Ankiel probably is the real deal. As for Ludwick,

Why is Ankiel the real deal and not Ludwick?

.267/.314/.568 in the PCL at age 27? With a brutal 25/90 K/bb ratio?- after going .259/.339/.514 at age 25 in A/AA?

Except when he was hurt Ludwick handily outhit Ankiel in the high minors, and he's outhit him in 2006/07 in the majors as well.

Or do you mean that Ankiel is more likely a "true" 129 hitter than Ludwick is "true" 158 hitter?
Maybe, but Ludwick is almost certainly a beter hitter than Ankiel even assuming 158 is a fluke (which it likely is)

2006-08:

Ludwick: 137 OPS+ in 815 MLB PAs
Ankiel: 126 OPS+ in 610 MLB PAs

Ludwick .266/.342/.506 in 571 PAs, Toledo IL (league:.258/.326/.389) without adjusting for park that's an OPS+ of 135
.340/.380/.642 in 121 PAs, Memphis PCL (League: .279/.346/.437) OPS+ of 157

Ankiel .267/.314/.568 in 423 PAs, Memphis PCL (League: .279/.346/.437) OPS+ of 121

Ludwick has over 1500 PAs from 2006-08 which say that he's a better hitter than Ankiel (1000 PAs same time frame)
If you want to go back further, Ludwick's 2002-03 PCL performances were better than Ankiel's 2007 PCL performance too. What Ankiel did at age 25 in A/AA was no better than what Ludwick did in A/AA at ages 21/22.

Looks like Lowrie is continuing to be underrated by people.

Looks like Lowrie is continuing to be underrated by people.

In his review of his pre-season lists, Sickels came pretty close to open gloating over Lowrie's success so far

Pujols for Youkilis, Bowden and Lowrie is the stupidest trade offer I've ever seen on this website, the proverbial "three shiny nickels for that crumpled up hundred dollar bill" deal if there ever was one. If you can't understand why, I can't help you. Kevin, if you really wouldn't do this, I hope you're never the GM of the Red Sox, because RSN would lynch anyone who passed up that deal from the Sox end.

.267/.314/.568 in the PCL at age 27? With a brutal 25/90 K/bb ratio?- after going .259/.339/.514 at age 25 in A/AA?

I wish people would stop bringing up Ankiel's age in this kind of discussion. I'll readily admit that I've got no idea what he'll do because no serious model, statistical or scouting, knows quite what to do with Ankiel as a hitter.

Kev, maybe that was a smart move for the Sox. I think it's too early to tell. Contra your assertion, Santana has been better this year, has much better peripherals, and a much longer track record of pitching at this level, but perhaps Lester is his equal.

However, Michael Bowden is no Scott Kazmir, and Victor Zambrano is no Albert Pujols. So begone! to your silly analogies. I stand by what I said - if you wouldn't deal Bowden, Lowrie and Youk for Pujols, and you're the Red Sox GM, you get lynched by your fanbase. If you don't believe me, try asking some of them. I certainly could be wrong.

Pujols for Youkilis, Bowden and Lowrie is the stupidest trade offer I've ever seen on this website, the proverbial "three shiny nickels for that crumpled up hundred dollar bill" deal if there ever was one.

Well, except that it also frees up a huge amount of money that the Cardinals could us to buy other talent. Yes, Pujols is signed at way below market value for 3 more years. But Lowrie and Bowden have 5-6 years before they hit the free agent market. I think the most likely scenario is that Lowrie ends up worth about $10 million a year. Obviously, this would be a talent mismatch in favor of the Red Sox, but in today's games, for teams other than the five or so biggest budget teams, getting players who are not eligible for free agency for several years is a huge factor, because it frees up money for other things. These kinds of trades are how teams like the Twins and A's have stayed competitive. Granted, the Cardinals have more to spend than those teams, but less than the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Angels, Dodgers or Cubs. The big budget teams have a different situation to deal with - cramming as much talent as they can into their starting roles, and getting dependable players to accept bench roles. I think a package like this would be substantially better than the one the Twins got for Santana. It should be, because Pujols is a better player than Santana, and signed for longer, but relative to that deal, I think it's about right. It would be targeted at the main needs of the Cardinals. I think the only crazy part would be the idea that the Cardinals would trade Pujols before it was clear he would walk.


As for Ludwick versus Ankiel - Ludwick spent a lot more time as a hitter in the minors than Ankiel did. He really should be putting up much bigger numbers in the minors than Ankiel if he's even an equally good hitting prospect.

I wish people would stop bringing up Ankiel's age in this kind of discussion. I'll readily admit that I've got no idea what he'll do because no serious model, statistical or scouting, knows quite what to do with Ankiel as a hitter.

and I argue that age isn't relavent to discussing Ludwick due to his injury issues either. I wholeheartedly agree with you about Ankiel, but I think the reason to point to Ankiels age in that post is to remind people that Ludwick hit for a youngster, was projected to be a legitimate starter and his career got derailed, sure it wasn't a Josh hamilton or Ankiel style of derailment, but it was still a detour in his career that makes it hard to project based only upon similiarities to other players. How many other players have had the injury history with the potential that Ludwick have and worked to get back to the majors?

As for Ludwick versus Ankiel - Ludwick spent a lot more time as a hitter in the minors than Ankiel did. He really should be putting up much bigger numbers in the minors than Ankiel if he's even an equally good hitting prospect.

See, I just don't get this

Ludwick outhit Ankiel in the Minors AND is outhitting him in the Majors- at roughly the same age

Ankiel has been hitting pretty regularly now and has over 1500 professional PAs-

and yet people are saying Ankiel is a better hitter than Ludwick.

Michael Bowden has nowhere near the scouting pedigree that Kazmir had. You Can Look It Up! Sometimes those idiot scouts know something. For instance, Bowden's numbers are about equal to David Price's this year, and he's younger than Price. That doesn't mean he's anywhere near Price's equal as a prospect.

Look, I think Bowden is fine. I hope he's a great pitcher. Remember though, there are a lot more guys like him, with a good but not amazing scouting profile and good minor league numbers, than you'd imagine, and lots of them don't pan out. Clint Nageotte. Kyle Davies. Greg Miller. Chin-Hui Tsao. Matt Riley. Merkin Valdez. Yusmeiro Petit. Brandon McCarthy. Danny Meyer. Adam Miller (I guess he's still a prospect! Sheesh). Jerome Williams. Jesse Foppert. And so on.

But go ahead, find your contingent of Sox fans who wouldn't make that trade. I'd love to be proven wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!

Why is Ankiel the real deal and not Ludwick?

.267/.314/.568 in the PCL at age 27? With a brutal 25/90 K/bb ratio?- after going .259/.339/.514 at age 25 in A/AA?

Except when he was hurt Ludwick handily outhit Ankiel in the high minors, and he's outhit him in 2006/07 in the majors as well.

Or do you mean that Ankiel is more likely a "true" 129 hitter than Ludwick is "true" 158 hitter?
Maybe, but Ludwick is almost certainly a beter hitter than Ankiel even assuming 158 is a fluke (which it likely is)

2006-08:

Ludwick: 137 OPS+ in 815 MLB PAs
Ankiel: 126 OPS+ in 610 MLB PAs

Ludwick .266/.342/.506 in 571 PAs, Toledo IL (league:.258/.326/.389) without adjusting for park that's an OPS+ of 135
.340/.380/.642 in 121 PAs, Memphis PCL (League: .279/.346/.437) OPS+ of 157

Ankiel wasn't a position player until his mid 20's. The 8 or so years spent away from the plate and on the mound would mean he has a very different developmental pattern.

Ankiel wasn't a position player until his mid 20's. The 8 or so years spent away from the plate and on the mound would mean he has a very different developmental pattern.

we acknowledge that, but why won't people acknowledge that Ludwick is a different developmental pattern also? I mean Ludwick is continuing to outhit Ankiel at every level, Ankiel could arguably have higher potential, but the fact is that Ludwick is a higher established level of a hitter.

I think people (which includes me to some extent) are simply impressed by Ankiel's physical tools and tend to look at him like a toolsy player in his early twenties. His power, speed, arm, etc., are all outstanding and people tend to overcompensate for that, in addition to overcompensating for the fact that he is doing this after converting from a pitcher in his mid-twenties.

we acknowledge that, but why won't people acknowledge that Ludwick is a different developmental pattern also? I mean Ludwick is continuing to outhit Ankiel at every level, Ankiel could arguably have higher potential, but the fact is that Ludwick is a higher established level of a hitter.

There's no precedent for anyone like Ankiel in the last 40 or so years, maybe longer. The precendent for guys like Ludwick doesn't lead one to a lot of optimism. He was in AAA every season from 2001 through 2007, with just some cups of coffee in the majors. Injuries or no, that just doesn't bode well. Don't get me wrong - he could end up having a decent career, but for him to maintain this level of play would be extremely surprising.

For all of the Cardinals "young" outfielders to maintain their current production - first of all, only two of them are really even above average major leaguers, and secondly, it would be surprising if they come out that well.

Yeah . . . "except for" that. I refer you to # 58. Pujols is (I assume) everything to Cardinals fans of the '00s that Tom Seaver was to Mets' fans of the '70s, and that trade -- for Youkilis and a couple of guys 95% of Cards' fans have never heard of -- would be to them precisely what June 15, 1977 was to me. The worst day of their baseball fan lives. I never forgave the Mets' ownership & management of that era, and I believe I will stand uncontradicted in asserting that Cardinal fandom would never forgive their latter-day counterparts.

Sam M. is right, at least about me. Albert Pujols is very literally the one player that turned me into a baseball fan. The first baseball game I actually ever sat down and watched was this one - Cubs vs. Cards, July 19 2004, or as it is more popularly known among Cardinals fans, "The Zambrano Game." This is the game where Jim Edmonds hit a homer, and was screamed at by Zambrano as he circled the bases, and then a few innings later, in between which Renteria had homered, and right after Rolen had also taken Zambrano deep, was plunked. Zambrano was ejected, and Rolen's homer turned out to be the winning margin, 5-4.

It was a good game, and had some exciting drama, so I decided I would watch tomorrow afternoon's game as well, since I had just moved to Kansas in the middle of summer and was bored, with no friends yet and no job either. Matt Morris was pitching, one of the few players I was extremely familiar with (though I knew who Rolen, Edmonds, Renteria, obviously Pujols, et al, were), and got shellacked, for 7 runs in 1.2 innings. The Cardinals were in the hole deep but I had nothing better to do, and at this point, no real rooting interest or stake in the game other than being a St. Louis native who would like it if the Cardinals won.

Pujols, who had gone 0-3 with a walk the night before, virtually won the game for us single-handedly, in as much as it is possible for any position player to single-handedly win a game, with what is still, to date, the greatest hitting performance of his career, and the greatest hitting performance I've personally witnessed: 5-for-5, a double, three home runs, 4 runs scored, 5 RBIs. He put us ahead finally in the 9th inning, breaking an 8-8 tie with a two-run shot (Sanders added a homer to make the final score 11-8).

From July 20th to the end of the season, I watched every Cardinals game I possibly could. Pujols hit .357/.431/.725 over that stretch, helped the Cardinals stomp the Dodgers in the divisional series with a pair of homers, and then had one of the all-time greatest postseason series performances ever in the Cardinals 7-game victory over the Astros: 14-for-28, 4 homers, 2 doubles, 4 walks, 10 runs, 9 RBIs.

From that moment on, I was hooked, and ever since, my baseball fandom experience has been almost defined by Albert Pujols. I meticulously keep track of his statistics, I take an odd personal pride when he succeeds, and I almost feel let down when he fails, because no matter how mortal any baseball player is, very few players are as good as Albert Pujols is, at a level where you not only anticipate the possibility of them doing something amazing each time they come to the plate, you expect it.

In my time as a St. Louis sports fan, Pujols is very clearly the best athlete I've ever witnessed in our town, the only serious competition coming from Marshall Faulk (who still holds the title of my all-time favorite athlete). He is likely to go down as one of the five best first basemen of all-time, and there's even an outside shot he manages to wrestle the #1 spot away from Lou Gehrig. He is going to go down as the second-best player in Cardinal history behind only Stan Musial, one of the ten or so best players to ever suit up in an MLB uniform. I don't know that trading him away would make me lose interest in baseball, but it's the only thing I can imagine that would actually make me seriously consider boycotting the team.

"However, the performance pedigree is better so I don't know where the hell I'm going with this..."

On what planet would Michael Bowden's "performance pedigree" be deemed better than Scott Kazmir's???

This year, at the age of 21, Bowden pitched mostly in the Eastern League. He threw 104.3 innings, giving up 72 hits, with a 24/101 BB/K ratio (8.71 K/9 IP). He had a 2.33 ERA. Nice numbers.

At the age of 21, Scott Kazmir was already in the major leagues. He had a winning record for the Tampa Bay F'ing Devil Rays, striking out batters at virtually the same rate per inning (174 K's in 186 IP -- 8.42 K/9 IP) as Bowden did in the Eastern League. Let me repeat that: at the same age, Kazmir was striking out major league hitters just the way Bowden did AA hitters.

I admit Kazmir didn't have much AA training to directly compare to the amazing Mr. Bowden. But he did pitch there when he was 20 -- YOUNGER than Bowden. And in a small number of IP, he was better. Markedly. 26 IP, 16 H, 9 BB, 29 K, 1.73 ERA.

Performance pedigree??? Are you joking??? Kazmir was better than Bowden, reached the majors earlier, and impressed the hell out of everyone at the age Bowden is RIGHT NOW. Give it up.

This year, at the age of 21, Bowden pitched mostly in the Eastern League. He threw 104.3 innings, giving up 72 hits, with a 24/101 BB/K ratio (8.71 K/9 IP). He had a 2.33 ERA. Nice numbers.

At the age of 21, Scott Kazmir was already in the major leagues. He had a winning record for the Tampa Bay F'ing Devil Rays, striking out batters at virtually the same rate per inning (174 K's in 186 IP -- 8.42 K/9 IP) as Bowden did in the Eastern League. Let me repeat that: at the same age, Kazmir was striking out major league hitters just the way Bowden did AA hitters.

Stop letting your silly numbers get in the way of Kevin's facts. Besides, Beckett has a numb hand. Theo Epstein has to worry about finding someone else to trade for Albert Pujols; he doesn't have time to turn down Tampa's Kazmir-for-Bowden trade again.

Yeah . . . "except for" that. I refer you to # 58. ... I believe I will stand uncontradicted in asserting that Cardinal fandom would never forgive ...

Instead of referring to #58, you could also refer to #18, where Craig summarizes things nicely.

He reached the majors earlier for the sole reason that Tampa was desperate for pitching.

No, he reached the majors for that reason, AND because he dominated the minors at the age of 20, at St. Lucie and then Binghamton. He did this to a greater degree than Bowden is now at the age of 21. Just cut it out, would you? You are being totally foolish.

In fact, I do trust minor league equivalents. But you only trust them when it comes to your team's prospects. Those equivalents show Scott Kazmir was a total stud, minor league performance in his case completely bearing out what his scouting pedigree suggested. And then our idiotic front office traded him.

And David Wright remains a far better player than Petunia.

Well, since he's now hitting .309/.372/.478, good enough to displace Lugo.

You really think the Red Sox are going to bench Lugo when he returns from the DL, and make Lugo a $9 million per year backup for the next two years?

And David Wright remains a far better player than Petunia.

OH NO YOU DI'N'T!

I think that 127 describes my feelings on Ludwick/Ankiel pretty well. It's precisely because Ankiel is such a special athlete, and because he's advanced so quickly through the minors, that we expect so much of him. His biological age may be 29, but his "baseball" age is far younger than that. I think the best way to evaluate Ankiel is if he were a Canadian, having had far less developmental time than other players in his age group.

Ludwick's a nice bat, but I think that this is definitely a career year and I don't see him coming all too close to it in the near future.

For instance, Bowden's numbers are about equal to David Price's this year, and he's younger than Price. That doesn't mean he's anywhere near Price's equal as a prospect.



What does it mean then? He's a non-prospect because he wears a Pawtucket uniform?

128. First, show me Bowden's electric mid-high 90's fastball, then show me his killer breaking ball. After this, make him a lefty. Now, you have David Price's equal. If you continue, please shave about a run off Bowden's ERA at every level and him about 1 year younger. Now, we can start talking about Scott Kazmir.

OH NO YOU DI'N'T!

I think he di'.

You really think the Red Sox are going to bench Lugo when he returns from the DL, and make Lugo a $9 million per year backup for the next two years?

Yup.

You really think the Red Sox are going to bench Lugo when he returns from the DL, and make Lugo a $9 million per year backup for the next two years?

Let's hear anyone defend the Lugo signing. I bring up JD Drew again, but that June will give his defenders enough fuel to run another year (209/395/360 after the break).

Sam, perhaps the Mets should deal Wright for Petunia, Lowrie and Ellsbury. That'd be fair, wouldn't it?

For the same reason, you would have advised the Twins they were insane for being willing to trade Santana for Lester, Lowrie and Masterson because none of the players received had a strong MLB track record.

Well, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle (and yes, Tom Seaver) had no MLB track record until they actually played there.

Please don't tell me what I would and wouldn't have said about a proposed trade I never once commented on. I have commented ONLY on the proposed trade of Albert Pujols for Youkilis, Lowrie (both of whom have major league records) and Bowden, and on your comparison of Bowden to Kazmir. Let's try this again.

First. Those two trades -- the never-done Santana trade and the incredibly-silly Pujols trade -- aren't remotely comparable. Santana (outstanding as he obviously is) is not nearly as valuable as Pujols; he's not as good, and he wasn't under contract the way Pujols is for an three additional years. What the Cardinals would be offering is SO much more valuable -- both on the field and in terms of dollar/win -- that it shows you have no clue what you are talking about in trying to equate them.

Second. MLEs are very useful. We can tell a lot from minor league performance. Duh. One thing we do when we translate is we take some air out of the numbers. So when Mr. Bowden strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 IP in the Eastern League at age 21, that is not as impressive as Scott Kazmir striking out 8.4 per 9 IP in the American League at the same age. If you want to contest that point, then it is YOU who don't understand MLEs. The fact that Scott Kazmir could do what he did at age 21 in the majors is part of his "performance record," part of how we can fairly compare him to Bowden who is now at that age, and nothing Bowden has done in the minors, once you translate his performance into its major league equivalents, is anywhere NEAR as good as what Kazmzir did in 2005.

Third. I believe very much in what minor league numbers can tell us about a prospect. As far as I can tell, having never seen him pitch, Bowden looks like a nice solid prospect. So what? Who ever denied or quarreled with that? You are the one making the absurd claim that his performance record matches Kazmzir's. Why does my objecting to that claim somehow say to you that I don't believe in minor league numbers???

EDIT:

You really need to stop your skepticism about the potential of young players and see them for what they really are.

Bull. I have skepticism about the potential of young players??? Are you insane? I love young players. I've been howling about Minaya and (previously) Randolph being unwilling to give young 'uns a chance with the Mets, and/or dealing all our prospects away for three years now. All I am saying is that this particular young player -- Bowden -- isn't nearly the prospect that Scott Kazmir was when Kazmir was (guess what?) a young prospect himself. Why that makes me skeptical of young players is a mystery to me.

You really need to stop your skepticism about the potential of young players

So true, Sam. I've always thought that about you.

You certainly don't love Bowden, even though you certainly should.

Saying that a guy's record is inferior to Scott Kazmir -- one of the great pitching prodigies of the last 20 years -- could be taken as criticism only by someone who looks at the world through Red (Sox) colored glasses. I repeat: Scott Kazmir was more than holding his own with a terrible team in the American League at the same age Michael Bowden is right now. I have no idea why you won't just back down on the comparison, and simply defend Bowden on his own merits - which would be a much stronger position on which you might actually get me to agree with you.

You don't love Lowrie, even though you certainly should.

All I said about Lowrie (or all I meant to say, but which you took more negatively than perhaps I intended) is that the downside of his range of possible outcomes is to be an inadequate defensive shortstop (defensive performance does, sometimes, deteriorate from average to less than that; just ask that Yankee guy who stands between second and third base and is announced as "playing shortstop") and a so-so hitter for a third baseman. A tweener. And I think that is his downside. His upside? An outstanding offensive shortstop who plays the position solidly, maybe a bit better. That's a fine player, and the odds are much greater he reaches most of that upside than that he falls to the downside.

But -- and here's the point I was making in the context of the Pujols trade -- in the case of Lowrie and especially Bowden (because pitching prospects so often don't live up to their MLEs, because they get hurt, etc.), they are still becoming what they will become. You can't write in what you will get from them "in pen." That doesn't mean I doubt minor leaguers more than I doubt most major leaguers -- because I doubt them, too. They go up and down, year to year, too. THAT is precisely why Albert Pujols, and the few like him, are so damned valuable. Because they are utterly reliable -- and at an incredibly high level. That's why you don't trade them away if you have them -- not for minor leaguers, and not for other major leaguers, either. YOU KEEP THEM.

I simply don't believe that. An outstanding starter is certainly as valuable as an outstanding 1B'er. In case you haven't noticed, the Mets now have a better record than the Cardinals, despite having gotten off to an extremely rocky start, due to the Randolph fiasco. And it's not like Pujols isn't getting any help.

Well, we're just never going to agree if that's your POV. Albert Pujols is the single most valuable player in baseball. And even if you don't agree with that, surely you can't possibly dispute the other part of my argument. The Twins were selling ONE season of Santana under contract, and since he had veto power, really not even that. Johan had the right before approving a trade to say that the whole contract had to be renegotiated to market value. Which is why the Mets are paying him gobs and gobs of money.

The Cards -- if they made this deal -- would be selling three years of Pujols at below-market prices. On that basis alone, the commodity they are dealing is far, far more valuable.

But even putting that aside, there's not a starter in baseball today -- in an era of five-man rotations, and 200 IP workloads -- who could possibly be as valuable as the greatest hitter in the game, and one of the greatest hitters of all time. And I love me some Johan, believe me.

It certainly is once you look at the BB numbers that go along with them. 29 walks in 138 innings is a hell of a lot better than 100 walks in 186 innings.

Talk to me once Bowden gets to the majors. We shall see how well his numbers translate, and whether those AA numbers are as impressive relative to Kazmir's major league stats as you think they are.

Santana (outstanding as he obviously is) is not nearly as valuable as Pujols;



I simply don't believe that.

Then you simply aren't being sensible. Pujols has been more valuable than Santana in every single season in which their careers have overlapped. Once more for emphasis and clarity: Pujols has been more valuable than Santana in every single season in which their careers have overlapped.

In case you haven't noticed, the Mets now have a better record than the Cardinals, despite having gotten off to an extremely rocky start, due to the Randolph fiasco. And it's not like Pujols isn't getting any help.

They lead the Cardinals by .001 in WPCT. Otherwise, do you believe that team records are determinative of the values of individual players?

There's no possible way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

In which season do you think Santana was better? Or even equal?

??? Do you believe they aren't? If so, then why the hell are you so adamant about Pujols being untradeable?

Simplified: Do you believe it's possible for a player on a team with a worse record to be more valuable than a player on a team with a better record?

Oh get real. If he were that, he would be dominating the major leagues. Instead, he's merely very good.

The fact that he could do what he did in the majors at the age of 21 was what made him a prodigy. He's well on the way, at the age of 24, to his second straight season in the top 10 in the AL in ERA+, despite pitching in the AL East. And he would have been 3rd in the AL in 2006 (at 142, one point back of Halladay for 2nd) if he had enough innings. He leads the AL in K/9 IP this year, and was second in 2007.

I would be most curious to hear your claims as to who has been a better kid starting pitching in the major leagues from the ages of 21-24 in the last 20 years than Scott Kazmir. There's Doc Gooden. You won't find many others -- Kazmir is inarguably precisely what I said he is:
"one of the great pitching prodigies of the last 20 years."

You're just mad because Kazmir almost always kicks the Red Sox ass.

Well, Bowden has had absolutely no history of injury problems so I don't know why you're bringing that up.

I'm bringing it up because young pitchers with absolutely no history of injury problems sometimes start to have them. It's why they break your heart sometimes. You start to put a major league workload on them, you start to put the additional strain of facing major league line-ups on their arms . . . . It's nothing specific to Bowden. It just comes with the territory of developing young pitchers.

You really think the Red Sox are going to bench Lugo when he returns from the DL, and make Lugo a $9 million per year backup for the next two years?

Yes

Seriously, wrt to the trade of the article, so what if Pujols is "only" 3 wins better than Youkilis (probably more), whomever we got to replace Beckett and Papelbon is going to be combined like at least 45-55 runs worse than those two.

2006.

Albert Pujols: .331/.431/.671

The man had a 178 OPS+, he hit 49 home runs. He had 359 total bases. He won the Gold Glove. He was robbed of the NL MVP by a ridiculous vote of the writers (Ryan Howard). He was monumentally more valuable than Johan Santana in 2006.

Oh, on a team that won the World Series. Sheesh.

Simplified: Do you believe it's possible for a player on a team with a worse record to be more valuable than a player on a team with a better record?



Yes. Of course.

Then I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with this nonsense:

In case you haven't noticed, the Mets now have a better record than the Cardinals, despite having gotten off to an extremely rocky start, due to the Randolph fiasco. And it's not like Pujols isn't getting any help.

Since Pujols has been demonstrably and significantly better than Santana this season.

2006. Santana was the absolute best player on that team that won 96 games. He went 19-6 on a team that had average offense. His going deep into games kept the bullpen rested, which had an outstanding year.

I'd suggest you look up Pujols' numbers from 2006 and rethink whether you want to stand by this. I'll give you a mulligan on this one.

ugh, again with the w/l record, the cardinals didn't give one rats ass about what happened the last 10 games of the season, they weren't trying in the slightest, they had to win one game or allow houston to lose one and the season is over, nobody could have predicted that houston would win outright for the rest of the season. The Cardinals officially stopped trying with about 10 games remaining in the season, there was zero chance that they were going to miss the playoffs. They were injured and limping, getting healthy was the only option winning the division by 1 game or 8 games was pretty ####### meaningless.


and before I get blasted after someone with low iq decides to check retrosheet. The Astros had to win outright, the cardinals had to lose outright, if that happened, then the cardinals had a rain out to make with the Giants, if they lost that game then there would have been a playoff between the two teams.... The fact is the Cardinals won the division before they mathematically eliminated the opposition and just weren't trying.

Give it up, Sam. It's not worth it.

Since Pujols has been demonstrably and significantly better than Santana this season.



There's no possible way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.


Who's been better/more valuable this season: Pujols or Santana?

I'll give you a lifetime membership to St. Andrews. See post #162.

I saw #162. Doing so left me even less impressed with your arguments than I was before I saw #162. You've gone from invoking team success to impugn a player's accomplishments (#146), to denying that team success is determinative of individual value (#159), to once again using invoking team success to impugn a player's accomplishments (#162). You parody yourself.

There's no possible way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

really??? seriously wow. I like you Kevin, you are a true fan even though you have half a team of roiders you have no problem still rooting them on. But seriously there is no way to make that with certainty?

1. starting pitching is a lot less valuable than it was in 1975 or sooner. Let.s just look at vorp for the heck of it.

Albert
2008 69.5
2007 72.1
2006 85.4
2005 89
2004 93.3

Santana
2008 49.1
2007 57.7
2006 79.6 (great year...or what would you call a poor Pujols year)
2005 73.0
2004 89.5 (another great year)

and if you don't subscribe to vorp, pretty much every metric says the same thing, the fact is that a starting pitcher in todays game, is impossible to reach the level of the best everyday player in todays game. It's not an insult to the guy it's just the way the game evolved. A starting pitcher is worth less than the best everyday player in the league. They have an arguement when you drop a level or two but at the extreme it's not really that much of a debate.

Even if they won every single one of them, they still would have finished with a worse record than the Twins. And the American League is a better league, and has been for quite a while.

and so what... the twins were playing 17+ games against the Royals, it wasn like they were facing elit pitching.

as far as better for quite a while, considering every single objective study says it's been for the seasons of 2007, 2006 and debateable for 2005.... quite a while is a stretch. And there is already arguments the other way for 2008. My guess is that when all the dust settles that the AL will still barely retain it's crown, but it's not black and white like it was in 2007 or even 2006.

geezus, vorp is just one stat I grabbed because of the ease of use, I didn't want to completly destroy Santana by grabbing win shares or whatever it is....the fact is that starting pitching is less valuable because there are idiot teams that think wasting a great talent like Papelbon in the closer role is a smart move. Hey lets take our best talent and put him in a role where he has "true value" about 15 of his 60 innings.

Vorp is the only stat that Santana even comes withing breathing distance of Albert. Nobody with a brain on this planet would trade Santana straight up for Albert even if they were both locked into the same contract for the next 5,4,3,2 or 1 season. Anyone that would should be happy to join Buster Olney as the most clueless baseball fan in the USA.

That's one of my pet peeves about this place. There's no intellectual skepticism at all about all these ######## metrics. You see a ####### number and just swallow the whole thing hook, line and sinker.

there is plenty of skepticism, just not your type of brain dead "I seen it with my eyes" skepticism. The fact is that if I'm going to be a skeptic anybody telling me a pitcher, in todays game is equally as valuable as an elite level everyday player, would be absurd on too many levels that to change my mind you would have to present the numbers. I just can't fathom how anyone could believe that a person who actually only participates in 20% of a teams game is equal to a player that participates in 90% at an elite level are equal or even inferior is absurd. I can see an argument that an elite level pitcher is better than an average player that makes common sense, but an elite everyday player blows out an elite everyday pitcher. in the early part of the previous century it was different, and heck even prior to 1950 it was different, and I could see a debate at least happening prior to 1985, but today? no ####### way.

Very funny. Sam pretends that Kazmir is a prodigy, one of the best pitching prospects in the last 20 years, based on his age 21-24 stats. Kevin says no, and proves it by naming some pitchers that were comparable to Kazmir

CC Sabathia
Justin Verlander
Mike Mussina
Johan Santana
Pedro Martinez
Roy Oswalt
Greg Maddux

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You don't know what you're talking about.

And that's a comically weak response. Again: Who's been better/more valuable this season: Pujols or Santana?


And can you *seriously* name one season in which Santana has been as valuable as Pujols? (At this point, the question is rhetorical because I know you can't.)

Did it ever occur to you that VORP is a flawed statistic, because it can't encapsulate certain vital information relevant to the question, especially as it relates to starting pitchers?

What information do you rely upon to conclude that Santana has been/is/will be more valuable than Pujols?

I just can't fathom how anyone could believe that a person who actually only participates in 20% of a teams game is equal to a player that participates in 90% at an elite level are equal or even inferior is absurd.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I disagree with how you frame the argument here. You might as well say that an AL starting pitcher has less impact on a game he starts than a starting left fielder -- the pitcher only participates in 50% of the game (the defensive halves of innings) while the left fielder not only participates in those half-innings but also in the offensive halves as well. Obviously, that's a silly argument, however, because the pitcher has a LOT more influence on the run-prevention aspects of the game than the left fielder (or just about anyone else, for the most part). By suggesting that a starting pitcher cannot be as valuable as a starting position player because the pitcher only pitches in 20% of his team's games is just as silly -- his influence over the winning/losing of his games is great. He might well do more to win/lose games in his 20% than a 162-game player does in his 162. I'm not saying that the top pitchers do, I'm saying that it's not absurd that a once-every-five-days pitcher does.

It really doesn't matter in what percent of the games a player participates if that player contributes significantly enough during that percent to make up for how infrequently he contributes. I'm probably not saying anything you don't know (and again, I'm talking generally -- in your specific argument, it seems likely to be the case that virtually no pitcher has contributed as much value as Pujols in recent years), but it still bears repeating sometimes. Pitchers CAN be more valuable than hitters, even if the hitters play everyday. Pitchers exert more influence over their games than hitters do, on a game-to-game basis. Whether they contribute enough is certainly debatable, but it's not impossible.

Apparently the trade is off. Houston claimed Springer on waivers.

I could see someone like Halladay or Sabathia, if he could put up an ERA way below league average, approaching the level of an everyday player in terms of value. It's just that the guys with the incredibly low ERAs have been throwing only about 2/3 as many innings as they threw in the 1970's and earlier. The 5-man rotation and 7-innings start have reduced the value of the best starting pitchers.

Top pitcher/batter VORP (for convenience's sake) for the last 15 years...

2008, so far: 3 hitters (Pujols, Berkman, Ramirez -- all NLers) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Lee -- an ALer)
2007: 5 hitters (Rodriguez, Ramirez, Ordonez, Ortiz, Wright) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Peavy)
2006: 4 hitters (Pujols, Howard, Jeter, Hafner) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Santana)
2005: 3 hitters (Lee, Rodriguez, Pujols) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Clemens)
2004: 2 hitters (Bonds, Pujols -- both NLers) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Santana -- an ALer)
2003: 4 hitters (Bonds, Pujols, Helton, Rodriguez) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Loaiza)
2002: 3 hitters (Bonds, Rodriguez, Thome) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Johnson)
2001: 5 hitters (Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, Rodriguez, Gonzalez) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Johnson)
2000: 0 hitters have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Martinez)
1999: 2 hitters (Jeter, Jones) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Martinez)
1998: 3 hitters (McGwire, Belle, Rodriguez) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Clemens)
1997: 0 hitters have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Clemens)
1996: 2 hitters (Rodriguez, Knoblauch) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Hentgen)
1995: 0 hitters have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Maddux)
1994: 2 hitters (Thomas, Bagwell) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Maddux)
1993: 3 hitters (Bonds, Olerud, Griffey) have higher VORPs than top pitcher (Appier/Rijo)

I'm not making any point -- I was just curious to see what the numbers were and figured I'd share what I found. Three times in the last fifteen years (not counting 2008) pitchers have led baseball in VORP. A few more times, the top pitcher has had the highest VORP in his league, but not in MLB. Make of that what you will.

Three times in the last fifteen years (not counting 2008) pitchers have led baseball in VORP. A few more times, the top pitcher has had the highest VORP in his league, but not in MLB. Make of that what you will.

I think it's important to add, though, that a few hitters - Bonds, Pujols, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Jeter - have made multiple appearances on that list. None of the pitchers has made multiple appearances as the overall leader, although some have as the best pitcher of the year.

With this trade, will Pujols clear the medicals? How's his elbow?

Well, there you have it. You've made a couple of deeply flawed assumptions based on nothing in particular and you see a number, any number, that supports your POV and you just swallow it like a starving guppy.

Pardon me if I don't take your line of reasoning particularly seriously.

again, give me some evidence (I know you aren't a big fan of actually providing evidence, I think you may have provided evidence once when you were six years old and trying to prove dinosaurs didn't exist by bringing in the bible or something like that) My belief is that starting pitchers today are inherently less valuable than a good position player (of course I do believe that an average starting pitcher is more valuable than an average position player---although I could change my mind on that) It's a pretty basic position that is backed by lots of evidence, if you want to contradict it, then I have no problem just bring some points to the argument instead of the typical right wing response of attacking the argument and hoping nobody notices you didn't bring any evidence or facts into the discussion.

Vorp, Win Shares, pretty much whatever you want to bring that is accepted by the community all come to the same logical conclusion, elite position players are more valuable than elite pitchers.

Again: Who's been better/more valuable this season: Pujols or Santana?

Santana. Because if the Cards were missing Pujols this site woudln't be affected. Had the Johan Santana trade nto happened, we would be getting "Fire Omar Minaya" threads 3 times a week here and metaing into every single thread of BBTF.

So for us, definitely Santana.

What an awesome thread. I'm glad I did my part. Kevin, where's the contingent of Red Sox fans who are rabidly against trading Youk and The Kids for Pujols? Can you insite message me when they show up?

I already told you. For the third time. It's impossible to answer that question with any degree of certainty. Do you need it in braille?

More weak evasions. So you're comfortable declaring (incorrectly) that Santana was better than Pujols in 2006, as you did in #156, but when it comes to the current season it's impossible to say who's been better. Got it.

Arguing with kevin is like fighting a cripple or a girl. If you win, so what?

I would be most curious to hear your claims as to who has been a better kid starting pitching in the major leagues from the ages of 21-24 in the last 20 years than Scott Kazmir. There's Doc Gooden. You won't find many others -- Kazmir is inarguably precisely what I said he is:
"one of the great pitching prodigies of the last 20 years."

1984-2008: Pitchers with 500+ip ages 19-24:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
1 Barry Zito 145 536.1 2000 2002
2 Roger Clemens 141 767.1 1984 1987
3 Carlos Zambrano 133 763 2001 2005
4 Mark Prior 133 613.1 2002 2005
5 Dwight Gooden 132 1291 1984 1989
6 Scott Erickson 130 529 1990 1992
7 Joe Magrane 130 570.1 1987 1989
8 Kevin Appier 129 623.1 1989 1992
9 Fernando Valenzue 128 533.1 1984 1985
10 Joel Pineiro 126 500.2 2000 2003
11 Scott Kazmir 125 685.2 2004 2008
12 Mark Buehrle 124 742 2000 2003
13 Pedro Martinez 124 671 1992 1996
14 Dontrelle Willis 121 817.1 2003 2006
15 Ismael Valdez 121 821.2 1994 1998
16 Bret Saberhagen 121 1066.2 1984 1988
17 Matt Cain 119 606 2005 2008
18 Wilson Alvarez 117 526 1989 1994
19 Jake Peavy 116 661.2 2002 2005
20 Jose Rosado 115 692.2 1996 1999
21 Felix Hernandez 114 621.2 2005 2008
22 Jim Abbott 113 847 1989 1992
23 Greg Swindell 112 590.1 1986 1989
24 Andy Benes 111 713.1 1989 1992
25 Mark Mulder 111 590.2 2000 2002
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
26 Steve Avery 110 918 1990 1994
27 Mark Gubicza 108 788.2 1984 1987
28 Brad Radke 108 652.2 1995 1997
29 Storm Davis 108 554 1984 1986
30 Alex Fernandez 107 884.2 1990 1994
31 Ramon Martinez 107 739.2 1988 1992
32 C.C. Sabathia 106 972.2 2001 2005
33 Sid Fernandez 106 620.2 1984 1987
34 Greg Maddux 106 911 1986 1990
35 Mike Hampton 104 592.1 1993 1997
36 John Smoltz 103 733 1988 1991
37 Zack Greinke 103 614.2 2004 2008
38 Tom Gordon 101 649.2 1988 1992
39 Eric Milton 101 578.2 1998 2000
40 Jay Tibbs 101 509 1984 1986
41 Jeff Weaver 100 593 1999 2001
42 Javier Vazquez 100 768.1 1998 2001
43 Jon Garland 99 788 2000 2004
44 Pete Harnisch 98 521.2 1988 1991
45 Jose Rijo 98 675 1984 1989
46 Dave Fleming 96 530.1 1991 1994
47 Ben Sheets 95 588.2 2001 2003
48 Jamey Wright 95 541.2 1996 1999
49 Brett Myers 95 656.1 2002 2005
50 Livan Hernandez 94 533.1 1996 1999
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+
51 Sidney Ponson 94 705.1 1998 2001
52 Ryan Dempster 93 639.1 1998 2001
53 Jeremy Bonderman 93 923.1 2003 2007
54 Scott Olsen 92 531.2 2005 2008
55 Oliver Perez 89 628.1 2002 2006
56 Tom Glavine 89 646 1987 1990
57 Melido Perez 86 587.2 1987 1990
58 Brian Meadows 81 549 1998 2000


What's funny is that while I bet Sam is surprised at how many names are ahead of Kazmir- everyone listed by Kevin is behind...

(I know you aren't a big fan of actually providing evidence

Oh but he is, if the evidence supports him (which it doesn't here of course) he will be more than willing to present it. For instance, when Pedroia was off to a rough start, Kevin recited his MLEs ad nauseum- but when Ellsbury was off to a terrific start Kevin did a complete 180, disregarded Ellsbury's MLEs totally (which were pretty good MLEs mind you, but they just did not quite give a picture of the elite player that Kevin believed/hoped Ellsbury to be).

My question is this, if Kevin believes that one or more of Santana;'s season have been better than Pujols, does he also believe that Guidry was better than Rice in 1978? does he even believe it's possible that Guidry was better?

CC Sabathia
Justin Verlander
Mike Mussina
Johan Santana
Pedro Martinez
Roy Oswalt
Greg Maddux

Kazmir's ERA+ for his career is higher than any single season ERA+ Sabathia put up during the same age range.*** Santana didn't even become a full-time major league starter until age 25. Pedro wasn't a full-time starter until age 22, and his 22-24 years weren't any better than Kazmir's. Oswalt was superb at ages 23-24, but wasn't in the majors before then. Maddux didn't become MADDUX until age 26, though he was good from age 22 onward (at 21, he was awful). Mussina was outstanding at 23-24, but only had a half-season at 22 and wasn't even in the majors at 21. Verlander? Give me a feckin' break. Kazmir's the only one of this group who has been a significantly above-average major league starter every year since his age 21 season.

***Yes, I realize ERA+ isn't the be all and end all, but it's as good a starting point as any.

Apparently the trade is off. Houston claimed Springer on waivers.

And the Cubs didn't block it? Goddammit--we're screwed now.

To throw a gratuitous fanboy plug out there--Zambrano would've been a better exemplar for kevin's point than any of the guys he mentioned, but even he didn't become a full-time starter in the majors until halfway through his age-21 season. But he was better than Kazmir from that point through his age 24 season.

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here. From my previous statements, doesn't it seem rather obvious that I think IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BASED ON THE AVAILABLE DATA????????

Umm, how many times am I going to have to repeat my belief of the uncertainty of comparing starters with position players before it sinks in? 10? 20? 50? Just give me a number so I have an understanding of how long the thread is going to have to be. Criminy, does everyone suffer from ADHD here?

You probably agree that Jon Lester has been more valuable than Jason Varitek this season because, well, everyone agrees with this, and one is a pitcher and the other is a catcher. What data would you cite to support this rather non-controversial claim? Would you use metrics? And if so, how would you demonstrate one's superiority over another using these metrics if, in fact, these metrics are measuring apples and oranges?

For the fourth time. And read my lips this time. THERE'S NO ####### WAY YOU CAN MAKE THAT STATEMENT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY!!

If you believe this, then you must retract the nonsense you put forth in #156.

Vorp, Win Shares, pretty much whatever you want to bring that is accepted by the community all come to the same logical conclusion, elite position players are more valuable than elite pitchers.

There's some circular logic involved in these models, though - in that they are based in part on an underlying assumption that position players contribute more than pitchers. Win Shares, for example, assigns about 65% of the team total to position players (when you consider fielding), 35% to pitchers.

-- MWE

If you believe this, then you must retract the nonsense you put forth in #156.

No no, you misread his post. He said there's no way YOU can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

2006. Santana was the absolute best player on that team that won 96 games.

How can you be so certain?

God is dead.

There's some circular logic involved in these models, though - in that they are based in part on an underlying assumption that position players contribute more than pitchers.

Well, you can do it with linear weights, which makes no such assumption, and you'll get essentially the same answer, regardless of whether you ignore the fielding part of the equation. And, in any event, these assumption in win shares are made at the team level, not the individual level. Any runs saved/excess runs produced type model can give you value relative to the average or a replacement player, and unless you have a truly dominant starting pitcher throwing a lot of innings, you just won't find that the very best pitchers can match up to the very best position players.

Any runs saved/excess runs produced type model can give you value relative to the average or a replacement player, and unless you have a truly dominant starting pitcher throwing a lot of innings

This is way over my head, but, in order to truly guage relative values of pitchers and players, shouldn't a metric measure at an even more micro level than innings? Do these models measure plays directly affected by a player, for instance? Wouldn't that help put more weight on the pitcher's effect?

I'll bet anyone here $1000 dollars that Kazmir doesn't come anywhere near the peak of Pedro or Maddux.

Or, to make a wager actually relevant to your original (and somehow more ridiculous) statement, I will bet you $1000 that Bowden's career/peak will not compare favorably to Kazmir's.

Or the same with Ellsbury vs. Sizemore, or Pedroia vs. Wright. There are lots of options!

A couple of issues here.

First, some of these stats depend on an accurate measure of replacement level. I don't think we really know what replacement level is (especially for pitchers), despite what some around here believe. It may be the case that replacing an elite first baseman with a decent player is a lot harder than replacing an elite pitcher who goes down to injury.

Second, some of these stats get tripped up when we are talking about elite pitchers or players. I'm confident, for example, that win shares does not accurately capture the value of an elite pitcher. As I understand it, it assumes that the percentage of credit that belongs to the defense is constant across pitchers, which I don't think is accurate. Take Pedro Martinez in his prime - I believe almost all of the credit for runs saved above replacement when he was pitching should go to him and very little to the defense, while that is clearly not true for other pitchers on his staffs. This is just one example of why we should use skepticism in automatically accepting the results of these stats. Even if most advanced stats agree, they are often based on similar assumptions that may not hold.

Third, we should be very careful about making assumptions about today's game based only on the players currently playing it. What I mean by that is that there are no truly dominant pitchers today, and obviously none as valuable as Pujols - but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Pedro and Maddux in their primes were extraordinarily valuable, probably as valuable if not moreso than any hitter in the game.

Fourth, the ability of an elite pitcher to pitch more innings than a typical pitcher can have an added benefit not easily captured in the regular stats, by changing the use of the bullpen.

This is way over my head, but, in order to truly guage relative values of pitchers and players, shouldn't a metric measure at an even more micro level than innings? Do these models measure plays directly affected by a player, for instance? Wouldn't that help put more weight on the pitcher's effect?

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty!

Or, to make a wager actually relevant to your original (and somehow more ridiculous) statement, I will bet you $1000 that Bowden's career/peak will not compare favorably to Kazmir's.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty!

Hey it's fun!

I like!

Hey it's fun!

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

I know I can't make that statement with any degree of certainty, but I think Zuvella owes me a Coke. Not that I can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

dammit, I was late! But then again, maybe I was just writing about Rod's uncertain statement.

I <3 this thread.

Dizzypaco (#207) made exactly the points I was going to make in response to #204. There is very good reason to believe that the cost to a team of replacing an elite pitcher with a replacement level pitcher is greater than the difference in their absolute run value - you will very likely have ripple effects due to the changing of roles for other pitchers, as well.

-- MWE

My post was serious, though the others were justified in challenging my degree of certainty. I would happily make the wager with you, as long as there was some way I didn't actually have to deal with you along the way.

Kevin wrote:

Ok, this thread is over. All the jerkoffs like Alan and Bradein have descended, degenerating the thread into mutton-headed one-liners.

This is what happens when cherished but idiotically conceived dogma is challenged.

Main Entry: self–aware·ness
Function: noun
Date: 1880

: an awareness of one's own personality or individuality

This is what happens when cherished but idiotically conceived dogma is challenged.

This is what happens when challenged but idiotically conceived dogma is cherished.

There, fixed it for you.

As I understand it, it assumes that the percentage of credit that belongs to the defense is constant across pitchers, which I don't think is accurate.

Not quite. There are some modifications based on strikeouts, for example. Win Shares has a baseline value for defense, but it can go up or down depending on certain characteristics of the team pitching staff and defensive quality. For example, if the strikeout rate is high, that's a bonus for the pitchers. If the percentage of balls put in play that end up as outs is high, that's a bonus to the defense.

Fourth, the ability of an elite pitcher to pitch more innings than a typical pitcher can have an added benefit not easily captured in the regular stats, by changing the use of the bullpen.

I agree with this. I think it's not easy to measure this, but you could make a guess. I don't think it's ever going to be a really big factor, but if you're talking about comparing e.g. Halladay and Matsuzaka this year, it would probably be enough to swing it to Halladay even if Matsuzaka hadn't missed those starts while he was on the DL.

This is way over my head, but, in order to truly guage relative values of pitchers and players, shouldn't a metric measure at an even more micro level than innings? Do these models measure plays directly affected by a player, for instance? Wouldn't that help put more weight on the pitcher's effect?

What I'm getting at here is that you can estimate a hitters runs created pretty well. You can then compare that with the average at his position and then make an adjustment for defense and get a pretty good estimate of what he's worth compared to the average player at his position. You can do the same even more easily for pitchers - just compare his runs allowed average with the league value, make some adjustments for home park and the quality of his team's defense, and there you go.

What I mean by that is that there are no truly dominant pitchers today, and obviously none as valuable as Pujols - but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Pedro and Maddux in their primes were extraordinarily valuable, probably as valuable if not moreso than any hitter in the game.

Pedro and Maddux in their primes were historically dominant. They account for four of the five live ball era performances in the top 10 in ERA+. The best ERA+ performance of the 1980's is closer to an average season than to Pedro's 2000. Maybe the game is changing a bit and things are getting more extreme for the best pitchers, because the strikeout, the walk and the homerun have become so much more important, and the run manufacturing by stringing together singles and stealing bases has become so much less important. I think this is more the counteracted by the decrease in innings pitched for the best starters. I also agree that there is room for a more durable version of Pedro to come along, and that hypothetical guy could easily be the greatest player in the game.

In any event, I think the specific statement was motivated by the ideas that (1) Pujols is more valuable than Santana so (2) any trade for Pujols would have to give up more value than the trade for Santana. On the other hand, I think we can also demonstrate that Pujols, as great as he is, isn't worth the package that Jensen suggested, except under very very specific circumstances.

As I understand it, it assumes that the percentage of credit that belongs to the defense is constant across pitchers, which I don't think is accurate.

That's not true. Win Shares gives more credit to a pitcher with high K and W rates, and more credit to the defense when a pitcher has low K and W rates.

This is what happens when cherished but idiotically conceived dogma is challenged.

There's no way you can make that statement with any degree of certainty.

I had ignored this thread yesterday, but I just now started reading it and...wow...kevin really is in rare form here. 139 made me lose myself in a fit of laughter. I can only hope it remains this good throughout. Don't you non-Yankee or Red Sox fans pity us Yankee fans for having to deal with him in every thread about our team?

I pity the posters who haven't found the "block poster" function. I'm sympathetic towards the ones who have but who still "have to deal."

Don't you non-Yankee or Red Sox fans pity us Yankee fans for having to deal with him in every thread about our team?

No, I for one find Kevin to be very entertaining when he hijacks Yankee Threads...

You can do the same even more easily for pitchers - just compare his runs allowed average with the league value, make some adjustments for home park and the quality of his team's defense, and there you go.

The problem you have with doing that is this: Managers have a great deal of control over how pitchers are used; they have little control over how hitters are used. A manager is NOT going to use a league average pitcher in the same game situations as he would use an elite pitcher. A league average pitcher is going to come out of the game in certain high-leverage situations where an elite pitcher will stay in. The value of an elite pitcher is twofold - not only is he preventing runs while he is IN the game, but he is ALSO (in many cases) reducing the leverage of the situations in which other, lesser pitchers will have to pitch later in the game.

When pitchers were expected to pitch complete games, this didn't matter much. Nowadays, it matters.

-- MWE

Not quite. There are some modifications based on strikeouts, for example. Win Shares has a baseline value for defense, but it can go up or down depending on certain characteristics of the team pitching staff and defensive quality. For example, if the strikeout rate is high, that's a bonus for the pitchers. If the percentage of balls put in play that end up as outs is high, that's a bonus to the defense.

I'm aware that these modifications are done at the team level. The question I have is about the modifications at the individual level, comparing one pitcher on a team to another pitcher on a team. Take a team like the 1999 or 2000 Red Sox. As I understand it, some calculations are involved first in determining how many total win shares should be awarded to the pitching plus defense. Second, it is determined what percentage of these win shares should go to the pitchers and what goes to the defense. You're left with a total number of win shares that goes to the pitching staff, alone, which are then distributed among the various pitchers.

What this does, if I'm correct, is diminish the win shares of each pitcher on the staff by relatively the same percentage. So if the 1999 Red Sox had 150 defense+pitching win shares, and 33% are awarded to the defense, than there remains 100 for the pitching staff. If there were 45 win shares awarded to the pitching + defense when Pedro is pitching, 15 will go to the defense, and 30 to Pedro. I think this is the wrong approach - Pedro is deserving of more than 30.

The correct approach, IMO, would be to determine the number of win shares that belong to the defense, and divide them on a per inning basis, rather than a percentage of each win share. If the defense contributes 5 win shares per 200 innings, then each pitcher should subtract five from their possible total.

That's not true. Win Shares gives more credit to a pitcher with high K and W rates, and more credit to the defense when a pitcher has low K and W rates.

This is incorrect, according to the sources I found on line (my book is at home). K and walk rates only come into play at the team level, when determining ther overall percentage of win shares that belong to the pitchers and defense. K and Walk rates are not used when distributing pitching win shares among the pitchers on a staff.

Here's what James had to say on the issue on Bill James Online:

The system increases the share of the credit given to the pitcher, as opposed to the fielders, as the pitcher has more strikeouts, walks and home runs allowed. If he has few strikeouts, few walks, few home runs allowed, the "pitching share" could be a little over 30%, whereas if he is Herb Score, the pitching percentage could be close to 40%. The theory is that if the pitcher walks batters and gives up homers, there's not a lot that the defense can do about that, whereas if the pitcher just puts the ball in play and takes his chances, then the outcome is more up to the fielders. It's not based on the pitcher's "greatness" or effectiveness, but it's a similar concept.

It's not entirely clear that this adjustment is made to individual pitchers rather than to teams as a whole, but I interpreted it that way.

This is from Hardball Times...

That was the easy part. Now you've got to deal with the defense. The first step is to divide defensive Win Shares between pitching and fielding. This done through a complicated formula that accounts for FIP elements that can be attributed only to pitchers (home runs, walks and strikeouts) as well as a team's DER (Defensive Efficiency Ratio, adjusted for the ballpark) and other fielding statistics such as passed balls, errors and double plays. Typically, about 70% of defensive Win Shares are credited to pitching, and 30% to fielding. The Win Shares system is bound so that pitching never is credited with less than 60%, or more than 75%, of defensive Win Shares.

Next, you allocate pitching Win Shares to individual pitchers. This is accomplished through an even more complicated formula that starts with each pitcher's marginal runs not allowed (same approach as team marginal runs not allowed), wins, losses and saves. Special consideration is given to relievers by estimating the number of high-leverage innings they pitched (ninth innings with one-run leads are more important than first innings with no score) and something called "Component ERA" which is essentially ERA re-calculated according to the actual underlying run elements.

I interpreted this to mean that K and walks are really only important at the team level, and not the individual.

That was the easy part. Now you've got to deal with the defense. The first step is to divide defensive Win Shares between pitching and fielding. This done through a complicated formula that accounts for FIP elements that can be attributed only to pitchers (home runs, walks and strikeouts) as well as a team's DER (Defensive Efficiency Ratio, adjusted for the ballpark) and other fielding statistics such as passed balls, errors and double plays.

This is a major problem I have with FIP. Home runs, walks, strikeouts, and ALL other events do depend directly on the defense. All it takes is a dropped foul ball that should have been an out and a subsequent pitch in that AB which leads to a positive offensive result, or a great snag at the wall to rob what otherwise would have been a home run. Even in a situation where the batter doesn't even make contact, there's the matter of how good the catcher is at framing the pitch, blocking the ball, and calling the game. Now, I don't profess to be an expert on FIP, DiPS, cERA, or anything else along those lines, but I do think that these metrics are flawed in that they are trying too hard to separate two things which are inextricably linked. I understand that the events I mentioned are rare over the course of a season, but they still happen often enough to make a difference in a pitcher's production and, I'd imagine, his underlying component production.

James has modified Win Shares to also include Loss Shares. He may have also changed the allocation for individual pitchers as implied in #231. Unfortunately he hasn't published the details yet.

Elite pitchers also tend to run deeper into games, saving the bullpen for days when they are needed more. The benefit of this is twofold: 1) it saves the top relievers from facing more high leverage situations. 2) it reduces fatigue, making them better prepared to face the high leverage situations they will be called upon to face.

Same can be said for elite hitters, no? An elite hitter creates runs that sometimes allow managers to avoid putting in their elite relievers in high leverage situations.

Same can be said for elite hitters, no?

No, not really. At least not nearly to the same extent. For pitchers, its not just run prevention, its that the pitchers actually pitch longer in games. An elite hitter might alter the score a little, allowing the starting pitcher to stay in a little longer, once in a blue moon, but an elite starting pitcher goes longer in games all the time.

An elite hitter might alter the score a little, allowing the starting pitcher to stay in a little longer, once in a blue moon, but an elite starting pitcher goes longer in games all the time.

An elite starter probably gets mid to hig 20 in quality starts per year. How many times does a Pujols break a game open a year? Sincere, if stupid, question.

An elite starter probably gets mid to hig 20 in quality starts per year. How many times does a Pujols break a game open a year? Sincere, if stupid, question.

For a hitter to have the kind of impact you are talking about, they need to be responsible for having such an impact on the game that it completely changes the way a team uses its bullpen. I'd guess that would be very rare, even for someone like Pujols.

also, an elite starter's quality starts don't always result in the avoidance of an important reliever coming into a game in a tight spot.

When pitchers were expected to pitch complete games, this didn't matter much. Nowadays, it matters.

Well, there were other issues in the past. Managers used to use spot starters a lot more to shuffle their rotations around, and get particular pitchers pitching against certain teams.

In the modern era, it's pretty clear, at least to me, that not missing starts is far more important to the team than going deep into games. Bullpen usage patterns, while having some effect on the team, are relatively minor to the effects on most teams of having to use the 6th starter. LOTS of teams have trouble finding a sixth starter who can put up an ERA below 6. Comparatively fewer teams have trouble finding relievers who can do that (in terms of true talent level, not the actual results). Even if they do have a single reliever who is that bad, they can usually hide him in low leverage situations, even if their bullpen has been a bit overused recently. Almost every team has three or four decent relievers out there. Missing a start is a killer. Look at almost any surprise good team and you'll see either healthy starters, or very good luck in getting someone to fill the missing starts. Disappointing teams almost always have injuries in the rotation. For this reason, I might buy the idea that the replacement level for starting pitchers has generally been set too high. I don't buy for a second the idea that reliever usage patterns make more than 5 runs a year worth of difference to a team based on the difference between the reasonable extremes in recent years among ace starters. Based on Livan Hernandez versus some guys with ERAs like his, it might make a bigger difference, but he's truly a special case.

Perhaps the problem is a severe structural one in most teams. Going away from having a long reliever/spot starter type guy means that teams generally have to go to the minors when they need a starter. It also means that they are probably using guys who could be decent starters in relief roles, and who usually stay in relief roles even when they would be needed to fill in in the rotation.

test

okay someone fix this page. it's clearly allowing posts, even after kevin declared it was over.