Johan Santana

[das11209]

Questions to some other posters - you guys all getting these statistical models - right? Just making sure that I am the only dumb one around.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Questions to some other posters - you guys all getting these statistical models - right? Just making sure that I am the only dumb one around.

 

I hate numbers, I'd rather just watch the game. I like making judgements based on what I see. That doesn't convince anyone but you can't convince anyone of anything on this site. Everyone has there opinion and they will argue that point to death, with or without statistical evidence. Which is fine...thats why most of us are here.

[das11209]

Agreed - everyone is free to express their opinion. Thanks for letting me know that I am not the only one getting a headache.

[example1]

Questions to some other posters - you guys all getting these statistical models - right? Just making sure that I am the only dumb one around.

 

It's not a sign of being dumb, but to make claims without at least referencing the fact that painstaking work was done to calculate as exactly as possible what actually happens on a ball field would be to speak uninformed.

 

I bet nobody here would say they actually KNOW what is going on, but there are definite trends that occur in baseball. For instance, a TREND is that guys with a high OBP tend to keep that high OBP over time. in fact, young players with a high OBP tend to increase that OBP over time, whereas something like AVG is much more variable.

 

In terms of fielding statistics a lot of it is over my head. I can understand what people are talking about, but to some degree it is about "see ball, catch ball" and the players who do it well end up higher on the measurements than guys who do not. Watching the game may give you some indication about who is better at it than others, but looks can be decieving, as can recent memories or the outcome of the game. The point of all these numbers is to isolate the defensive play from what happened around it.

 

I don't know, :dunno: , I think it is interesting discussion but fielding is notoriously hard to quantify, and even if it is well-quantified I don't feel like I could recreate the statistics myself, so it is hard to look for statistical errors or anamolies. In otherwords, Zone Rating is great, but I don't feel that I can go back and evaluate each play to judge whether the data is accurate. it probably is (because that is someone else's job) but it makes the metric seem inaccessable to me.

 

The batting statistics, on the other hand, often have a long formula, but they are accessible in that you could recreate a number of them with some labor and attention to detail (in other words, I could figure out Runs Created if I wanted to, it would just take awhile). Fielding stats don't seem that easy to do.

 

For those with the energy to discusss it, though, please keep it up.

[example1]

[quote=One Red Seat;309862

Looks to me like he's saying getting to more balls is more important than being marginally more adept at handling them. Your interpretation of English may vary.

 

I was indeed saying that being able to get to more balls (i.e., to put a major-league caliber player near a potential out) is more important than showing that you can handle balls that are hit at you.

 

I didn't mean to imply anything about adeptness. I think coco is just as capable of handling a fly ball hit right at him as anyone else is, but he is better at getting to balls out of his zone than most, and when out of his zone his ability to catch the ball is roughly the same as anyone elses. The skill is in getting there.

[cam780]

 

Good I suggest you read it again. Oh wait, that didn't go so well for you last time since you completely missed the point. Here, allow me, example's last paragraph:

 

 

 

Looks to me like he's saying getting to more balls is more important than being marginally more adept at handling them. Your interpretation of English may vary.

 

 

RZR absolutely considers players making plays out of zone. RZR eliminates out of zone plays (OOZ) and creates a new category for them. I'm sure you are thinking, "But Lowell's OOZ plays dropped from 43 to 27. Surely that supports my position." Maybe, but let's look at who was playing next to him. In 2005 and 2006, Alex Gonzalez made 41 and 42 OOZ plays (conveniently they played together in 2005 so we have two years of data to look at), and Mike Lowell made 39 and 43. Looks pretty consistent. Lugo makes 55 last year. Lowell wasn't required to make as many OOZ plays because he was playing next to a SS with superior range.

 

 

The difference between Lowell's '07 and '06 was the errors. He turned .765 of BIZ into outs in '06. Apply that to his BIZ chances in '07, and you get 237, 10 more than he recorded. He had 9 more errors. You are right, he won't need to look at his career RZR to know it wasn't as good as his best year to date. But that's irrelevant to what you are trying to suggest. Lowell was brought up as an example to suggest Crisp's defensive value might not hold up. The only difference in Lowell was 2.5x more errors. That means Crisp makes 3 less outs over a season. That's a marginal difference.

 

 

JHB showed you the linear weight value of the events, and where I come from .75 = .75 is a logical concept.

 

I understand why you rely on your preference for evaluation. It just doesn't hold up to any kind of analysis.

It is difficult making points to brick walls.

 

You can't will facts to fit your argument. A stat that considers something is the opposite of a stat the eliminates it. This may be difficult to prove but let me give it shot - Lowell made 227 plays and had a 310 BIZ if you divide the former by the latter you acutally get .732 his RZR or in other words. RZR wouldn't be considering OOZ and OOZ is only a figure of actual out of zone plays not a percentage based on opportunities.

 

I think your issue is you responded to my defense of my position and not to the position itself or by now you may have realized that our only difference is on the validity of fielding percentage vs RZR and not based on my original position because this is what I said:

 

Crisp comes back and plays spectacular defense again but I have to say that some of the plays he made were almost superhuman and I don't think he gets all of them next year but that being said I also don't think you can rule out an offensive resurgence either

 

Some of the plays may not be there? Marginal Difference? Maybe? My point was to expect a replica of the season that Crisp had last year may not be realistic. Not that he's going into the shitter.

 

As far as .75-.75 - the results of both are the same agreed - but my response was in regards to this statement by you:

 

By your reasoning, you did state you think F% is more important, you'd take a lower out rate with fewer errors over the opposite. Think about that. What is the result of an error? A base, maybe two. What is the result of an unfielded ball at 3B? A base, maybe two. Same results. Only, you are willing to accept the player who allows more hits than the other player makes errors.

 

There's no application of logic that can defend that. I think the emotional impact of an error, you know, "Damn, that should have been an out!", is weighing in here.

 

If the result of an error and a result of an unfielded ball are the same than how can you say that "there's no application of logic" that defends my position if the results are similar? I prefer plays made vs chances as opposed to percentage of outs a fielder makes in his positional zone if only because there are more variables than the fielders skill. I never said that you actually had to agree with me. Its like we're both eating apples and are both very satisfied with the flavor but I'm eating a Granny Smith and you're eating a Delicious and you're continuing to argue the point that the Delicious is obviously better because you like it more when I prefer the Granny Smith.

 

Last point on this as it is now considerably off topic - i'll let you skip by my points on some balls hit into a third baseman's zone are next to impossible to convert into outs and the example that I gave with Lugo committing an error in Lowell's zone (or if you prefer, not converting the out) and not having it adversely affect Lugo's RZR. But I would like your opinion on how you feel Mike Lowell considers his defense compared to 2006?

[cam780]

I hate numbers' date=' I'd rather just watch the game. I like making judgements based on what I see. That doesn't convince anyone but you can't convince anyone of anything on this site. Everyone has there opinion and they will argue that point to death, with or without statistical evidence. Which is fine...thats why most of us are here.[/quote']

 

I think statistics can take on a life of their own. I prefer to debate opinions over stats if only because stats tend to be crutches. We don't need to see statistics to know that Lowell is a good defender or that Manny is a good hitter and at the end of the day third generation stats and metrics are important to front office personnel and agents foremost. I tend to think that players, like the typical fans, measure their performances based on what they see and do on the field. With the exception of maybe Curt Schilling, and players in contract years I don't think third generation extrapolations affect players perception of their performance. I mean seriously do you see Santana negotiating with Theo with an argument built on his projected 2008 VORP of 54.8?

[ORS]

It is difficult making points to brick walls.

No it isn't, you just haven't made one yet.

 

You can't will facts to fit your argument. A stat that considers something is the opposite of a stat the eliminates it. This may be difficult to prove but let me give it shot - Lowell made 227 plays and had a 310 BIZ if you divide the former by the latter you acutally get .732 his RZR or in other words. RZR wouldn't be considering OOZ and OOZ is only a figure of actual out of zone plays not a percentage based on opportunities.

Do you know what RZR stands for? It's Revized Zone Rating. One of the flaws in the original ZR was the inclusion of OOZ plays. RZR eliminates them from the ZR, and gives them their own category. I don't know where you are going with this, but it seems this information seems to have eluded you, so there you go.

 

As far as .75-.75 - the results of both are the same agreed - but my response was in regards to this statement by you:

 

By your reasoning, you did state you think F% is more important, you'd take a lower out rate with fewer errors over the opposite. Think about that. What is the result of an error? A base, maybe two. What is the result of an unfielded ball at 3B? A base, maybe two. Same results. Only, you are willing to accept the player who allows more hits than the other player makes errors.

 

There's no application of logic that can defend that. I think the emotional impact of an error, you know, "Damn, that should have been an out!", is weighing in here.

 

If the result of an error and a result of an unfielded ball are the same than how can you say that "there's no application of logic" that defends my position if the results are similar? I prefer plays made vs chances as opposed to percentage of outs a fielder makes in his positional zone if only because there are more variables than the fielders skill. I never said that you actually had to agree with me. Its like we're both eating apples and are both very satisfied with the flavor but I'm eating a Granny Smith and you're eating a Delicious and you're continuing to argue the point that the Delicious is obviously better because you like it more when I prefer the Granny Smith.

If this were an "all things other than F% being equal" discussion, then you'd have a point. Your first, I might add. That's not the case, though. You "prefer" F% to those other stats, meaning you place more value on the error over the hit. Linear weights of on field events doesn't agree with you. How you like them apples?

 

Last point on this as it is now considerably off topic - i'll let you skip by my points on some balls hit into a third baseman's zone are next to impossible to convert into outs and the example that I gave with Lugo committing an error in Lowell's zone (or if you prefer, not converting the out) and not having it adversely affect Lugo's RZR. But I would like your opinion on how you feel Mike Lowell considers his defense compared to 2006?

Hey, thanks for dropping that bit about something that happens maybe twice in an entire season. And, I already answered that question. Honing up on those reading skills really seems like it's in order.

[yankeessuck013]

I think we need a new "Santana" thread, or at least a "News-only" one.

[ksushi]

I agree. Lets split this baby off.

 

ORS, make a new thread for the arguement. This one will stay a Santana discussion thread and I'll make one for news only. If the arguement continues to spill over into this one, I'll lock it and make a new one or something.

[cam780]

I agree. Lets split this baby off.

 

ORS, make a new thread for the argument. This one will stay a Santana discussion thread and I'll make one for news only. If the arguement continues to spill over into this one, I'll lock it and make a new one or something.

 

Even though I have alot to respond to I will not to get this thread back to where it should be. The original discussion actually involved other options at center if Ellsbury is included in the deal.

 

Personally, depending on what happens Andy Pettite the Yanks may up their offer which would then put the Sox in a place to make a decision and I think if I'm Theo I include Lester to get that dominant rotation.

[ksushi]

I've said all along I think Ellsbury and Lester + one of our top ten minor leaguers is more than reasonable. Its a stiff price, sure, but I wouldn't think twice to package that for Santana. Buchholz is the only guy who I would consider off limits.

[cam780]

I've said all along I think Ellsbury and Lester + one of our top ten minor leaguers is more than reasonable. Its a stiff price' date=' sure, but I wouldn't think twice to package that for Santana. Buchholz is the only guy who I would consider off limits.[/quote']

 

Just a thought that I had, but if you include Lester in the deal, do you make a play for someone like Prior? If you can get him for a 2 yr, deal around 15 or 16 million. He will be on the DL to open the season after the shoulder surgery but the Sox don't need him to contribute this year and next year he should be ready to compete for that fifth spot with Wakefield if he's back and it would give Bowden or Hagadone a chance to slowly integrate into the lineup.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Now that the Mitchell report is out I think we will see more news pick up about Johan Santana.

 

I think its fair to say any team looking at signing a player to a 6-7 year deal worth between 100-150 million would want to make sure he wasn't in the report. Not to mention give up somet decent prospects.

 

For all we know the Twins were ready to make a move with the Red Sox on either the Lester or Ellsbury deal but the Red Sox put a hold until the report was out. Maybe the deal the Twins want is already on the table.

 

Without question this is the most drawn out potential trade I can think of in some time. Some trades have started up and free agents are being signed. I wouldn't be surprised to see some movement before the first of the year.

[ksushi]

I don't think we need to pursue prior. A team with as good a pitching staff as the sox doesn't need to take a flier on a guy like prior who could end up stuggling and/or being hurt. If its a low risk contract, I guess I wouldn't complain it just seems a little extraneous.

[TheKilo]

Based off my link in the other thread...it appears Minnesota is now interested in Buchholz (I know they've been from the start, but this was explicitly said).

 

Seems like a bad negotiation idea to me. Buchholz has been off the table from the get-go, and it seems the Sox are perfectly willing to hold pat with their offer of Lester and Ellsbury. They don't feel the need to replace one of the two with Buchholz, and are saying "we are content with our offer."

 

So Minnesota asks for a better one? I dunno....seems foolish on their part to alienate the only team really in the bidding right now...

[Paradisecity]

I wouldn't say its alienating....more wishful thinking in the form of a question.

[das11209]

This might be the time to say 'No Thanks' to the twins.

[ksushi]

Yeah, seems like a pretty questionable time to up the demands to include a previously untouchable player. I mean, by all accounts it seemed as if the two sides would reach an agreement as of a couple days ago, it was considered to be a matter of time. This could potentially kill it. When I'm not cramming for a final, I wanna check out the validity of the source. I want to believe the Twins aren't actually that ridiculous to deal with.

[example1]

Okay, I'm just going to say it:

 

I hate this deal more and more as I read and sleep on it. I would love Santana on the Sox, but really, 20 million a season for 6 years? C'mon. Let him go to the NL someplace.

 

It's like an insult to have to throw in a player as talented as Ellsbury, PLUS be asked to include a Lester or Buchholz, PLUS have to include one to two other players with great upside (Masterson, say), PLUS have to turn around and shell out 20m a year for the privlege of Santana pitching for the Sox.

 

If the Twins see Crisp + Lester

 

Also, I have been watching the 07 postseason and other classic games from the 07 season (Buchholz's no-hitter in particular) and have been rekindled in my admiration for Ellsbury. The guy is absolutely an exciting player and is SO young, but SO talented. He's primed for success right now. His entire hometown came out to celebrate his WS parade, all of them wearing Red Sox red in the desert of mid-eastern Oregon. The move sits poorly with me. It's like trading a Hanley Ramirez that we are attached to.

 

My own sentiment aside--because I know it isn't really valid--it's the 20million thing that really scares me. There is no wiggle room for injury there, and just looking at Santana's bodytype and the IPs he has had over the past 5 years I think it would be only a steroid-ers baseball fan who could possibly expect him to keep it up.

 

The Sox can control a lot of things, but they cannot control a pitcher's injury beyond limiting pitch counts and IPs etc., and if they are limiting IPs and Pitch counts then is Santana worth 20m a year?

 

I mean, that 20m a year is based on his having throw 220 IP every year. On this team he won't throw that much. I think if Santana falls back to earth he will look a lot like Matsuzaka. His FB currently sits in the 93 range, so any loss there brings him into the high-80's. His stuff is electric and decieving (delivery, LHP) but the man is human. In this era where the non-human type of performance tends to come from those on PEDs, I am hesitant to sell the farm.

 

Ellsbury will be one of the best CFs in baseball shortly. I don't know how that compares to Santana, who will likely still be one of the best pitchers in baseball, but I do know that a franchise CF (say Grady Sizemore) is extremely valuable, particularly if he gets 500-600 productive PAs a year and plays + defense.

 

Let the chastizing begin. I've waffled on this--thanks to some solid arguments against me--but I'm back in the "don't trade Ellsbury unless he is the only significant piece" camp. There MUST be a way to overload a deal involving Crisp and Lester, if Crisp is really as valuable as many here make him out to be. Otherwise, I say we stand pat, and enjoy the careers of Ellsbury, Masterson, Lester and whoever we can get by moving Crisp, who is coveted by other teams.

 

Ellsbury + Masterson + Lester + RP acquired for Crisp > Santana

 

It's time for the Twins to realize they are dealing a guy for one year, and that the majority of the expense for the team signing him is in the TWENTY MILLION dollars, NOT in the package to get him. If the Yankees need to deal Hughes and Cabrera, and leave themselves without a viable CF option to get Santana then fine, let them have him.

 

The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for the Sox to move all of these players to get Santana, and have him return to earth by "only" putting up a high-3 or 4 ERA. I truly think that if the Sox hold firm they can get him without having to part with Ellsbury.

 

Pay all of Crisp's contract, still deal Masterson and Lester, and throw in other important pieces. If that's not what the Twins want then so be it. Chances are there are only 1 or 2 teams out there who would sign him at 20m a year anyway, Sox, Yanks. It should also include the Mets, Angels, Cleveland, Dodgers, but likely will not (they should think about it because they are all very close to elite level teams and would be bolstered significantly by it).

 

The market for Santana is small, so don't overpay.

[example1]

Based off my link in the other thread...it appears Minnesota is now interested in Buchholz (I know they've been from the start, but this was explicitly said).

 

Seems like a bad negotiation idea to me. Buchholz has been off the table from the get-go, and it seems the Sox are perfectly willing to hold pat with their offer of Lester and Ellsbury. They don't feel the need to replace one of the two with Buchholz, and are saying "we are content with our offer."

 

So Minnesota asks for a better one? I dunno....seems foolish on their part to alienate the only team really in the bidding right now...

 

Seems unlikely to me that this is for real. If it is true, then the sox should turn around and come back with deals involving players not named Ellsbury OR Buchholz. If they want to raise the standards on a whim then the Sox should do the same as a subtle reminder to the Twins to not overplay their hand. The Twins need to make this deal, and the sox are the only ones--it seems--who have the combination of MLB ready talent and the $ to pay Santana for a contract (thus making it worth giving up the talent). The Sox--again, it seems--have been courteous and professional in negotiations and have not called out the Twins FO for being unreasonable (like Steiny did). I hope they still have the dignity to walk away and have the Twins have to come back and become reasonable again.

[TheKilo]

Not to nitpick, E1, but the article I linked said Santana's agent wants 7/140 for Santana.

 

Why give up Buchholz and Ellsbury for him? If the Twins are content to hold onto him for '08, try to sign him when he hits the market.

[example1]

Not to nitpick, E1, but the article I linked said Santana's agent wants 7/140 for Santana.

 

Why give up Buchholz and Ellsbury for him? If the Twins are content to hold onto him for '08, try to sign him when he hits the market.

 

I think you just prove my point even more, but you know that. 7 years is more than 6 years, and unless that extra year is LAST year, the chances of him being super-productive at that time (and worth 20m) are pretty low.

[das11209]

I think you just prove my point even more' date=' but you know that. 7 years is more than 6 years, and unless that extra year is LAST year, the chances of him being super-productive at that time (and worth 20m) are pretty low.[/quote']

 

Trying to be a Devil's advocate here - but long term contracts might be good in one way even with high risk involved. Who would have thought in the past that Manny's contract will be a bargain. The way baseball salaries have moved up recently - A-Rod's contract may be a bargain in future if the trend continues. Not sure if that point has been brought up before. Obviously - you guys have mentioned so many cons of long term contracts - injury, lost form etc. etc.

[ORS]

It's true that the increase in revenues from 3 to 6 billion over the duration of Manny's contract has made his contract more managable. That said, I wonder if this steroid issue is going to shake fan interest. They won't lose the core fans, but it's the casual fans that they picked up over the last 7 years that lead to the gains. Maybe some of them have been converted to die-hards, but I suspect they'll lose some, and more importantly, gain fewer and fewer. That means higher prices for us who stick around to support the spending. Not sure I'm onboard for that.

[TheKilo]

I think you just prove my point even more' date=' but you know that. 7 years is more than 6 years, and unless that extra year is LAST year, the chances of him being super-productive at that time (and worth 20m) are pretty low.[/quote']

 

Agree. The price as it stands in that article is too high. I still think you make the Lester/Ellsbury trade though.

[das11209]

It's true that the increase in revenues from 3 to 6 billion over the duration of Manny's contract has made his contract more managable. That said' date=' I wonder if this steroid issue is going to shake fan interest. They won't lose the core fans, but it's the casual fans that they picked up over the last 7 years that lead to the gains. Maybe some of them have been converted to die-hards, but I suspect they'll lose some, and more importantly, gain fewer and fewer. That means higher prices for us who stick around to support the spending. Not sure I'm onboard for that.[/quote']

 

I will be shocked if baseball looses any popularity. I think fans will view the individuals as culpits - not the game. But that's just my guess.

[example1]

Agree. The price as it stands in that article is too high. I still think you make the Lester/Ellsbury trade though.

 

How does one not impact the other? I presume that you wouldn't do the Lester/Ellsbury trade with NO extension? So if he is demanding 20+ for 7 years you would NOT make the Lester/Ellsbury trade, right?

[cam780]

A few things ...

 

Steroids won't affect baseball's bottom line. Its a lingering issue that isn't a surprise. Add to it that most of the players named aren't surprises and are either inactive, fringe, or past their prime. If it was Santana or Pujols instead of Bonds and Clemens implicated then thats a different story.

 

I think the argument on the contract for Santana would work better if he was a position player. Pitchers tend to be more volatile and while at this point the best hitters in the game are making around where Manny is a third or fourth starter (which is what Santana could be if not worse in 7 years) will most likely not be making 20 million a year even given inflation. I think the best comparison would be Mike Hampton's deal. He's making 15 million a year which is in the ball park of the games best but at this point you probably can't count on him to be more than a fourth starter and that is if he makes it onto the field.

 

I wonder if the Twins request for Buchholz was based on a hunch that the Yanks were going to get involved. If you look at the landscape now, with Haren going to Arizona, Santana is really the only option for the Yankees as Bedard isn't being dealt in the division.

[example1]

A few things ...

 

Steroids won't affect baseball's bottom line. Its a lingering issue that isn't a surprise. Add to it that most of the players named aren't surprises and are either inactive, fringe, or past their prime. If it was Santana or Pujols instead of Bonds and Clemens implicated then thats a different story.

 

I guess I kind of felt like everyone was implicated. Do you REALLY think Pujols is clean? He's an enormous power hitter who is putting up numbers that are roughly equivalent to the best hitters of all time. Which players do NOT warrant speculation at this point? MAYBE Manny, but otherwise I just can't think of many who have put up huge numbers without looking like roid users. Ortiz? He's basically admitted to it. A-Rod, probably.

 

Everyone has the telltale signs of HGH usage. They're all bigger in all areas and with HGH you grow but do not lose the size gained. I think everyone was implicated by yesterday's revelation and nobody was exonerated.

 

I think the argument on the contract for Santana would work better if he was a position player. Pitchers tend to be more volatile and while at this point the best hitters in the game are making around where Manny is a third or fourth starter (which is what Santana could be if not worse in 7 years) will most likely not be making 20 million a year even given inflation. I think the best comparison would be Mike Hampton's deal. He's making 15 million a year which is in the ball park of the games best but at this point you probably can't count on him to be more than a fourth starter and that is if he makes it onto the field.

 

I wonder if the Twins request for Buchholz was based on a hunch that the Yanks were going to get involved. If you look at the landscape now, with Haren going to Arizona, Santana is really the only option for the Yankees as Bedard isn't being dealt in the division.

 

Maybe, but Buchholz isn't going anywhere so it just doesn't matter. If the Yankees want to deal Hughes to get santana then more power to them.