2019-20 MLB Hot Stove thread

[kerrywoodwins20]

I have never been a fan of WAR as a stat and this is a great example of why.

space taker IP ER BB Ks WHIP ERA WAR
Pitcher A 223 64 42 300 0.80 2.58 7.8
Pitcher B 208.1 83 68 200 1.24 3.59 7.8
Pitcher C 212.1 59 48 326 0.89 2.50 6.9

So I'd love it if someone could explain to me this formula where Pitchers A and C have nearly identical stats but A is worth a win more while Pitcher B has clearly inferior stats to Pitchers A and C yet is worth as much as A.

Without knowing more, I'd say it's likely pitcher B gave up fewer HR than the others.

If a pitcher keeps the ball in the ballpark, he gives his defense a chance to make outs. If he gives up a bomb, it doesn't matter if he's got 8 gold glovers behind him.

No statistic is perfect, so I'm not some FIP fan boy, but the logic of WAR isn't defeated by what you posted.

 

[beckdawg]

it's fucking crazy the bryant service time grievance still isn't over.

 

[beckdawg]

I have never been a fan of WAR as a stat and this is a great example of why.

space taker IP ER BB Ks WHIP ERA WAR
Pitcher A 223 64 42 300 0.80 2.58 7.8
Pitcher B 208.1 83 68 200 1.24 3.59 7.8
Pitcher C 212.1 59 48 326 0.89 2.50 6.9

So I'd love it if someone could explain to me this formula where Pitchers A and C have nearly identical stats but A is worth a win more while Pitcher B has clearly inferior stats to Pitchers A and C yet is worth as much as A.

Pitching WAR is also a bit of an open debate. There's two camps of people. There's the FIP people and there's the RA9 people. FIP people basically believe you can't exactly punish a pitcher for his team defense. So, the FIP equation finds your "ERA" if you removed defense from the equation. The equation is 13* HR + 3*(BB + HBP) - 2*K / IP. So the idea there being HR's and Walks hurt pitchers and K's help them. There's some problems with FIP. Some people just out perform the typical expectations of FIP. But generally speaking it's a useful metric.

RA9 WAR is just using the runs against rather than FIP and calculating the WAR that way. The benefits of that are you don't have to worry about people who out perform FIP. The drawbacks however are you punish people who pitch in front of bad defense.

I'm a stat guy. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't really worry too much about pitching WAR unless you're specifically trying to look at value. There's so many factors at play here besides just the two types of WAR. For example, Would you rather have an ace who never stays health and only pitches 100 IP a year or a durable starter who eats innings but does so at far less quality than the ace? It's entirely feasible that those 2 players could end up with the same WAR.

For me personally, when I look at pitchers I mainly just look at k/9 and bb/9 and will usually see if the guy is durable or not. The rest doesn't matter a ton to me unless I'm trying to figure out why ERA may not match k/9 or bb/9. For example, Darvish is a good example of someone you may need to dig a bit deeper on and see his HR/FB rates because his k rate is absurd and his walk rate was decent last year.

To give you an idea here, if you're a starter and you are at 8 k/9 you're pretty average. At 9 you're starting to move into that #2 level. Anything over 10 is ace level. For walks 3 is kind of average. 2.5 would be kind of #2 level and anything around 2 is fantastic. There's some counter play there depending on the type of pitcher. For example, Hendricks may have only an 8 k/9 but if he's at 2 bb/9 he can effectively pitch like an ace. Like wise, there's some filthy starters who have over 10 k/9 but higher walk rates and get away with it. For relievers, anything under 10 k/9 is kinda meh. The top relievers can get up to 14-15 k/9. For walks, I'd say like 4 bb/9 is average or slightly below. But, relievers are more dependent on their k/9 than starters are.

 

[Castor76]

Without knowing more, I'd say it's likely pitcher B gave up fewer HR than the others.

If a pitcher keeps the ball in the ballpark, he gives his defense a chance to make outs. If he gives up a bomb, it doesn't matter if he's got 8 gold glovers behind him.

No statistic is perfect, so I'm not some FIP fan boy, but the logic of WAR isn't defeated by what you posted.

Pitcher A gave up 36 HR, Pitcher B gave up 30, and Pitcher C gave up 29. Allowed OPS was .579/.704/.579 respectively. Quality Start % was .76/.50/.79 respectively.

I bring this up because you have been using the WAR stat to justify your arguments. I have just shown you 2 pitchers who have the same war yet one is markedly worse in most other stats while another pitcher has nearly equal stats the the better of the two first pitches yet his WAR is almost a full win less.

Pitcher A is Verlander. Pitcher B is Mike Minor. Pitcher C is Garrett Cole. If HR allowed is such a difference maker, why isn't Cole's WAR higher as he gave up fewer than either? Maybe I can't show it for all positions, but for starting pitchers, go to the song by Mr Edwin Starr, "WAR! Huh, good gawd y'all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin! Say it again!"

 

[CSF77]

Pitcher A gave up 36 HR, Pitcher B gave up 30, and Pitcher C gave up 29. Allowed OPS was .579/.704/.579 respectively. Quality Start % was .76/.50/.79 respectively.

I bring this up because you have been using the WAR stat to justify your arguments. I have just shown you 2 pitchers who have the same war yet one is markedly worse in most other stats while another pitcher has nearly equal stats the the better of the two first pitches yet his WAR is almost a full win less.

Pitcher A is Verlander. Pitcher B is Mike Minor. Pitcher C is Garrett Cole. If HR allowed is such a difference maker, why isn't Cole's WAR higher as he gave up fewer than either? Maybe I can't show it for all positions, but for starting pitchers, go to the song by Mr Edwin Starr, "WAR! Huh, good gawd y'all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin! Say it again!"

WAR = [[([(League “FIP” – “FIP”) / Pitcher Specific Runs Per Win] + Replacement Level) * (IP/9)] * Leverage Multiplier for Relievers] + League Correction

 

[anotheridiot]

it's fucking crazy the bryant service time grievance still isn't over.

Its the power of the cubs.

They did not break any rules, handshake deals do not count, and the results of the grievance is simply telling the world that the cub front office were a bunch of assholes the way they handled the call up.

Bryant is going to make 18.6 million dollars. The grievance follows the rules, what is he gonna get next year arby, 22,23,25?

 

[CSF77]

Its the power of the cubs.

They did not break any rules, handshake deals do not count, and the results of the grievance is simply telling the world that the cub front office were a bunch of assholes the way they handled the call up.

Bryant is going to make 18.6 million dollars. The grievance follows the rules, what is he gonna get next year arby, 22,23,25?

Depends on his production. 5 mil might be a good guess. But it most likely will be another teams problem.

 

[CSF77]

Pitching WAR is also a bit of an open debate. There's two camps of people. There's the FIP people and there's the RA9 people. FIP people basically believe you can't exactly punish a pitcher for his team defense. So, the FIP equation finds your "ERA" if you removed defense from the equation. The equation is 13* HR + 3*(BB + HBP) - 2*K / IP. So the idea there being HR's and Walks hurt pitchers and K's help them. There's some problems with FIP. Some people just out perform the typical expectations of FIP. But generally speaking it's a useful metric.

RA9 WAR is just using the runs against rather than FIP and calculating the WAR that way. The benefits of that are you don't have to worry about people who out perform FIP. The drawbacks however are you punish people who pitch in front of bad defense.

I'm a stat guy. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't really worry too much about pitching WAR unless you're specifically trying to look at value. There's so many factors at play here besides just the two types of WAR. For example, Would you rather have an ace who never stays health and only pitches 100 IP a year or a durable starter who eats innings but does so at far less quality than the ace? It's entirely feasible that those 2 players could end up with the same WAR.

For me personally, when I look at pitchers I mainly just look at k/9 and bb/9 and will usually see if the guy is durable or not. The rest doesn't matter a ton to me unless I'm trying to figure out why ERA may not match k/9 or bb/9. For example, Darvish is a good example of someone you may need to dig a bit deeper on and see his HR/FB rates because his k rate is absurd and his walk rate was decent last year.

To give you an idea here, if you're a starter and you are at 8 k/9 you're pretty average. At 9 you're starting to move into that #2 level. Anything over 10 is ace level. For walks 3 is kind of average. 2.5 would be kind of #2 level and anything around 2 is fantastic. There's some counter play there depending on the type of pitcher. For example, Hendricks may have only an 8 k/9 but if he's at 2 bb/9 he can effectively pitch like an ace. Like wise, there's some filthy starters who have over 10 k/9 but higher walk rates and get away with it. For relievers, anything under 10 k/9 is kinda meh. The top relievers can get up to 14-15 k/9. For walks, I'd say like 4 bb/9 is average or slightly below. But, relievers are more dependent on their k/9 than starters are.

From what I was looking at Yu really got hammered in the 1st half in HR's. But his struggles were documented where he lost command of his 4 seam and had to switch to a 2 seam. And so on. It seemed like he was clueless out there. Then post ASG something clicked.

From what I read the problem was he was finally healthy. But pitching injured that long altered his mechanics. So when 100% everything became off.

So it took time to adjust. But in HR/9 he was around 1.8 and 2nd half it went to 1.43. so that is a noticable change.

On HR/FB it seems like as the situation leverage got higher it improved.

Low 21%
Med25%
High 11%

So I'm not sure what to make of it. On the surface it looks like a focus issue and he locks in when he is forced. But that is just conjecture.

But what is fact is 1st half 25% of his flyballs were HR's. 2nd 1/2 if fell to 19.7%.

So we are talking a 5% improvement after figuring it out.

So what to make out of it? IMO he is going to get hit for the HR like the rest of the league. Until MLB goes back to a legal ball again vs a juiced one.

 

[anotheridiot]

The whole problem is with the R. Replacement is an average major league player, and how many really good ones are out there. Doesnt that lower their value and raise the better players values? In all honesty, you would not replace Garrett Cole with Mike Montgomery, you would get another ace to replace him, either from your staff or outside. So a replacement would not be a zero, but at least a 2 or 3. So you are really only looking at the end result.

 

[beckdawg]

The whole problem is with the R. Replacement is an average major league player, and how many really good ones are out there. Doesnt that lower their value and raise the better players values? In all honesty, you would not replace Garrett Cole with Mike Montgomery, you would get another ace to replace him, either from your staff or outside. So a replacement would not be a zero, but at least a 2 or 3. So you are really only looking at the end result.

R is not an average major league player. R is literally a 4A player. The concept of WAR is to basically evaluate how someone would compare to any typical 4A player you could pull from AAA. The idea is that there is a floor on how low a team can go win wise. I believe it's set at 45 for both b and fWAR. That more or less checks in as the worst team since they expanded to 162 games was the 2003 tigers at 43-119.

If you're expecting to be a playoff team which is likely the goal for most teams, you need to generally win at least 90 games. So, that means you need to pull roughly 45 wins out of your 25 man roster. A typical 90 win team is only going to pull 4-5 wins out of their bullpen. You're only going to get like 10-15 wins out of your starters. So you're talking about needing 25-31 wins out of your hitters. You're typically only going to get like 600-650 PAs out of your 8 starters if that. You're not going to have more than 6500 PAs total. So, if you go conservative that means 4800 is going to come out of your 8 starting position players with some where between 1200-1700 coming from your bench. So, roughly 75% of that 25-31 wins has to come from your starting position players meaning your average starter is something like a 2.34-2.9 win player on a 90 win team.

That's how the math works. Now obviously it's never going to be that simple. Some teams are going to have dominant aces who carry more of the weight pitching wise and likewise some teams will have better selection of hitters.

 

[anotheridiot]

Depends on his production. 5 mil might be a good guess. But it most likely will be another teams problem.

He went from 10.9 to 12.9 to 18.6. Any multi year extension is not going to start at 30, probably start at 24 or 25 and work its way up and back down again, possibly with a hefty signing bonus to keep the numbers down.

Point is he wont be losing much money next year anyway.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Its the power of the cubs.

They did not break any rules, handshake deals do not count, and the results of the grievance is simply telling the world that the cub front office were a bunch of assholes the way they handled the call up.

Bryant is going to make 18.6 million dollars. The grievance follows the rules, what is he gonna get next year arby, 22,23,25?

How were they ass holes?

 

[anotheridiot]

How were they ass holes?

They told Bryant if nobody beat him out in spring training, he would go north with the team. Those were his words, not mine.

Our infielders started with
7-Arismendy Alcantara
11-Tommy La Stella
13-Starlin Castro
19-Jonathan Herrera
20-Mike Olt
44-Anthony Rizzo

Cannot find spring training numbers for the rest of them, but Bryants numbers in spring training 2015 were 425/.475/1.175 with an MLB-best nine home runs in 40 at-bats that spring.

Hence, assholes.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

They told Bryant if nobody beat him out in spring training, he would go north with the team. Those were his words, not mine.

Our infielders started with
7-Arismendy Alcantara
11-Tommy La Stella
13-Starlin Castro
19-Jonathan Herrera
20-Mike Olt
44-Anthony Rizzo

Cannot find spring training numbers for the rest of them, but Bryants numbers in spring training 2015 were 425/.475/1.175 with an MLB-best nine home runs in 40 at-bats that spring.

Hence, assholes.

Not how I remember it, wasn't it well known they were going to keep him in the minors to get that extra year?

 

[CubsFaninMN]

Not how I remember it, wasn't it well known they were going to keep him in the minors to get that extra year?

Me either. I know that Bryant was upset that he had such a hot spring and still didn't come north with the team, and was complaining that it was being done just to screw him out of hitting free agency a year earlier. And while the Cubs stated it was for "a little more work on his defense", no one denied that the call-up date was exactly the day after that additional year of control was established.

This is how the MLBPA-agreed-to player's agreement states that service time is calculated. Nowhere does it state that a club cannot manage service time any way it sees fit, and therefore there is no basis to the grievance. Clubs do this all the time, and only because Bryant is a superstar is there even any question about this.

I understand the league office doesn't want to get on the MLBPA's bad side going into talks on the new agreement. But this is cut and dried. This is the agreement the players agreed to, and this is how the clubs have been using it. And it doesn't only become unfair when it's a superstar's years of control that are under discussion; it works the same way for all players, or for none. Bryant is not a special case.

The players made their own bed when it came to setting the service time rules, and have been lying in it. Kris Bryant isn't so special that he's better than the rest of the players in the league and deserves his free agency sooner, just because he stated publicly his suspicion he was starting at AAA because of service time. Not proven accusations, just suspicions.

And being guaranteed he was coming north if he had a good spring? By whom? I seriously doubt any such guarantee was made by the front office, and if someone verbally said the odds were good but it couldn't be put in writing anywhere, that tells you right there that if you believe that's a guarantee, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya, cheap...

-Doug

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Me either. I know that Bryant was upset that he had such a hot spring and still didn't come north with the team, and was complaining that it was being done just to screw him out of hitting free agency a year earlier. And while the Cubs stated it was for "a little more work on his defense", no one denied that the call-up date was exactly the day after that additional year of control was established.

This is how the MLBPA-agreed-to player's agreement states that service time is calculated. Nowhere does it state that a club cannot manage service time any way it sees fit, and therefore there is no basis to the grievance. Clubs do this all the time, and only because Bryant is a superstar is there even any question about this.

I understand the league office doesn't want to get on the MLBPA's bad side going into talks on the new agreement. But this is cut and dried. This is the agreement the players agreed to, and this is how the clubs have been using it. And it doesn't only become unfair when it's a superstar's years of control that are under discussion; it works the same way for all players, or for none. Bryant is not a special case.

The players made their own bed when it came to setting the service time rules, and have been lying in it. Kris Bryant isn't so special that he's better than the rest of the players in the league and deserves his free agency sooner, just because he stated publicly his suspicion he was starting at AAA because of service time. Not proven accusations, just suspicions.

And being guaranteed he was coming north if he had a good spring? By whom? I seriously doubt any such guarantee was made by the front office, and if someone verbally said the odds were good but it couldn't be put in writing anywhere, that tells you right there that if you believe that's a guarantee, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya, cheap...

-Doug

As you said it's in the CBA, I really don't see how he has any grounds to win, I'm no lawyer though and don't play one on TV either. Shouldn't this be open and shut, case closed?

 

[CubsFaninMN]

As you said it's in the CBA, I really don't see how he has any grounds to win, I'm no lawyer though and don't play one on TV either. Shouldn't this be open and shut, case closed?

I would sure think so.

The best reversed situation I can think of is a player who has a no-trade clause in his contract that allows him to refuse any trade, or at least any trade to a team not on a specific list of teams. That kind of no-trade clause is common.

So, let's say the Cubs decided to trade Bryant to Minnesota, and Bryant had a no-trade clause in his contract. (I know, he doesn't, but this is a hypothetical.) Then let's say Bryant doesn't want to live for 6 months a year in Minnesota, and says no to the trade.

But this is a perfect trade for the Cubs, so they demand a reason. First privately, and then in the press. Bryant isn't required to give a reason, he just has black and white yea-or-nay power, and is using it. But the Cubs are pissed off at him for messing with their potential to make money, so they file a grievance that Bryant had to at least present reasoning, so the club could have a chance to talk him out of his position.

Nope. Player in that position can decline a trade because he doesn't like the color of that team's uniforms. It doesn't matter, there does not have to be a reason supplied for the player election. And it's not legal for the club to demand further justification of his election. It's black and white.

Again, you sign a contract, like the CBA, you abide by it. You don't go crying for Mommy when you don't like it. Especially not when it's been used like this by the clubs ever since this CBA was put into place without grievance.

Don't like it, MLBPA? Try and negotiate it out of the next CBA, but good luck defining in a CBA what constitutes a challenge to a club's evaluation of the player's developmental needs. In other words, how do you word a CBA that says "If a guy does really, really well at Spring Training, he has to start the season on the 26-man roster"? You just cannot define that. It will have to be addressed in terms of changing the number of days the player has to be kept at AAA to add that extra year of control, and I don't think the clubs will accept a solution that would screw them if they, for example, promote a guy in June because of injury on the big league club, but at the cost of a whole year of control of that player.

I dunno if this is an issue that the MLBPA wants to dig their heels in on...

-Doug

 

[kerrywoodwins20]

Pitcher A gave up 36 HR, Pitcher B gave up 30, and Pitcher C gave up 29. Allowed OPS was .579/.704/.579 respectively. Quality Start % was .76/.50/.79 respectively.

I bring this up because you have been using the WAR stat to justify your arguments. I have just shown you 2 pitchers who have the same war yet one is markedly worse in most other stats while another pitcher has nearly equal stats the the better of the two first pitches yet his WAR is almost a full win less.

Pitcher A is Verlander. Pitcher B is Mike Minor. Pitcher C is Garrett Cole. If HR allowed is such a difference maker, why isn't Cole's WAR higher as he gave up fewer than either? Maybe I can't show it for all positions, but for starting pitchers, go to the song by Mr Edwin Starr, "WAR! Huh, good gawd y'all. What is it good for? Absolutely nothin! Say it again!"

Gee bro, way to hide the ball.

Mike Minor pitched his home games in Texas. That solves the riddle.

Would you even care to know that Mike Minor's HOME ERA was 4.31 last year, while his road ERA was 2.99?

2022 MLB Park Factors - Runs - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Check out the 2022 MLB Park Factors on ESPN.com to see which baseball stadiums batters like best. Where are the most Runs? Find out here.

www.espn.com

There were 1.245 runs scored in Arlington for every run scored in an average MLB park.

But we shouldn't factor that in to how we evaluate Mike Minor?

Jesus Hector Christ. I truly regret engaging with you at all if you can't even understand that Mike Minor pitches in the worst ballpark for pitchers in the league besides Coors and refuse to factor that into his analysis and worth to a team.

 

[kerrywoodwins20]

WAR = [[([(League “FIP” – “FIP”) / Pitcher Specific Runs Per Win] + Replacement Level) * (IP/9)] * Leverage Multiplier for Relievers] + League Correction

Bro didn't think league correction was important or justified for a pitcher who had to pitch in Arlington. Might be a loss cause with this one.

We should trade the entire team for Arenado... I'm sure he will totally hit like he does at Coors when he's at Wrigley and the wind is blowing in 90% of the time. Because parks don't matter.

 

[CSF77]

Bro didn't think league correction was important or justified for a pitcher who had to pitch in Arlington. Might be a loss cause with this one.

We should trade the entire team for Arenado... I'm sure he will totally hit like he does at Coors when he's at Wrigley and the wind is blowing in 90% of the time. Because parks don't matter.

Rumor is Arenado wants to be traded to LAD and will only pull his NTC to them. Add to it he has a opt out after 2 years and expect him to pull it if he doesn't get what he wants.

The Cubs are tied to him but IMO it is only kicking the tires.