New Thread, in which Gom ignores evidence presented to him

[TheKilo]

That would be like us counting on Mussina to have another 20 win season [if he doesn't retire]. Bad call by the FO.

 

By not trading for Santana, you were essentially hoping for some kind of Mussina rebound...only the Yankees didn't have the pitching reserve the Sox did (which is why guys like Darrell Rasner and Sidney Ponson made multiple starts for the Yankees this season.)

 

Can we agree that not landing Santana was a larger error for the Yankees than the Sox? I think even you can admit to that.

 

No I don't. Not when I root for the richest team and you root for the second richest team. It is of no value to me.

 

4th.

 

Point?

 

My point is if you feel Schilling and the rookies were of more value at ~$9 million than Santana was at ~22.5 million, the correct move would be

 

Funny...I'm actually telling you that you were right.

 

No, because even with the evidence put in front of you you fail to understand that as a unit the three Red Sox players were more valuable than Santana on his own.

 

Even if he was healthy, it would have been the right move.

 

Again, no it was not.

 

Isn't that what makes spaceships go faster?

 

Wins ABove Replacement Player.

 

In terms of WARP1, the most conservative stat, the trio held a 12.9 to 8.6 lead over Santana, for 5% of the cost.

 

I don't know how to make it more clear than that.

 

If by adults you mean flawed statistical analysis passed off as cognitive and intellectual thought, then yes, leave me out of it.

 

Flawed? You made up your own statistic and passed it off as some kind of intelligent way to make a point. Give me a break.

 

My cognitive thought process tell me I want the trio of players who exceeded Johan's value for 5% of the cost, because that's the best baseball and business decision.

 

Good numbers, but I'm surprised you wouldn't be as likely to go after him. His strikeouts are down, his walks increased from 2.14 BB/9 to 2.42 BB/9. Not significant.

 

His strikeouts are down and walks are up (a) moving to an inferior league and ( moving to a pitcher-friendly park. That is a significant concern, to me, for a guy you'd pay $22 million.

 

I was wrong - he may not be a $22 million pitcher going forward.

 

Yes. If they had Masterson AND Santana.

 

The Sox couldn't have gotten Santana without Masterson, so this point is moot.

 

I was hoping you'd say this. God, it's like taking candy from a baby.

 

Once again, fallacy of statistics. The other way around. 954 PA is equal, more or less to Pedroia's 753 PA. The fact that they had 1280 means they had a much bigger effect, nearly double. It's no wonder, they are three players.

 

However, look a little deeper. You had Crisp, who would basically wipe out Ellsbury's impact. You really only lost out on Lowrie and Masterson. Lowrie is basically inconseqential, the only loss was Masterson.

 

So basically, you admit to fabricating some useless statistic and try to use it to advance your argument - whereas I use a commonly accepted one and get criticized for lacking cognitive thought processes.

 

I'm still waiting for you to try to refute the WARP numbers. Tell me how Santana makes up for the loss in the bullpen and requiring us to play Alex Cora at shortstop every day.

 

Oh, and also, tell me how we fill all of our outfield positions after Drew got hurt in August.

 

Oh, and tell me how we'd replace our 1B when Lowell got hurt, because Kotsay would have to play in the outfield.

 

Go ahead, tell me how an upgrade in one position is worth a downgrade in three.

 

 

Actually more than twice of the effect. Not the value. I never said that this rudimentary stat was to show value, just effect.

 

Then what's the point?

 

No debate there. This wasn't a deal about money. If you were playing a game of wins/dollar, good move. I look for a World Series Championship. Maybe you should be a Rays fan. Highest win/$ in baseball.

 

Keep looking - maybe you'll find one this millennium.

 

Would you trade all three of them for Peavy? Even better...would you trade all three of them for any pitcher in baseball? The flaw of your argument is as follows: The more players you add to the equation, the higher your total effect. However, the quality of effect has to be looked at. By adding Wakefield to that picture, you would have effectively created a package that had more value than Albert Pujols.

 

The "flaw" of my argument (and one you seem to completely miss) is that unless the replacements for the players being shipped off exceed the value of the player returned (and WARP tells us this is not the case) - then it's prudent to question, and sometimes turn down, the move.

 

Would you trade Ellsbury, Masterson, Lowrie and Wakefield for Pujols? See my point? Probably not, you're not that bright.

 

Probably, only because Pujols directly fills a need for the Sox better than Santana would have for our rotation.

 

The value of Pujols playing every day is probably worth that deal especially since he's so much better than Youkilis or Lowell.

 

Is the half run ERA difference really that significant between Santana (3.33 last season) and Schilling (3.87)? For $22.5 million?

 

In this debate, what you fail to see is that quantity does not equate to quality. It's beyond your ability to reason. I'd actually like to see what ORS or a700 think of this.

 

Kilo, take your fandom out of the picture. Your team screwed up by not getting Johan. So did mine. Your "instinct" at first was correct. For that I commend you for thinking outside of the numbers. You've been swayed by flawed analysis.

 

Is today's youth no longer capable of independent thought?

 

In this debate, you get distracted by shiny things (the superstar) but fail to recongize the ramifications of overspending for talent when there aren't adequate replacements.

 

I have asked you time and time again to refute the WARP numbers. How can you say Santana was the better choice if by himself he was only worth 8.6 wins above a replacement player when the trio of Sox players was 12.9? For 5% of the cost?

 

Tell me why Santana is a better value (and don't give me arbitrary things like 'you'd be in the World Series' because that isn't a given - what if Santana lost in the ALCS too?)

 

So go ahead Gom. Enlighten me.

[BoSox21]

*giggle*

[ORS]

Here's what I think....

 

We can't just look at the WinShare, WARP, and VORP totals of the 3 vs. the 1. Gom makes a good point about the preseason redundancy of Ellsbury/Crisp. Kilo makes a good point about Ellsbury being needed to play more than CF when Drew went down with injury.

 

So let's look at the total package contributions of who "would", or at least "likely would", have filled the spots vacated if the trade were made. Here are the combinations I'll use:

 

Kilo's Case - Wakefield (in lieu of Santana), Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterson

Gom's Case - Santana, Crisp (in lieu of Ellsbury), Cora (in lieu of Lowrie), Moss*

 

Assumptions: Since Masterson came up from AA, the player who fills that role in system after him is likely replacement level, he needs no offset. Moss is included because I feel he would have been kept as the 4th OF had they traded one of their CFs - and, he's a good proxy for the other AAA internal options they would have gone to after the deadline had they still moved him to get Bay.

 

I'm using VORP, WinShares, and WARP. Keep in mind VORP results don't include defense, and I realize this creates in incomplete picture, but I like to the impact of defense and see if it agrees with my take on the players invovled. Also, I will prorate out playing times to match. Crisp's playing time will be brought up to Ellsbury's, Cora's up to Lowries, and for Moss, I will use only his Pittsburg totals because a) the two month window is about how long JE played RF for Drew, and WARP/VORP is league and park adjusted.

 

 

[table]Stat|Kilo's Case|Gom's Case|Kilo - Gom|Edge

VORP|80.2|100.6|-20.4|Gom

WnSh|41|42|-1|Gom

WARP|17.7|17.7|0|None[/table]

 

I agree with results for the most part. I can see the defensive improvement from Crisp / Cora to Ellsbury / Lowrie being worth 20 runs over the amount of time they played. The other two stats pretty much show it to be net zero. Santana is great, best pitcher in the game right now, but you are talking about 3 good players in return. The absolute best position players will put up double digit WARP totals through their prime. Guess how many the last dynasty had, the '96-'00 Yankees? One, Jeter in '99. Guess how many years they had the best pitcher in baseball? None. But they were solid from top to bottom. No easy outs. A deep rotation. They played good defense, ran the bases well, grinded out their at bats, and pitched well up and down the pitching staff. You don't get there doing 3 for 1's.

[TheKilo]

Probably the most reasoned, well thought out post of the argument (mine included).

 

FYI:

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1126830

 

Epstein said the team would explore extending long-term contracts to a few of its arbitration-eligible players, a list topped by Kevin Youkilis [stats], Dustin Pedroia [stats] and Papelbon. . . .

 

Maintaining some semblance of salary flexibility will allow the Red Sox to sign these guys to a long term deal...I would also like to think an extension for Bay is in the works this offseason.

 

This may not happen if the Sox tied up $140 million in Santana. I wanted him last year and acknowledge I was wrong...the Sox got great value for not trading these three players.

 

Which, really, has been my point all along.

[See Red]

Isn't that what makes spaceships go faster?

:lol:

 

That's classic.

[Gom]

Probably the most reasoned' date=' well thought out post of the argument (mine included).[/quote']

Can't say I disagree overall. However, 3-1 deals usually benefit the team getting the 1.

FYI:

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1126830

Maintaining some semblance of salary flexibility will allow the Red Sox to sign these guys to a long term deal...I would also like to think an extension for Bay is in the works this offseason.

 

This may not happen if the Sox tied up $140 million in Santana. I wanted him last year and acknowledge I was wrong...the Sox got great value for not trading these three players.

 

Which, really, has been my point all along.

Kilo, the goal is winning the World Series. No one is denying that the players weren't good values. Anytime you plug a rookie in, and he contributes in any way, it's a good value. I'll give you this....let's say that the overall effect during the season was even. Fine. In the playoffs, Santana's value trumps the other three. Hands down. The "tiebreaker" is the post-season. Which player matters more when it comes down to the big game? It's this reasoning that people want to sign Manny. An uncanny track record of an ability to hit in the post-season. Would you rather have Arod or Manny for the regular season? How about the post-season? I'm sure those answers are reversed.

 

Kilo, please don't cry poverty, or payroll flexibility. Are you saying if you'd won the World Series, your FO wouldn't stretch the payroll a little to maintain those players? If the Devil Rays can sign their players to long term deals, I can't see how you or we can't.

 

Did the Red Sox get great value by not trading those players? Sure. I do think, however, that the greater "value" would have been a World Championship.

[CrespoBlows]

Can't say I disagree overall. However, 3-1 deals usually benefit the team getting the 1.

Kilo, the goal is winning the World Series. No one is denying that the players weren't good values. Anytime you plug a rookie in, and he contributes in any way, it's a good value. I'll give you this....let's say that the overall effect during the season was even. Fine. In the playoffs, Santana's value trumps the other three. Hands down. The "tiebreaker" is the post-season. Which player matters more when it comes down to the big game? It's this reasoning that people want to sign Manny. An uncanny track record of an ability to hit in the post-season. Would you rather have Arod or Manny for the regular season? How about the post-season? I'm sure those answers are reversed.

 

Kilo, please don't cry poverty, or payroll flexibility. Are you saying if you'd won the World Series, your FO wouldn't stretch the payroll a little to maintain those players? If the Devil Rays can sign their players to long term deals, I can't see how you or we can't.

 

Did the Red Sox get great value by not trading those players? Sure. I do think, however, that the greater "value" would have been a World Championship.

 

Logic fail.

 

Faulty reasoning based on assumption.

[TheKilo]

Can't say I disagree overall. However' date=' 3-1 deals usually benefit the team getting the 1.[/quote']

 

Not this one, for the money involved.

 

Kilo, the goal is winning the World Series. No one is denying that the players weren't good values. Anytime you plug a rookie in, and he contributes in any way, it's a good value. I'll give you this....let's say that the overall effect during the season was even.

 

kthx

 

Fine. In the playoffs, Santana's value trumps the other three. Hands down. The "tiebreaker" is the post-season. Which player matters more when it comes down to the big game? It's this reasoning that people want to sign Manny. An uncanny track record of an ability to hit in the post-season. Would you rather have Arod or Manny for the regular season? How about the post-season? I'm sure those answers are reversed.

 

I'd rather make deals based on significant sample sizes. Look, there's no question Manny is an incredible talent, but so is ARod. I don't think you can go wrong with either.

 

I do think you're making assumptions that really cannot be proved one way or another. Who's to say Santana wouldn't have gotten lit up as well?

 

We can only go off of what we know. What we know is there was equal value in the regular season for 5% of the cost.

 

Kilo, please don't cry poverty, or payroll flexibility. Are you saying if you'd won the World Series, your FO wouldn't stretch the payroll a little to maintain those players? If the Devil Rays can sign their players to long term deals, I can't see how you or we can't.

 

Did the Red Sox get great value by not trading those players? Sure. I do think, however, that the greater "value" would have been a World Championship.

 

The Red Sox have to re-sign their core, and are probably working on extensions for Bay and Beckett this offseason. Or at least they will next season.

 

It's going to take a little more than "a bit" to resign Lester, Youkilis, Pedroia, and Papelbon.

 

Why pay Santana the money, when you can get equal value out of the three other players?

 

This team was two runs from the World Series. I think they did just fine.