So, I have a question for you? I respect you but you are very much a numbers guy over seeing how they play. You are a sabers guy. More than me. I reaspect and understand sabers but I always am all about the eye test. You always talking about stolen bases. Stolen bases is not something saber guys like. Unless, you are great at stealing bases you are looking a 30 percent fail rate. Sabers was originally against any stolen bases. It was all about getting on base. So, m question is most people completely ignore Soriano as a hall of famer but you add in Stolen bases there have been very few that have achieved his numbers across the line. I mean Tim Raines isnt in. So, I feel like its a pick and choose. Dont think I am coming after you? I just think you pick and choose your favorites. Lets be real you have never really cared for Castro. O get your point but fo0r being a sabers guy you ignore some things with him. I just want to know why. If you dont like him, I am perfectly ok with that just getting your perspective. Trust me, I have my favorites too.
As for the saber/SB thing, it's not that clear cut. Dave Cameron of fangraphs had an article about it around the start of last year you can
view here. To put it simply without going into math and stuff, it comes down to probability of scoring. I think a guy on first scores something like 40% of the time with no outs where as a guy on second with no outs is something like 70%. From there you calculate the cost of an out to that and so on. However, unlikely a concept like sac bunting, stolen base value is greatly impacted by total runs scored in games. In other words, during the steroid era they probably were a poor idea because it was easier to score runs by just normal hitting. In the 80's where teams scored around .5 fewer runs per game or more the value of stolen bases increased. The difference between that and say a sac bunt is that you're almost always giving up a free out with bunting where as if you're a good base stealer you're at 85-90% success and even average guys are in the 70-75% success rate. And even then sac bunts are situationally viewed as a positive it's just there's not a ton of situations. An example of a good time for a sac bun is runners on first and second with no out and a good bunter at the plate or when you have a weak hitter(pitcher) up. In this conversation, I'm just talking about it in terms of added value for a player. If we're talking about Rollins, he's only at 76% success rate. I'm unsure if that is an overall plus or minus according to a saber analysis though I would guess it is probably a net positive. What I was getting at in this conversation is that someone with more stolen bases is generally more valuable than someone with less unless like you mention it's a case of a guy who is terrible at it and does it anyways though given the way MLB teams are these days I doubt there's many if any players that run when they aren't allowed. As for Soriano, I personally haven't seen people ignoring him as a potential HOF guy. When I was critical of him it was the past 2-3 years when he was no longer the player of his prime.
I wouldn't say I don't like Castro as a whole. There are just aspects of his game I dislike. I view defense as important. I'm fairly consistent in that regard. If you look at my comments about Bryant at 3B or Alcantara in CF my worry is they will be poor defenders there. Alcantara is a player I talk up all the time but I've consistently said I thought he would be garbage at CF defensively. So does that mean I dislike Alcantara too? Additionally, Castro has power which is never a bad thing. However, it's not something I view the future cubs lacking. If their prospects pan out they may lead the league with or without Castro in HRs. They have 4 30+ HR potential guys(Rizzo, Baez, Bryant, Schwarber) as well as Soler and Alcantara who might have 20-25 HR power and Almora might have 20. Castillo might hit 10-15. They could easily be in the 200 HR range with all of those players and only 1 team hit more than 200 HRs last year(O's). So, the impact of Castro hitting 20-25 HRs on that is less than say Miami who hit 95 last year. On the flip side, if we generously call Castro's defense below average rather than bad you are adding him to Bryant, Baez, and Alcantara who are also poor defenders. That is amplified on a poor defensive team. To put it another way, if the cubs hit 200 HRs as a team they probably lead the league in runs scored or are near there so more runs doesn't do much for them. On the other hand, better defense might mean they give up fewer runs. And with defense being an every day thing vs scoring runs being when a player is hitting, defense likely is the more valuable addition at that point. There's also the aspect of his walk rate. We've had this conversation multiple times so I know you view wOBA as a bigger deal which is fair. His wOBA is higher because of the weight on doubles and HR. In the case of the doubles they arguably matter less if he's hitting out of the 6-8 slot because your 7, 8 and 9 hitters aren't as good .
I get how after saying that people could view me as negative on him. But it is said largely because I think some have an unrealistic view of his value here. I'm not necessarily saying you but I think some view him in a similar light to younger versions of Hanley when he's frankly not. Hanley was a 7.1 WAR player at 24 and 25. And I know you don't like WAR but I'm just using it as a level example. If you prefer look at the counting stats where he hit 33 homers and stole 35 bases as well as 24/27 the next year with better defense than Castro. Use whatever stat you want, those two years Hanley was a flat out better player. I compared Castro to Ian Desmond from last year with worse defense. Ian Desmond was a 5 WAR player last year. I've said I thought he could return someone like Noah Syndergaard in a trade. That's not hate. After injuries to top guys you could argue he's in the conversation for the best pitching prospect in the majors. I've also compared him to Edgar Renteria who was the starting SS on two world series teams.
As for picking and choosing favorites... isn't that baseball in a nutshell? The difference between Rizzo who you'd probably suggest I love and Castro is that I see Rizzo as a better long term fit. Rizzo is left handed. He's probably a top 5 defensive 1B. He's got high OBP. Castro is a better fit on a team with great OBP and great team defense who needs additional pop that they aren't getting out of 1B/3B/RF/LF. I think Castro would be a great fit on a team like SF, Tampa or STL who have better team defense and lack power. He could probably hit 5th for any one of those teams and with his power he'd often be hitting with people on base.
Regardless, if I'm "down" on Castro then I'm not really sure where you think I should be on him. He's probably a 3-4 WAR player that hits like a 5 WAR player but is brought down because of his defense. For perspective, there were a total of 26 players in both leagues combined with 5 or more WAR. To say he is any more than that is suggesting he should be in the conversation for MVP yearly which I think is utterly absurd. And as for the comment about being numbers vs watching someone play I watch as many games as I get on tv. It's probably not meant that way but one could take that as an insult as in the same insults scouts levied at moneyball people prior to that working. I am into stats because they provide additional context to a game. It's like reading a book vs watching the tv show/movie. Additionally, humans are biased by nature(see: everyone has favorites) and they provide an objective view. That doesn't mean stats are the only thing. I said prior to the season I didn't think Nelson Cruz would be all that good outside of Texas because his road splits were pretty dramatic. I was wrong and any time his name has come up in conversation I said as much. But, honestly part of the fun is being wrong. And in fairness, I often bring up scouting grades in conversations so it's not just stats. However, when I choose not to use them it is often because a player may show flashes of his potential but until he consistently does something they are just that, flashes. I try to get as much information as I can on a subject. If I say x player hasn't done y thing well and someone has a legitimate baseball reason for why I take that into consideration though I tend to fall back on stats because opinions are a dime a dozen. Look no farther than this board and the wide range of opinions on what Castro "is."
