Barnes extended

[Bellhorn04]

Even if you're a fan of closers, they're not where you start building a team. They're like the dessert of your pitching staff. You need a team/dinner in front of them before you can enjoy them...

 

Yes, I understand that premise.

[Bellhorn04]

But iortiz was applying the fWAR standards for position players to a reliever to minimize Barnes' role on the team. If you use Barnes fWAR that way, you are basically saying Rivera = Gaetti, as their careers were virtually identical with regards to fWAR...

 

Oh yeah, I got all that. And then troublemaker Hugh said he'd rather have Gaetti than Rivera.

[mvp 78]

Yes, I understand that premise.

 

We all understand the premise.

[mvp 78]

Oh yeah, I got all that. And then troublemaker Hugh said he'd rather have Gaetti than Rivera.

 

He also said "prime" Gaetti who was fantastic in 86 and 88. If he played like that for 10 straight years, maybe there'd be a discussion.

[moonslav59]

He's also on pace for a career-high in appearances and innings pitched. Barnes has been overworked.

.

 

That’s a bit deceptive.

 

Since he’s done so well, he’s pitched to less batters per inning and thrown less pitches per batter.

[Hugh2]

He also said "prime" Gaetti who was fantastic in 86 and 88. If he played like that for 10 straight years, maybe there'd be a discussion.

 

Exactly, that was intentional. Gaetti in his prime would be an MVP candidate today, and he had a solid career.

[moonslav59]

Exactly, that was intentional. Gaetti in his prime would be an MVP candidate today, and he had a solid career.

 

No doubt.

 

Mo was the best ever closer. Gaetti was not the best ever anything.

 

So, it comes down to how much you value a closer vs an everyday player.

[Hugh2]

No doubt.

 

Mo was the best ever closer. Gaetti was not the best ever anything.

 

So, it comes down to how much you value a closer vs an everyday player.

 

Well let’s talk about value. Let’s imagine Gaetti and Mo in their prime entering FA. In today’s numbers. Who would get the bigger contract?

[notin]

Well let’s talk about value. Let’s imagine Gaetti and Mo in their prime entering FA. In today’s numbers. Who would get the bigger contract?

 

Gaetti, but bear in mind closers rarely get deals over 4 years…

[dgalehouse]

Barnes has done an outstanding job this year. He is one of the big reasons why they are in first place. No need to pick everything apart. It is a mistake to underestimate the importance of a closer. They don't pitch a lot of innings, but they are high leverage, high pressure innings with the game on the line. Barnes deserves the extension . Whether it is a fair deal or a " steal" doesn't matter. He is satisfied. Hope he keeps up the good work.

[moonslav59]

Well let’s talk about value. Let’s imagine Gaetti and Mo in their prime entering FA. In today’s numbers. Who would get the bigger contract?

 

Gaetti, hands down.

 

I'm not one to value RP'ers all that highly, but I do think fangraphs undervalues them.

 

The Gaetti-Mo comp goes against that belief.

[iortiz]

Relief pitchers are all role players by definition.

 

If you’re using fWAR to compare relief pitchers to other players, bear in mind this means you are saying that the greatest relief pitcher of all time , Mariano Rivera (19 seasons, 39.1 fWAR) is the same value as Gary Gaetti (19 seasons, 39.0 fWAR)

 

They are role players but they still can be great or bums. Mo drives in a different highway. Few are close to him. I did say the later too. Go figure.

 

Also I didn't compare relief pitchers to other players. I was comparing relievers with relievers. Apples with apples.

re,

I also did say that you have to adjust fangraphs' rule-of-thumb for relievers. I also shared my rule-of-thumb for them. Again, go figure.

[moonslav59]

Is Barnes being overworked?

 

2017 to 2021

 

Appearances

69

62

70

24 (60 gm season)

38 (91 gms, so far) on pace for 68

 

IP

70

62

64

23 (2020)

38 (on pace for 68)

 

Batters Faced

287

265

285

102 (2020)

143 (on pace for 254)

 

Pitches Thrown Per PA- and total pitches thrown.

 

4.18 - 1203 pitches thrown

4.18 - 1109

4.60 - 1311

4.46 - 455 (2020 projected to 1229 over 162)

4.18 - 681 (projected to 1212 over 162)

 

Nothing to worry about?

[iortiz]

But iortiz was applying the fWAR standards for position players to a reliever to minimize Barnes' role on the team. If you use Barnes fWAR that way, you are basically saying Rivera = Gaetti, as their careers were virtually identical with regards to fWAR...

 

No, I didnt. I adjusted the rule-of-thumb.

 

Stop making up things.

[dgalehouse]

We are comparing Gary Gaetti , a .255 career hitter with a career OPS of .741 to Mariano Rivera , the greatest closer of all time , a unanimous Hall of Fame selection. It's been really hot lately. Pour a cold lemonade and crank up the A.C. a notch. You'll feel better soon.

[iortiz]

We are comparing Gary Gaetti , a .255 career hitter with a career OPS of .741 to Mariano Rivera , the greatest closer of all time , a unanimous Hall of Fame selection. It's been really hot lately. Pour a cold lemonade and crank up the A.C. a notch. You'll feel better soon.

 

Comparing them doesn't make sense at all.

[dgalehouse]

Comparing them doesn't make sense at all.

 

Exactly.

[mvp 78]

They are role players but they still can be great or bums. Mo drives in a different highway. Few are close to him. I did say the later too. Go figure.

 

Also I didn't compare relief pitchers to other players. I was comparing relievers with relievers. Apples with apples.

re,

I also did say that you have to adjust fangraphs' rule-of-thumb for relievers. I also shared my rule-of-thumb for them. Again, go figure.

 

No, you didn't. You said any player with less than 2 fWAR was a "scrub." How many relievers get above 2 fWAR?

[mvp 78]

Comparing them doesn't make sense at all.

 

And neither does your argument that Barnes wasn't "very good" even though he's top 21 in the league over the course of a 3 year period, which is top 10% in all of baseball for that position.

[iortiz]

No, you didn't. You said any player with less than 2 fWAR was a "scrub." How many relievers get above 2 fWAR?

I did adjust the rule-of-thumb.

 

Stop it.

[iortiz]

And neither does your argument that Barnes wasn't "very good" even though he's top 21 in the league over the course of a 3 year period, which is top 10% in all of baseball for that position.

 

Well, his best fwar year was 1.3.

 

If that is very good to you, be my guest.

[mvp 78]

I did adjust the rule-of-thumb.

 

Stop it.

 

Where'd you adjust it?

[iortiz]

I would say that a fWAR between 2-3 makes you good to very good reliever.

 

Something between 1-2 makes you an average to above average reliever.

 

Here's my scale.

[mvp 78]

Here's my scale.

 

In 2019, there were 47 relievers with an fWAR of 1.0 or more.

 

There were 335 relievers that pitched more than 20 innings that year. A true "average reliever" would be about 0.2 fWAR. I would say that an fWAR of 1 makes you a good to very good reliever as teams would likely only have 1 or 2 of those guys.

 

Only 9 guys had fWAR's that were "very good" according to your scale.

 

So, 2 great players.

 

7 good to very good players.

 

28 average to above average players.

 

288 below average to scrub players.

[iortiz]

Since the scale for players in fangraphs goes from 0 to 6, and considering that 6 is what fangraphs calls you MVP, 3.5 is probably the MVP for relievers, so the factor should be something around 1.7.

 

If the later is true...

 

Matt Barnes posted in his best year a 1.3 fWAR. It could be translated into a 2.21 fWAR in the player rule-of-thumb table.

 

2.21 fWAR makes you a "Solid Player" in the table, but it is below of what fangraphs calls you a "Good Player" in the same table.

 

I called it "average to above average". Solid in my book is "average to above average". Solid or "average to above average" is probably what Matt Barnes was in his best year.

Edited July 16, 2021 by iortiz

[iortiz]

In 2019, there were 47 relievers with an fWAR of 1.0 or more.

 

There were 335 relievers that pitched more than 20 innings that year. A true "average reliever" would be about 0.2 fWAR. I would say that an fWAR of 1 makes you a good to very good reliever as teams would likely only have 1 or 2 of those guys.

 

Only 9 guys had fWAR's that were "very good" according to your scale.

 

So, 2 great players.

 

7 good to very good players.

 

28 average to above average players.

 

288 below average to scrub players.

 

yup, only a few are very good relievers —2+ fWAR.

 

In the scale of players, very good probably starts at the "Good Player" level, maybe higher. So If a reliever player has something around 1-2, as I said, makes you an average to above average player.

[Hugh2]

Remember when we all took the SAT's and you saw Boogle, and all boggle were zoodles but not all zoodles are doodles, you saw a doodle is it a boggle? Or however, it went. I feel like that's where the Mo conversation went. No one is trying to say Rivera wasn't great, or that closers don't carry a lot of value. But someone should be able to comment on the reality of them being overvalued without being burned at the stake for blasphemy.

 

Tough to swallow pill. Relievers are overvalued. They will never be as valuable as position players and starting pitchers.

 

If we were starting over from scratch, you were the GM, and we lived in an unfair world where YOU got the first 25 picks in an MLB player draft who would you draft top 12? no one here would take a closer, not one person.

[mvp 78]

Remember when we all took the SAT's and you saw Boogle, and all boggle were zoodles but not all zoodles are doodles, you saw a doodle is it a boggle? Or however, it went. I feel like that's where the Mo conversation went. No one is trying to say Rivera wasn't great, or that closers don't carry a lot of value. But someone should be able to comment on the reality of them being overvalued without being burned at the stake for blasphemy.

 

Tough to swallow pill. Relievers are overvalued. They will never be as valuable as position players and starting pitchers.

 

If we were starting over from scratch, you were the GM, and we lived in an unfair world where YOU got the first 25 picks in an MLB player draft who would you draft top 12? no one here would take a closer, not one person.

 

From what I know about drafts, I'd take a closer with an early 1st round pick. This would create a run on closers such that I could take the guy I wanted anyway with my next pick.

[Bellhorn04]

Remember when we all took the SAT's and you saw Boogle, and all boggle were zoodles but not all zoodles are doodles, you saw a doodle is it a boggle? Or however, it went. I feel like that's where the Mo conversation went. No one is trying to say Rivera wasn't great, or that closers don't carry a lot of value. But someone should be able to comment on the reality of them being overvalued without being burned at the stake for blasphemy.

 

Tough to swallow pill. Relievers are overvalued. They will never be as valuable as position players and starting pitchers.

 

I understand the thinking behind that, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

 

In modern baseball you need it all - position players, starting pitchers and relievers.

 

As far as individual players go, sure, a reliever can never be as valuable, because they only log 60-70 innings.

 

If you think market prices have any meaning, the most a reliever can make is about half of a starter (Chapman vs. Cole, for example).

 

But there's a value in having an elite closer which is not necessarily measurable. The Red Sox might have won the World Series in 1975, 1986 and 2003 if they had a great closer those years. And Foulke, Papelbon and Koji were huge factors in 2004, 2007 and 2013.

[mvp 78]

We're just saying that Barnes' deal isn't an overpay. That's it.