'm pretty pleased about getting to see Vlad on a regular basis. Luke Scott looks to be the odd man out now, but I think they can probably platoon him in left or if Lee needs an off day at first. Although I'm an Angels' fan, it's nice to see Baltimore doing something in the offseason for once.

D-Lee and Big Blad Vlad. Woot! Oh, wait, it's 2011, not 2005? Well .

I would have preferred the something the Orioles did involved bringing in people that weren't so over the hill. Sigh.

Baltimore looks pretty scary next year, Vlad, Lee and even Mark Reynolds. If Reynolds can reduce his strikeouts he could be a scary, scary player.

And a manager who you know....knows how to manage a baseball team for the entire year. That should be good enought for 5th in the AL East

I think Buck Showalter could do wonders for the team. Add in the veterans like they have been. I think they could be a surprise team. Now if it wasn't for them playing in the AL East they could have a shot

[NJTank]

The American League East is gonna be tougher than ever.

1. Red Sox are the favorites in the AL

2. The Yankeees are questionable about the rotation but next thing you know a call to Seattle and Felix is King of the Bronx.

3. Rays will be down a bit but I dont think they will fall off the earth

4. Blue Jays always competitive

5. Orioles full season of Buck will be much stronger.

I think its posible the entire division win more than 75 games.