Barnes extended

[moonslav59]

His numbers were never very good moon. You said that since 2017 he has been very good. He hasn’t. Last year he posted a 4+ era.

 

2021 Barnes numbers are the definition of very good.

 

ERA is about the worst stat to use for a RP'er. Even using ERA+ or ERA- is not as good as using OPS Against or other stats.

 

Barnes was very good from 2017-2020 combined. Even 2020 saw a .705 OPS against. While that is not "very good," my point was that from 2017-2020 he was- not every second or minute, but a 127 ERA+ is certainly very good.

 

It is 27% better than the league norm after adjustments are made for park and other factors.

 

If he was a FA, this winter, after posting a 127 ERA+ in 2021, I think he'd have gotten $8M x 2, or at least something close to it.

 

No way am I claiming he was 2021 elite from 2017-2020, but he was very good.

 

Out of 218 RP'ers with 100+ IP from 2017-2020, here's how fangraphs ranks Barnes. (Note: fangraphs is pretty harsh on pitchers who walk a lot of batters)

 

26th in fWAR at 3.4

15th xFIP at 3.12 (some might say this is close to elite)

13th in K% at 34.1%

29th in K%/BB% at 22.3%

 

To be fair, these rankings look "good" not 'very good:"

86th in ERA- at 86

122nd in WHIP at 1.30

 

I can see someone thinking he was good and not "very good," but I think I have evidence enough to say "very good."

 

[moonslav59]

BTV is far, far too volatile in its valuations.

 

True, but even a slight uptick would show they think his contract did exceed his projected value.

Edited July 15, 2021 by moonslav59

[harmony]

True, but even a slight uptick would show they think his contract did not exceed his projected value.

Sounds like market value.

[mvp 78]

Barnes has had only 3 months of elite pitching and that’s it. He always was wild. His command always was as an issue.

 

My guess is they fixed what they needed to be fixed and expect he keeps that way.

 

They didn’t bought career Barnes. They are buying this new Barnes.

 

The contract was fine for 2019 Barnes.

[moonslav59]

The contract was fine for 2019 Barnes.

 

And 2017-2020 combined Barnes.

 

My point was Barnes was worth close to $8M x 2 prior to 2021’s explosion.

[notin]

BTV is far, far too volatile in its valuations.

 

 

So is reality…

[moonslav59]

So is reality…

 

That's deep.

[iortiz]

ERA is about the worst stat to use for a RP'er. Even using ERA+ or ERA- is not as good as using OPS Against or other stats.

 

Barnes was very good from 2017-2020 combined. Even 2020 saw a .705 OPS against. While that is not "very good," my point was that from 2017-2020 he was- not every second or minute, but a 127 ERA+ is certainly very good.

 

It is 27% better than the league norm after adjustments are made for park and other factors.

 

If he was a FA, this winter, after posting a 127 ERA+ in 2021, I think he'd have gotten $8M x 2, or at least something close to it.

 

No way am I claiming he was 2021 elite from 2017-2020, but he was very good.

 

Out of 218 RP'ers with 100+ IP from 2017-2020, here's how fangraphs ranks Barnes. (Note: fangraphs is pretty harsh on pitchers who walk a lot of batters)

 

26th in fWAR at 3.4

15th xFIP at 3.12 (some might say this is close to elite)

13th in K% at 34.1%

29th in K%/BB% at 22.3%

 

To be fair, these rankings look "good" not 'very good:"

86th in ERA- at 86

122nd in WHIP at 1.30

 

I can see someone thinking he was good and not "very good," but I think I have evidence enough to say "very good."

 

 

You start saying that ERA is not a good stat for relievers but in the very next paragraph you point out that his ERA+ was very good. You are a mass of contradictions lol

 

Before 2021 his standard and advanced stats weren't very good as you are suggesting.

 

If you want o evaluate a RP you have to see his run prevention estimators, because in the end you want to hold and/or minimize the damage when a RP comes in.

 

His SIERA last year which considers balls in play was 4, very close to his ERA. His 2020 xFIP which normalizes HRs was 4 as well. His FIP? almost 5. His peripherals weren't good as well.

 

In my book before 2021 Matt Barnes has been an average to just above average RP at best. Never very good as you are suggesting.

 

Said that Barnes has been a stud this year but bit shaky lately. Hopefully he can keep his numbers the rest of the season.

[iortiz]

The contract was fine for 2019 Barnes.

 

 

Probably but those numbers are far from what he is posting this year which is the definition of very good in my book.

[moonslav59]

You start saying that ERA is not a good stat for relievers but in the very next paragraph you point out that his ERA+ was very good. You are a mass of contradictions lol

 

Do you know what ERA+ even is?

 

One reason I don't like ERA for any pitcher is that it does not factor in park factors as well as others (like team defense). ERA+ does just that. It is way more accurate than just plain ERA.

 

Another other reason I don't like ERA is that RP'ers often come in with 1-2 outs, so their ERA will be skewed in those games.

 

I provided ERA+ numbers to show his ERA was not as bad as it looked. It was your stat of choice, so I countered your point with a similar stat.

 

Before 2021 his standard and advanced stats weren't very good as you are suggesting.

 

I gave you the numbers of several highly regarded stats, and his ranking among the top 200 RP'ers from 2017-2020 was very good in many of the stats and so-so in a couple others, like WHIP. Did you bother to look at the numbers?

 

If you want o evaluate a RP you have to see his run prevention estimators, because in the end you want to hold and/or minimize the damage when a RP comes in.

 

Yes, OPS against is proven to be one of the best run prevention stats available. Barnes had very good OPS Against numbers from 2017-2020. Are you saying those numbers are wrong or don't relate well to run prevention?

 

The fac is Barnes was one of the top set up men in MLB from 2017-2020 combined. If you don't think that means "very good," I'm not sure what else I can say.

 

His SIERA last year which considers balls in play was 4, very close to his ERA. His 2020 xFIP which normalizes HRs was 4 as well. His FIP? almost 5. His peripherals weren't good as well.

 

2020 was shortened season. If that's all you are going by, then you have a point. Most GMs do not go by a pitchers most recent 23 IP alone. Even in 2020, his OPS Against was .705, and that was his worst from 2017-2020. Most of teh time he was near or under .680, which is very good, right?

 

In my book before 2021 Matt Barnes has been an average to just above average RP at best. Never very good as you are suggesting.

 

Now, it's "never very good?"

 

He was clearly very good from 2017-2019. Three years of 65+ IP very good set-up pitching.

 

BTW, I never said he was elite pre-2021, just very good from 2017-2020.Maybe we disagree on what very good means. He clearly was much better than average.

 

Is .680 very good, or not? How about .660? .650?

 

Here are his OPS Against numbers since 2017

.655 Very Good

.624 Fantastic

.666 Very Good

.706 Okay (2020 40% season)

 

Broken down by half seasons:

.629 Fantastic

.688 Good

.509 Spectacular

.844 Bad

.607 Good

.639 Very Good

.706 Okay (2020)

 

In the playoffs:

0.87 ERA (Your stat of choice not mine- and "clutch")

1.161 WHIP

 

You seriously think he was "never very good?"

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Probably but those numbers are far from what he is posting this year which is the definition of very good in my book.

 

If 2021 Barnes is just "very good" then our disagreement is over terminology not stats.

 

Opponents have a .518 OPS Against Barnes, this year. That is borderline Koji great.

[iortiz]

You said that ERA+ ERA- are not even good as OPS, and in the very next paragraph you use ERA+ to say he was very good.

 

Kind of the point.

 

Said that, Barnes never was a very good RP before 2021. Numbers speak for itself.

[Bellhorn04]

You said that ERA+ ERA- are not even good as OPS, and in the very next paragraph you use ERA+ to say he was very good.

 

Kind of the point.

 

Said that, Barnes never was a very good RP before 2021. Numbers speak for itself.

 

He's been clutch, though! 0.87 ERA in 10.1 postseason innings.

[iortiz]

He's been clutch, though! 0.87 ERA in 10.1 postseason innings.

 

lol well, I give him that.

[iortiz]

Moon will tell you that clutch is not a pitching skill and that ERA is not a good a stat to evaluate a RP though lol

[moonslav59]

Moon will tell you that clutch is not a pitching skill and that ERA is not a good a stat to evaluate a RP though lol

 

I used ERA+ to counter your ERA claim. It doesn’t mean I like it more than OPS against. I tried to use what you respect to counter your claims.

 

Answer this; is an ERA + of 127 very good or not?

 

Is an OPS against of .680 very good or not.

 

If you say no, then the debate is over. We just have different views on what “very good” means, which is fine.

 

If you say yes, then there is some evidence that shows he has been very good from 2017-2020 combined. Yes, there is some evidence that shows he may be just “good.” Hardly any evidence shows he was average except those based on BBs.

[moonslav59]

Moon will tell you that clutch is not a pitching skill and that ERA is not a good a stat to evaluate a RP though lol

 

I’m using your own beliefs to counter your points.

 

Get it?

[harmony]

If 2021 Barnes is just "very good" then our disagreement is over terminology not stats.

 

Opponents have a .518 OPS Against Barnes, this year. That is borderline Koji great.

Among qualified relievers this year, Matt Barnes ranks 21st in BAA (Batting Average Against):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=10,a

 

... and 31st in ERA-:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=14,a

[moonslav59]

Among qualified relievers this year, Matt Barnes ranks 21st in BAA (Batting Average Against):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=10,a

 

... and 31st in ERA-:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=14,a

 

Why is BAA better than OPS against?

 

Cause it suits your bias?

[notin]

Moon will tell you that clutch is not a pitching skill and that ERA is not a good a stat to evaluate a RP though lol

 

ERA isn’t a good way to evaluate a relief pitcher, which is a bit ironic as that’s exactly what it was created to do…

[mvp 78]

Among qualified relievers this year, Matt Barnes ranks 21st in BAA (Batting Average Against):

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=10,a

 

... and 31st in ERA-:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31&sort=14,a

 

2nd in xFIP-.

 

3rd in SIERA.

 

3rd in K-BB%.

 

And his 107 in BABIP shows he's not doing it on luck.

[iortiz]

ERA isn’t a good way to evaluate a relief pitcher, which is a bit ironic as that’s exactly what it was created to do…

 

When ERA and run prevention estimators are in the same highway, ERA is a realistic stat to evaluate any pitcher.

 

In Barnes' case his ERA and run prevention estimators are in the same highway specially in 2020, which are not very good.

[mvp 78]

When ERA and run prevention estimators are in the same highway, ERA is a realistic stat to evaluate any pitcher.

 

In Barnes' case his ERA and run prevention estimators are in the same highway specially in 2020, which are not very good.

 

Sox should have DFA'd JD because his 2020 numbers were so bad.

[mvp 78]

Sox should have DFA'd JD because his 2020 numbers were so bad.

 

Kris Bryant's numbers in 2020 were terrible. Probably not in the league anymore.

[mvp 78]

Kris Bryant's numbers in 2020 were terrible. Probably not in the league anymore.

 

Jose Iglesias OPS'd over 950 in 2020. Should have gotten a max contract.

[iortiz]

I used ERA+ to counter your ERA claim. It doesn’t mean I like it more than OPS against. I tried to use what you respect to counter your claims.

 

Answer this; is an ERA + of 127 very good or not?

 

Is an OPS against of .680 very good or not.

 

If you say no, then the debate is over. We just have different views on what “very good” means, which is fine.

 

If you say yes, then there is some evidence that shows he has been very good from 2017-2020 combined. Yes, there is some evidence that shows he may be just “good.” Hardly any evidence shows he was average except those based on BBs.

 

You are throwing s*** to the wall hoping some stick moon.

 

Again, his run prevention estimators in 2020 were not very good. His standard stats were not very good. His advanced stats were not very good. His peripherals were not very good, oh wait, but you found out that that his "OPS Against" is around league average which by definition is not very good.

[mvp 78]

Jose Iglesias OPS'd over 950 in 2020. Should have gotten a max contract.

 

Yanks need to give DJ the money. He earned it in 2020!

[iortiz]

Sox should have DFA'd JD because his 2020 numbers were so bad.

 

 

are you going to compare Barnes with JD? really? lol

 

Also I never said DFA Barnes. I'm just saying he wasn't a very good RP. That's all.

 

JD has been an elite bat all-in-all.

[harmony]

Why is BAA better than OPS against?

 

Cause it suits your bias?

Did anyone suggest that one stat was better than the other?

 

OPS against was just an odd stat to single out. Posters now have contributed a broader variety of stats.

 

Good for us.

[Bellhorn04]

Did anyone suggest that one stat was better than the other?

 

OPS against was just an odd stat to single out. Posters now have contributed a broader variety of stats.

 

Good for us.

 

BAA is odder than OPS against.