Barnes extended

[mvp 78]

Uh, on average, that’d be the best reliever on many teams.

 

The top 10% of all relievers. That’s not very good?

[iortiz]

Fangraphs' fwar rule-of-thump say that if you post something in between 1 to 2 fWAR points you are considered a role player. If you post something around 0-1 you are a scrub player.

 

Baserd on that, Matt Barnes since 2014, has been 2 times a role player (and closer to be a scrub than solid which is the next level) and 4 times a scrub player. That's it. That's closer to bad than good in my book.

 

That is very very very far from being very good folks.

[iortiz]

Uh, on average, that’d be the best reliever on many teams.

 

which is sad lol

[iortiz]

The top 10% of all relievers. That’s not very good?

 

Nope.

[mvp 78]

Fangraphs' fwar rule-of-thump say that if you post something in between 1 to 2 fWAR points you are considered a role player. If you post something around 0-1 you are a scrub player.

 

Baserd on that, Matt Barnes since 2014, has been 2 times a role player (and closer to be a scrub than solid which is the next level) and 4 times a scrub player. That's it. That's closer to bad than good in my book.

 

That is very very very far from being very good folks.

 

What’s that rule of thump say about relievers? Or is that just everyday players?

[iortiz]

What’s that rule of thump say about relievers? Or is that just everyday players?

 

It could definitely change for reliever players but still.

 

Plenty of RPs have posted above 3.0 fWAR points in a single year which is considered a Good Player. Barnes has never been close to that level. His best year was a 1.3 fWAR.

[iortiz]

He actually had 2 negative fwar years which is very bad.

[mvp 78]

It could definitely change for reliever players but still.

 

Plenty of RPs have posted above 3.0 fWAR points in a single year which is considered a Good Player. Barnes has never been close to that level. His best year was a 1.3 fWAR.

 

Mariano Rivera only had two seasons above 3.0 fWAR. Was he only good?

[moonslav59]

You don't like ERA, fine!

 

As I just said, a 3.5 fWAR RP from 2014 to 2020 is not a very good RP in my book. No way.

 

Hader posted in a single year a 2.6 fWAR. Chapaman? a 3.2 fWAR in a single year. Papelbon a 2.8 fWAR in a single year. Koji a 3.1 fWAR in a single year. That's the definition of very good.

 

Barnes? his best year was a 1.3 fWAR in 2109 —before 2021.

 

OTOH if Barnes continues this way, He will end up with a 3+ fWAR figure this year which is the definition of very good.

 

The list of very good RPs is long. Barnes simply doesn't belongs there —yet.

 

You never said his career was not good. You said he was never good.

 

To you, only 2020 and his career count.

 

You refuse to even answer if he was good from 2017-2019.

 

I never said he was very good over his whole career or just 2020.

 

We may have had a misunderstanding over my comment about 2017-2020, where I meant combined and you took it to mean each year from 2017-202o, but I clarified that early on and yet you never respond to my question or points.

 

Was Barnes good or very good from 2017-2019?

 

Yes or no.

[moonslav59]

If you rank 21th, you are not very good regardless the contest moon.

 

21st out of 210 plus?

 

Okay, we just disagree on what very good means.

 

Each team carries 7+ RP'ers at any given time. 7 x 30 teams= 210, not counting all those shuffled in and out.

 

21 out of 210 is top 10%.

 

I can't understand not thinking that is very good.

 

There are other words for better than very good:

 

excellent

 

Fantastic

 

superb

 

elite

 

Very good means better than good, to me.

 

Good means better than average or better than slightly better than average.

 

Maybe you see these terms differently, but I think most would say top 10% is very good.

 

A 90 on a test is very good.

[moonslav59]

Fangraphs' fwar rule-of-thump say that if you post something in between 1 to 2 fWAR points you are considered a role player. If you post something around 0-1 you are a scrub player.

 

Baserd on that, Matt Barnes since 2014, has been 2 times a role player (and closer to be a scrub than solid which is the next level) and 4 times a scrub player. That's it. That's closer to bad than good in my book.

 

That is very very very far from being very good folks.

 

You keep moving the goal posts. Nobody is saying he was very good from 2014-2016.

 

You said he was never very good. Now you offer his career and 2020 numbers as proof he was never very good.

 

Please answer. Was he good or very good from 2017-2019? I gave you all my numbers and your stat numbers.

 

BTW, fangraphs hardly ever gives RP'er a WAR above 2. I guess that means only a very select few are very good.

 

Do you think there is a difference between very good and elite or excellent? If so, what is it for RP'ers?

 

[moonslav59]

Fangraphs' fwar rule-of-thump say that if you post something in between 1 to 2 fWAR points you are considered a role player. If you post something around 0-1 you are a scrub player.

 

Baserd on that, Matt Barnes since 2014, has been 2 times a role player (and closer to be a scrub than solid which is the next level) and 4 times a scrub player. That's it. That's closer to bad than good in my book.

 

That is very very very far from being very good folks.

 

You wanna know just how silly this point is?

 

Using your numbers (fWAR) and your cherry-picked time frame (2014-2020) do you want to know hom many RP'ers have averaged a 2.0 WAR in those 7 years?

 

ZERO!

 

Using your criteria, you have to be better than anyone else to be called better than a "role player" let alone "very good" or God forbid "elite"

 

Chapman 13.7/7= 1.9

Jansen 12.4/7= 1.7

Betances 11.3/7= 1.6

 

All role players.

 

Good one!

 

You win!

[iortiz]

You never said his career was not good. You said he was never good.

 

To you, only 2020 and his career count.

 

You refuse to even answer if he was good from 2017-2019.

 

I never said he was very good over his whole career or just 2020.

 

We may have had a misunderstanding over my comment about 2017-2020, where I meant combined and you took it to mean each year from 2017-202o, but I clarified that early on and yet you never respond to my question or points.

 

Was Barnes good or very good from 2017-2019?

 

Yes or no.

 

Nope.

[iortiz]

You wanna know just how silly this point is?

 

Using your numbers (fWAR) and your cherry-picked time frame (2014-2020) do you want to know hom many RP'ers have averaged a 2.0 WAR in those 7 years?

 

ZERO!

 

Using your criteria, you have to be better than anyone else to be called better than a "role player" let alone "very good" or God forbid "elite"

 

Chapman 13.7/7= 1.9

Jansen 12.4/7= 1.7

Betances 11.3/7= 1.6

 

All role players.

 

Good one!

 

You win!

Thing is those players you are pointing out had bad years too, but at their prime they had very good years.

[iortiz]

You keep moving the goal posts. Nobody is saying he was very good from 2014-2016.

 

You said he was never very good. Now you offer his career and 2020 numbers as proof he was never very good.

 

Please answer. Was he good or very good from 2017-2019? I gave you all my numbers and your stat numbers.

 

BTW, fangraphs hardly ever gives RP'er a WAR above 2. I guess that means only a very select few are very good.

 

Do you think there is a difference between very good and elite or excellent? If so, what is it for RP'ers?

 

 

He never was very good. His best fWAR year was 1.3. It’s that simple.

[moonslav59]

Nope.

 

Top 6% and 13% and 13% in the 3 categories you chose is not "very good?"

 

What is very good, excellent and elite?

 

top 1% Elite

top 2-3% Excellent

top 4-5 % Very good

top 6-40% good

top 41-49% above average?

 

(BTW, thank you for finally answering.)

 

[iortiz]

Mariano Rivera only had two seasons above 3.0 fWAR. Was he only good?

 

Good fWAR numbers for relievers could be translated to very good since they don’t have a lot of innings.

[iortiz]

Top 6% and 13% and 13% in the 3 categories you chose is not "very good?"

 

What is very good, excellent and elite?

 

top 1% Elite

top 2-3% Excellent

top 4-5 % Very good

top 6-40% good

top 41-49% above average?

 

(BTW, thank you for finally answering.)

 

Managing Percentiles in this case does not make sense.

 

If you suck you suck, it doesn’t matter if most people suck.

[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.

[moonslav59]

He never was very good. His best fWAR year was 1.3. It’s that simple.

 

There were 185 examples of a RP'er having a 1.3 WAR or better from 2014-2020. That's an average of 27 per year in MLB, or less than one per team on average.

 

I guess we still just view the meaning of very good differently.

 

I'm fine with that. Let's move on.

 

I'm happy we signed him to $8M x 2 and would have been had they did it right before 2021. You and others feel differently. That's OK.

[moonslav59]

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.

 

But you kept using Barnes' whole career numbers as the guide.

 

How many RP'ers average a 2-3 WAR per season over their whole career?

[Bellhorn04]

With a reliever's WAR you pretty much have to multiply by 3. So 2 = 6.

[moonslav59]

Managing Percentiles in this case does not make sense.

 

If you suck you suck, it doesn’t matter if most people suck.

 

If you are better than 94% of your peers you can't suck.

 

Also, now you are changing your term from average or above average to "suck."

 

Am I not supposed to take you at your word, here?

[iortiz]

There were 185 examples of a RP'er having a 1.3 WAR or better from 2014-2020. That's an average of 27 per year in MLB, or less than one per team on average.

 

I guess we still just view the meaning of very good differently.

 

I'm fine with that. Let's move on.

 

I'm happy we signed him to $8M x 2 and would have been had they did it right before 2021. You and others feel differently. That's OK.

 

Yeah, no problem. I love what Barnes has showed this far. Hopefully he continues this way.

[mvp 78]

Greatest reliever of all time was just “very good.”

[iortiz]

If you are better than 94% of your peers you can't suck.

 

Also, now you are changing your term from average or above average to "suck."

 

Am I not supposed to take you at your word, here?

 

I just gave u my rule-of-thumb for relievers based on fWAR.

 

Barnes had three years below 1. One at 1 and two years just above 1. That’s it.

[iortiz]

Greatest reliever of all time was just “very good.”

 

Thing with Mo, which is the most impressive thing among relievers is that he was very good for a very long period of time. Very few are close to that achievement. Papelbon is one lol

[moonslav59]

With a reliever's WAR you pretty much have to multiply by 3. So 2 = 6.

 

I'm not one to think RP'ers deserve big money, but even I think WAR undervalues RP'ers.

 

The high WAR RP'ers often are the high IP ones, not the ones that get the big outs more often.

 

I still think OPS Against is one of the best tools to measure how good a pitcher is, just like using OPS to know who the best hitters are.

 

When your OPS against is between .500 and .680 for 4 straight years, then .705 in a COVID year with just 23 IP, you are at least a very good pitcher.

 

I'm not sure I can settle on saying just "good," but as long as someone is consistent with their criteria I'd probably not argue.

 

Barnes has had a remarkably consistent and very good OPS Against.

 

He's pitched in a hitters park was more than half his games.

 

He's pitched against an AL East division known for top offenses.

 

He's pitched on teams that are weak defensively.

 

He's top 6 to 25% in many key categories, not just OPS Against.

 

Even WAR and WHIP, maybe his weakest areas, he's still top 33% from 2017 onwards.

 

Not thinking this is very good is puzzling to me, but to each his own, I guess.

[moonslav59]

I just gave u my rule-of-thumb for relievers based on fWAR.

 

Barnes had three years below 1. One at 1 and two years just above 1. That’s it.

 

My point was just about 2017-2019 or when I included 2020 to justify paying him $8M a year.

 

I never said his overall career numbers are very good.

 

I say 2017-2020- you respond 2014-2020 or just 2020.

 

You don't think he was very good even from 2017-2020. Fine, but you may be alone holding that opinion.

[moonslav59]

Thing with Mo, which is the most impressive thing among relievers is that he was very good for a very long period of time. Very few are close to that achievement. Papelbon is one lol

 

Okay.If you think Mo was just "very good" then I can see not wanting to call Barnes "very good."

 

Mo was the best, but I guess if you are just very good and everyone else sucks, it doesn't make you elite, right?

 

12 seasons over a 2 fWAR, including 7 straight.

17 seasons over 1.2 in an 18 year stretch.

 

Just "very good."

 

Okay.

Edited July 16, 2021 by moonslav59