The Official 2010 Hot Stove Thread.

[ORS]

Are those of you who are insisting that the Red Sox were not lucky to benefit from Beltre's 2010 performance in favor of resigning him? Certainly' date=' the continuation of his 2010 performance would be well worth the contract he is being offered.[/quote']

I'm in favor or resigning him, but moving forward, I'm more in favor of adding Dunn, for continuity at the DH position, and Gonzalez a year later at 1B. I think both are more complete hitters.

[Dipre]

Are you guys just ignoring the numbers I put in front of your face' date=' or do you truly believe them to be inaccurate? Here are his [b']Away[/b] splits from the previous years

 

2010-- .953

2009-- .717

2008-- .862

2007-- .858

2006-- .806

2005-- .736

 

Are these not clear?

 

Beltre's "surge" for 2010 consists of two issues:

 

1) Getting the hell away from the AL West:

 

For the type of hitter Beltre is, which of the following group of stadiums is more conductive towards increased production?

 

Group A: Angel Stadium, Oakland Coliseum and Rangers Ballpark with 81 games at Safeco.

 

Or

 

Group B: Camden Yards, Rogers Centre, Yankee Stadium, Tropicana Field and 81 games at Fenway Park.

 

In group A, only Rangers Ballpark is conductive for power from RHH who drive the ball to the opposite field regularly, while in group B, every ballpark is conductive to power numbers from RHH who take the ball to the opposite field regularly.

 

 

Group A consists of three pitcher's stadium, and one hitter's stadium, and Group B consists of five stadiums that favor hitting.

 

2) The Free Agent effect: I said several times on site (take this with a grain of salt obviously) that Beltre had been preparing himself for another 2004-like season according to reports from the facility he was training at in the DR, and sure enough, he had his best season since 2004. I believe in the "FA year effect" many don't, but Beltre seems like a textbook example that it does exist.

[Palodios]

Beltre's "surge" for 2010 consists of two issues:

 

1) Getting the hell away from the AL West:

 

His career number in AL East stadiums says very little to that effect.

 

Tropicana .638

Rogers .855

New Yankee .448

Camden .808

Fenway .821

 

The simple fact of the matter is he had a huge season, that can't be predicted by stats as you want to make it seem. If #2 is the best you've got, then I would want to stay away from Beltre AT ALL COSTS this offseason.

[Dipre]

His career number in AL East stadiums says very little to that effect.

 

Tropicana .638

Rogers .855

New Yankee .448

Camden .808

Fenway .821

 

The simple fact of the matter is he had a huge season, that can't be predicted by stats as you want to make it seem. You guys aren't geniuses, he just had a great year.

 

Of course it's easy to prove.

 

You're using and including a time he was injured.

 

Use 2010 as a benchmark:

 

Tropicana.935

Rogers 1.057

New Yankee .448

Camden 1.025

Fenway .881

 

That's the problem with SSS, and it's why you compare stadium Park Factors for an objective look at the stadium-to-stadium difference, you also look at hit tracker to check the amount of HR's hit on said stadiums during at least a three-year period. I did all of this at the beginning of the season, and noted a significant difference between the AL East and AL West, thought you don't even need stats to figure that out.

 

The one thing i will concede, however, is that he was very lucky on balls in play this year, which helped inflate both his AVG and his SLG%, but not enough to drag him down to a mid-800 OPS as you suggest.

[Palodios]

Of course it's easy to prove.

 

You're using and including a time he was injured.

 

Use 2010 as a benchmark:

 

Tropicana.935

Rogers 1.057

New Yankee .448

Camden 1.025

Fenway .881

 

That's the problem with SSS, and it's why you compare stadium Park Factors for an objective look at the stadium-to-stadium difference, you also look at hit tracker to check the amount of HR's hit on said stadiums during at least a three-year period. I did all of this at the beginning of the season, and noted a significant difference between the AL East and AL West, thought you don't even need stats to figure that out.

 

The one thing i will concede, however, is that he was very lucky on balls in play this year, which helped inflate both his AVG and his SLG%, but not enough to drag him down to a mid-800 OPS as you suggest.

 

First of all, yes, I'm including a time when he was injured, which is relevant because that was an injury he had right before he was coming to the Red Sox, thus there was a chance it could have affected his play here. Secondly, his career stats include the 2004 and 2010 seasons, which significantly boost his stats in the AL East parks, and I'm sure other parks as well.

 

Looking at his 2010 stats alone really isn't helpful in the discussion of whether or not this was predictable. But if you look at the numbers for 2010, they are all-around better in just about every park. He had troubles in Yankee, Target, and Rangers stadiums, but besides that he's in the .900- 1.000 range everywhere else. He even hit .869 in Safeco for SSS. Yes, it absolutely is small samples, but when when it is a small sample over several stadiums, it becomes a much larger sample to look at.

 

Even compare his career numbers in all stadiums to his season numbers in all stadiums. He has far more .600 to .700 ranges in those samples. It looks to me like all signs seem to point this being an outlier year.

[Dipre]

First of all, yes, I'm including a time when he was injured, which is relevant because that was an injury he had right before he was coming to the Red Sox, thus there was a chance it could have affected his play here. Secondly, his career stats include the 2004 and 2010 seasons, which significantly boost his stats in the AL East parks, and I'm sure other parks as well.

 

Looking at his 2010 stats alone really isn't helpful in the discussion of whether or not this was predictable. But if you look at the numbers for 2010, they are all-around better in just about every park. He had troubles in Yankee, Target, and Rangers stadiums, but besides that he's in the .900- 1.000 range everywhere else. He even hit .869 in Safeco for SSS. Yes, it absolutely is small samples, but when when it is a small sample over several stadiums, it becomes a much larger sample to look at.

 

Even compare his career numbers in all stadiums to his season numbers in all stadiums. He has far more .600 to .700 ranges in those samples. It looks to me like all signs seem to point this being an outlier year.

 

You're still missing the whole point. I used his 2010 numbers to prove how variable statistics are under SSS, which is why you use actual park factors as a benchmark for analyzing his performance.

 

You haven't answered my question:

 

Which do you think is a better hitter's environment, the AL West or the AL East? Specially with the type of hitter Beltre is?

 

If you want an outlier, look at 2004. 2010 was inflated by a bit of luck with his BABIP (which is far more significant for a hitter who barely walks) and the argument could be made that away from hitter's parks, due to the nature of his offensive game, and OPS above .850 was easily expected from him last year when taking a look at all the variables.

 

Hit tracker, park factors, and the onset of a healthy season all pointed out to the same thing: Increased production in 2010, and that is exactly what happened. Give credit to the FO for anticipating that putting him into that situation would yield results, which it did, instead of trying to look at "luck" as the reason the acquisition paid off.

 

That being said, i saw you make a point about re-signing him, which is a point i have never brought up, or have ever mentioned in my past analysis of his 2010 season. I think motivation for a new contract also had to do with his performance (although purely speculation on my part) and because of that i think he will receive a contract he will not live up to.

[The Celtbot]

Won't cost a pick to sign. Could be a match. I only have read a little about him. Anyone have opinions on him?

 

He seems to be a solid reliable arm. Not a flame thrower type. But could add a lot of value and eat a good number of inning for the Pen.

 

Anybody that will bring reliability to the bullpen would be a plus for me. His stats look pretty good, can't say I've watched too much of him though.

[example1]

I don't buy it.

 

Ortiz finished '09 strong and had given all necessary indications that he would be productive again in 2010. As for Beltre, i tooted his horn all season long, because from his statistics in Seattle and the fact that he was a FA-to be a monster season was expected by anyone who'd checked his past history of performance. With both players, the only question was health.

 

Speak for yourself. The more likely scenario is that they got unlucky with Ortiz having such a rough start to last year, who has been excellent for 8 out the last 10 months he played.

 

Beltre's resurgence in Fenway was predictable like Lowell's was when he came from Florida, and many here who looked at the hit charts were calling for it to happen.

 

Don't pin your beliefs on the rest of us.

 

There is a difference between expecting a resurgence and expecting players to be #1 or 2 at their position. If you take away Beltre's 2004, there is no evidence to support he'd ever hit as well as he did this year.

 

Beltre's past history of performance said he was a career .270 hitter with an .770 OPS over 12 years, coming off a notable injury. His best seasons outside of 2004 were .835 and .804, and that includes several years outside of Seattle. He has been healthy his entire career, so that cannot be attributed to his performance, and he came off a season of career lows with his first major injury in years.

 

The 1.017 seemed very clearly to be a fluke, or steroid related. Yes, moving out of seattle could have been worth .020-.030 points to average, and possibly a .050 boost to OPS. But getting MVP votes for the first time in 6 years?

 

Are those of you who are insisting that the Red Sox were not lucky to benefit from Beltre's 2010 performance in favor of resigning him? Certainly' date=' the continuation of his 2010 performance would be well worth the contract he is being offered.[/quote']

 

I would like to summarize my view on this discussion:

 

Beltre's offensive performance wasn't outside of the realm of possibility, it was just not very probable--there was reason to be both optimisti and skeptical. Not all players are capable of having a season like that (Juan Pierre is physically incapable) so there was a realistic possibility for a season like that to happen.

 

IIRC, those who were in favor of getting Beltre often resorted to his defense as a solid justification for the acquisition. That was me, I think that's what Theo was banking on too. In addition, Beltre also happens to have the tools to put up a major offensive season and he did. I remember a few people thought his offensive numbers could be very good. There were also many skeptics, who ended up being wrong.

 

If Theo thought that 2010 Beltre were going to be a yearly occurance, he would resign him. Most of us dont expect (or demand) that they resign him, which I take as a tacit admission that it is improbable.

 

I suspect that Theo can land others who can have similarly productive seasons at a much lower cost. Jed Lowrie for instance.

[Palodios]

Dipre, you keep talking conjecture. Yes I understand that when a player hits a double/fly ball in one park, it might be a home run/double in another. But that doesn't give a player a 20% increase in all statistical categories after coming off an injured season.

 

He hit .872 in the AL East this season. That goes along with what I thought to expect of him, its his success outside of Fenway that boosted his stats, thus completely different from what you're arguing. The AL East has easier ballparks, sure, but it also has a pile of elite pitchers too-- the .400 OPS in Yankee Stadium seriously brought that stat down for him.

[Dipre]

Dipre, you keep talking conjecture. Yes I understand that when a player hits a double/fly ball in one park, it might be a home run/double in another. But that doesn't give a player a 20% increase in all statistical categories after coming off an injured season.

 

He hit .872 in the AL East this season. That goes along with what I thought to expect of him, its his success outside of Fenway that boosted his stats, thus completely different from what you're arguing. The AL East has easier ballparks, sure, but it also has a pile of elite pitchers too-- the .400 OPS in Yankee Stadium seriously brought that stat down for him.

 

Apparently you didn't notice the part where i noted that his performance was indeed helped by luck (BABIP) and that his overall performance should have been an upper .800 OPS season, but that luck, combined with the desire for a new contract (speculation) pushed his performance to another level. You're cherry picking for the sake of arguing. We both agree that he was somewhat lucky, but the point where we differ is that you seem to think it was a sheer stroke of luck that Beltre decided to get his s*** together for the season when he was going to get his last big contract. That's what i don't buy.

 

He's always been a much better hitter on the road than at home, and he moved to a division which had much cozier away ballparks. While the element of luck was certainly there (for Beltre personally, on a BABIP level) his home/away splits followed the same career trend they've always had.

[a700hitter]

I would like to summarize my view on this discussion:

 

Beltre's offensive performance wasn't outside of the realm of possibility, it was just not very probable--there was reason to be both optimisti and skeptical. Not all players are capable of having a season like that (Juan Pierre is physically incapable) so there was a realistic possibility for a season like that to happen.

 

IIRC, those who were in favor of getting Beltre often resorted to his defense as a solid justification for the acquisition. That was me, I think that's what Theo was banking on too. In addition, Beltre also happens to have the tools to put up a major offensive season and he did. I remember a few people thought his offensive numbers could be very good. There were also many skeptics, who ended up being wrong.

 

If Theo thought that 2010 Beltre were going to be a yearly occurance, he would resign him. Most of us dont expect (or demand) that they resign him, which I take as a tacit admission that it is improbable.

 

I suspect that Theo can land others who can have similarly productive seasons at a much lower cost. Jed Lowrie for instance.

So are you concluding that his 2010 performance was not indicated by his statistical history prior to 2010, but that Theo took a chance on him because he had the skill set and capability to have a big season playing for a new contract? If so, it seems he played a hunch rather than looking at metrics. It was a good hunch, but a hunch nevertheless. I'm not looking to put words in your mouth, but just trying to understand your position.

[Dipre]

So are you concluding that his 2010 performance was not indicated by his statistical history prior to 2010' date=' but that Theo took a chance on him because he had the skill set and capability to have a big season playing for a new contract? If so, it seems he played a hunch rather than looking at metrics. It was a good hunch, but a hunch nevertheless. I'm not looking to put words in your mouth, but just trying to understand your position.[/quote']

 

How could it not have been backed up by metrics?

 

If guys who in reality don't know jack s*** about player evaluation (that would be us, the people who post on forums), sportswriters and scouts all pointed to park factors as a major reason why Beltre had not fared better offensively while in Seattle, and then the same people who post on forums, sportswriters and scouts concluded that it was more than likely that Beltre was going to enjoy a resurgence while playing in a hitter's haven like Fenway, how could Theo Epstein and his highly-paid team of talent evaluators not come to this conclusion by themselves?

 

The whole "we're signing him for his D" argument was just a way to cover their ass had he s*** the bed, which he did not, but logically, it's impossible to conclude he signed the guy on a "hunch" instead of using all the available statistical tools (and there were many of them).

[a700hitter]

I admit' date=' and have never denied it, he had a good year. I am denying that they got "lucky" that he had a good year, which was your original point. They put a good player in a good situation and benefitted from it. That's not lucky.[/quote']Branch Rickey said that "luck is the residue of design." In other words, you make your own luck. The FO made a decision based Beltre's ability. They also anticipated that his desire would be ratcheted up a notch because he'd be playing for a new contract. They could discern his ability from his performance when he was a Dodger, but recent metrics did not indicate that he would have a year like 2010. There are no metrics to gauge desire. They took a gamble on that aspect, but it was not an unfounded gamble. The FO was lucky that he put together the year he did in 2010. Isn't that the only claim that Palodios made?

[example1]

So are you concluding that his 2010 performance was not indicated by his statistical history prior to 2010' date=' but that Theo took a chance on him because he had the skill set and capability to have a big season playing for a new contract? If so, it seems he played a hunch rather than looking at metrics. It was a good hunch, but a hunch nevertheless. I'm not looking to put words in your mouth, but just trying to understand your position.[/quote']

 

At some level one is playing a hunch when making choices like this. The hunch is how much faith to put in the stats/metrics you have, and which ones might be overrepresented or inaccurate representations of a player's value.

 

The stats rarely tell the whole story, but there were plenty that offered good reasons to use one year's worth of salary on Beltre. His reliable defense alone was probably worth it.

 

The reality is that it wasn't a choice between Beltre and 12 other comparable 3B. The circumstances led the Red Sox to get a near MVP player for less-than MVP money, and now they are likely to get two top draft picks for him.

 

It was "lucky" that he was available, but Theo's preference for him had long been known and Theo prefered him beause of what the numbers say, not because of some gut instinct.

 

Remember, Beltre averaged 3.38 WAR per-year in Seattle. That's good production given how little offense he produced. I'm sure Theo suspected that Beltre was good for 2-4 WAR without offensive production, and there was a chance he would thrive in the Sox lineup and in Fenway. Hence the 7 WAR he actually produced.

 

The situation worked out well because it was low risk through and through. That's why a lot of people liked it before the season and they are rightfully patting themselves on the back now.

[example1]

The whole "we're signing him for his D" argument was just a way to cover their ass had he s*** the bed, which he did not, but logically, it's impossible to conclude he signed the guy on a "hunch" instead of using all the available statistical tools (and there were many of them).

 

I agree with everything except this. With very little offense Beltre put up pretty decent WAR year after year. The defense is what made the risk worth taking.

[Dipre]

I agree with everything except this. With very little offense Beltre put up pretty decent WAR year after year. The defense is what made the risk worth taking.

 

Now that you mention it, with the whole "pitching and defense" mantra of the offseason this makes a lot of sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is what a700's arguing. Palodios himself said that he expected more or less the .872 OPS Beltre presented while playing in AL East stadiums this year, but arguing about his proficiency in the road, which can be explained, to some extent, with the "luck" term that he's been using.

 

However, the rise to near .900 OPS level and 60+ XBH performance Beltre boasted in 2010 was something that, given the nature of the environment he played in and his fit with the stadium, was expected by many people.

 

Had he produced an .872 OPS instead of the .900+ one he actually did, with similar numbers, but a lower OBP due to less luck with balls on play, would we be calling the FO "smart" or "lucky".

 

Can we just agree that the guy was a good signing? Because he was.

[a700hitter]

How could it not have been backed up by metrics?

 

If guys who in reality don't know jack s*** about player evaluation (that would be us, the people who post on forums), sportswriters and scouts all pointed to park factors as a major reason why Beltre had not fared better offensively while in Seattle, and then the same people who post on forums, sportswriters and scouts concluded that it was more than likely that Beltre was going to enjoy a resurgence while playing in a hitter's haven like Fenway, how could Theo Epstein and his highly-paid team of talent evaluators not come to this conclusion by themselves?

 

The whole "we're signing him for his D" argument was just a way to cover their ass had he s*** the bed, which he did not, but logically, it's impossible to conclude he signed the guy on a "hunch" instead of using all the available statistical tools (and there were many of them).

But didn't you acknowledge an element of luck in his 2010 season? Why would luck be involved if the metrics clearly indicated that he would have this type of year? Why would the FO need to cover their asses? We all knew he was capable of having the kind of season that he had. All we needed was to be aware of the monster year he put up in his walk year with the Dodgers to understand that he had the capability. We didn't need to perform any big statistical analysis to come to that conclusion.

[Dipre]

But didn't you acknowledge an element of luck in his 2010 season? Why would luck be involved if the metrics clearly indicated that he would have this type of year? Why would the FO need to cover their asses? We all knew he was capable of having the kind of season that he had. All we needed was to be aware of the monster year he put up in his walk year with the Dodgers to understand that he had the capability. We didn't need to perform any big statistical analysis to come to that conclusion.

 

Because talking in absolutes is logical fallacy.

 

Metrics give you a pretty clear picture of what a player has done and can to a certain extent, predict what they will do, but they are not 100% accurate, just like watching a guy play for an extended time can give you an idea of his talent level, and how he will perform barring injury, but it's not 100% accurate either.

 

What we do need the statistical analysis for is comprehending an expected level of performance from a player in a neutral set of circumstances and relate them to the context he will be playing in. Because you don't bank (although i still believe in the FA-year phenomenon) on a player performing above his statistical capacity just because it's a contract year. Instead you look for a reasonable performance floor and use it as a base to create your financial decisions on.

 

There's also the fact that (and i can't stress this enough) we're talking about people who, from a statistical and scouting stand-point, know what they're doing.

[a700hitter]

Now that you mention it, with the whole "pitching and defense" mantra of the offseason this makes a lot of sense.

 

What doesn't make sense is what a700's arguing. Palodios himself said that he expected more or less the .872 OPS Beltre presented while playing in AL East stadiums this year, but arguing about his proficiency in the road, which can be explained, to some extent, with the "luck" term that he's been using.

 

However, the rise to near .900 OPS level and 60+ XBH performance Beltre boasted in 2010 was something that, given the nature of the environment he played in and his fit with the stadium, was expected by many people.

 

Had he produced an .872 OPS instead of the .900+ one he actually did, with similar numbers, but a lower OBP due to less luck with balls on play, would we be calling the FO "smart" or "lucky".

 

Can we just agree that the guy was a good signing? Because he was.

Okay, then shouldn't we resign him based on those metrics? The variables would not be changing. In fact, the effect of those variables on his play are now known. There should be more certainty. He'd still be playing half his games at Fenway and in basically the same lineup. Based on that, shouldn't we resign him. It's really hard to find a guy to put up the numbers that he put up in 2010 with the glove that he has. He had a better year than either Adrian Gonzalez or Adam Dunn. Beltre and Youk present a better defensive corner IF combo than if we had eiter Gonzalez or Dunn.

[ORS]

You just contradicted yourself within three sentences.

 

Branch Rickey said that "luck is the residue of design." In other words, you make your own luck. The FO made a decision based Beltre's ability. They also anticipated that his desire would be ratcheted up a notch because he'd be playing for a new contract. They could discern his ability from his performance when he was a Dodger, but recent metrics did not indicate that he would have a year like 2010. There are no metrics to gauge desire. They took a gamble on that aspect, but it was not an unfounded gamble. The FO was lucky that he put together the year he did in 2010. You said so yourself. Isn't that the only claim that Palodios made?

Show me where I said the FO was lucky that he had a good year.

[a700hitter]

Show me where I said the FO was lucky that he had a good year.

My bad. That's what I get for trying to post while trying to watch the NFL games. I will edit my post accordingly.

[Dipre]

Okay' date=' then shouldn't we resign him based on those metrics? The variables would not be changing. In fact, the effect of those variables on his play are now known. There should be more certainty. He'd still be playing half his games at Fenway and in basically the same lineup. Based on that, shouldn't we resign him. It's really hard to find a guy to put up the numbers that he put up in 2010 with the glove that he has. He had a better year than either Adrian Gonzalez or Adam Dunn. Beltre and Youk present a better defensive corner IF combo than if we had eiter Gonzalez or Dunn.[/quote']

 

From my point of view, it's actually very simple.

 

From a practical standpoint, Beltre is not a better player for 2001 than a Dunn/Werth combo or a stop-gap 1B/Werth combo.

 

Why?

 

For the following reasons:

 

1) He's going to get a massive contract in both years and money. In fact, he'll probably get five years at fifteen million per, and the fifth year represents a serious problem with Beltre, because his skillset (no on-base ability at all) is not likely to age well. And probably the statistical "floor" they have set for him is not that of a 15 mill/year player.

 

2) He's not a better all-around hitter than Dunn/Gonzales. This FO values a player's ability to get on base, and if there's something lucky about Beltre's 2010 season, it was his OBP, and that's the part of his game that's most likely to decline and fast. I assume they learned from the Mike Lowell experience.

 

If he were to re-sign for four years at an AAV a bit lower, i'd be all for the signing, but IMO, all signs point to, with a correction on his BABIP, mid-to-upper .800 OPS production for the first couple of years, then a skill erosion that would render his limited on-base skills useless.

 

Again, i'm not a talent evaluator, not do i claim to be so, but that's what i feel is a logical analysis of the reason they're not going to struggle to re-sign Beltre when there are options that offer similar production while allowing them to shoot for better, younger pieces in the long term.

[ORS]

My bad. That's what I get for trying to post while trying to watch the NFL games. I will edit my post accordingly.

No worries, when I looked at it a second time, it occurred to me it does read a little funny and I had to backtrack to make sure it said what I wanted it to.

[Palodios]

Apparently you didn't notice the part where i noted that his performance was indeed helped by luck (BABIP) and that his overall performance should have been an upper .800 OPS season, but that luck, combined with the desire for a new contract (speculation) pushed his performance to another level. You're cherry picking for the sake of arguing. We both agree that he was somewhat lucky, but the point where we differ is that you seem to think it was a sheer stroke of luck that Beltre decided to get his s*** together for the season when he was going to get his last big contract. That's what i don't buy.

 

He's always been a much better hitter on the road than at home, and he moved to a division which had much cozier away ballparks. While the element of luck was certainly there (for Beltre personally, on a BABIP level) his home/away splits followed the same career trend they've always had.

 

Oh. The way you worded it, coupled with ORS's stubbornness against the factor of luck gave me a different impression.

 

I'm not sure what you don't buy about my argument. I considered the factors, and think that for the FO to have expected .850 from him is reasonable, but I think for him to perform above and beyond that benchmark had nothing to do with their foresight, and more to do with the player. When they were fighting against public opinion that was frustrated when Bay wasn't signed, it wasn't like they stood at the podium and said "Don't worry guys, we've got Adrian Beltre to hit .920 and solve all our offensive problems, and replace Manny/Bay". That was my original point, that he was good, but I don't think expectations were quite to that level. If they knew Beltre was going to hit that way, why on earth would they have talked about a bridge season, with an emphasis on pitching and defense, when their offense had such big potential?

[a700hitter]

From my point of view' date=' it's actually very simple.[/b']

 

From a practical standpoint, Beltre is not a better player for 2001 than a Dunn/Werth combo or a stop-gap 1B/Werth combo.

 

Why?

 

For the following reasons:

 

1) He's going to get a massive contract in both years and money. In fact, he'll probably get five years at fifteen million per, and the fifth year represents a serious problem with Beltre, because his skillset (no on-base ability at all) is not likely to age well. And probably the statistical "floor" they have set for him is not that of a 15 mill/year player.

 

2) He's not a better all-around hitter than Dunn/Gonzales. This FO values a player's ability to get on base, and if there's something lucky about Beltre's 2010 season, it was his OBP, and that's the part of his game that's most likely to decline and fast. I assume they learned from the Mike Lowell experience.

 

If he were to re-sign for four years at an AAV a bit lower, i'd be all for the signing, but IMO, all signs point to, with a correction on his BABIP, mid-to-upper .800 OPS production for the first couple of years, then a skill erosion that would render his limited on-base skills useless.

 

Again, i'm not a talent evaluator, not do i claim to be so, but that's what i feel is a logical analysis of the reason they're not going to struggle to re-sign Beltre when there are options that offer similar production while allowing them to shoot for better, younger pieces in the long term.

I'm not agreeing with or disputing your analysis, but it doesn't seem like a simple analysis as you stated upfront.

[Dipre]

I'm not agreeing with or disputing your analysis' date=' but it doesn't seem like a simple analysis as you stated upfront.[/quote']

 

Simplified version:

 

Beltre is going to get overpaid in both years and money, and with nearly non-existent on base skills that are only likely to decline further, and the back-end of his deal probably becoming an albatross, why sign him long-term when there are options that would offer similar production on shorter-term deals and allow the team to acquire premium and younger talent later?

 

How about now?

[Dipre]

Oh. The way you worded it, coupled with ORS's stubbornness against the factor of luck gave me a different impression.

 

I'm not sure what you don't buy about my argument. I considered the factors, and think that for the FO to have expected .850 from him is reasonable, but I think for him to perform above and beyond that benchmark had nothing to do with their foresight, and more to do with the player. When they were fighting against public opinion that was frustrated when Bay wasn't signed, it wasn't like they stood at the podium and said "Don't worry guys, we've got Adrian Beltre to hit .920 and solve all our offensive problems, and replace Manny/Bay". That was my original point, that he was good, but I don't think expectations were quite to that level. If they knew Beltre was going to hit that way, why on earth would they have talked about a bridge season, with an emphasis on pitching and defense, when their offense had such big potential?

 

As John Henry stated himself (i'll try and find the link) it was a poor choice of words by Epstein.

 

The issue was that the offense was full of question marks, ranging from Cameron's age, to Drew's fragility, Scutaro's offensive ability, Martinez and his woes with catching over 100 games, among others. I believe they signed Beltre expecting great production, but got more than what they expected.

 

As i stated earlier, i believe it's logical to think teams create a "floor" of what they expect to be a player's level of production for any given season, and i believe Beltre's "floor" to have been a mid-to-high .800's OPS, meaning he outplayed their expectations, but the expectations for him to perform at a high level were there. Of course, that's just my opinion, since i have no formal knowledge of the FO's line of thinking, just like everyone else here.

[a700hitter]

Simplified version:

 

Beltre is going to get overpaid in both years and money, and with nearly non-existent on base skills that are only likely to decline further, and the back-end of his deal probably becoming an albatross, why sign him long-term when there are options that would offer similar production on shorter-term deals and allow the team to acquire premium and younger talent later?

 

How about now?

:lol:I didn't say that I didn't understand your analysis. I just don't think it is a simple analysis. I think it gets complicated by the fact that there is no guarantee that we get Adrian Gonzalez, who is the only younger talent that has been discussed.

[Dipre]

:lol:I didn't say that I didn't understand your analysis. I just don't think it is a simple analysis. I think it gets complicated by the fact that there is no guarantee that we get Adrian Gonzalez' date=' who is the only younger talent that has been discussed.[/quote']

 

I think there are many ways they can go in the next FA period, enough to make me think that making moves thinking of said off-season make sense:

 

Prince Fielder, Gonzales, Jose Reyes, Jimmy Rollins, Jose Bautista (let's see if this season wasn't a fluke) are all potential free agents who the team may look to acquire, not to mention trade possibilities.

 

In the end, it's always a good idea to stay clear of contracts who are likely to become a hindrance towards the back-end of the deal. But again, that's just the way i see it.

[ORS]

Branch Rickey said that "luck is the residue of design." In other words' date=' you make your own luck. The FO made a decision based Beltre's ability. They also anticipated that his desire would be ratcheted up a notch because he'd be playing for a new contract. They could discern his ability from his performance when he was a Dodger, but recent metrics did not indicate that he would have a year like 2010. There are no metrics to gauge desire. They took a gamble on that aspect, but it was not an unfounded gamble. The FO was lucky that he put together the year he did in 2010. Isn't that the only claim that Palodios made?[/quote']

The only "luck" I see is a higher than average success rate on balls in play. If we are to take the .870 range as an acceptable expectation given the change in circumstance (where he plays, better lineup protection, contract motivation), the improvement from his career BABIP of 0.037 alone gets you up to .907, and he was at .919. If that's the "luck" he's talking about, and I don't think it is, then big deal. This luck, or lack thereof, happens for every player every year.

 

And, ultimately, who got lucky? The front office? That's a hard sell. Beltre's excellence didn't get them to the playoffs because of multiple other issues. However, he is looking at some hefty contract offers because of his last season. If anyone got lucky, it's Beltre.