evilhand

As I've pointed out multiple times in multiple threads, the sample of play from July until the middle of May has zero value in discussing whether Youk can play while healthy or not. He was hurt during that period, of course he didn't play well. Saying he's been bad while ignoring that fact is sloppy. If he doesn't improve his OPS before the ASB, you'll have a sample large enough to at least start making that guess, but stating that it's WMB and it's over, no more discussion required simply not supportable. Elite hitters don't just lose the ability to hit out of nowhere in their early thirties. When is the last time an MVP caliber player went from MVP caliber production to a .600 OPS in the course of less than a season? The hate for Youk on this board is ridiculous. I get that the shiny new toy is shiny and... well, shiny, but Youk has a long track record of being an elite bat. 18 games since returning from injury is not even close to a large enough sample to declare him cooked. The data from July until mid May is worthless because he was playing hurt. Again, if you want to argue he can't stay healthy, that's different. But arguing he's not a good player is preposterous.

They played Nomar right up until they traded him. What's the difference between playing him an showcasing him? What's the difference between playing Youk and showcasing Youk? There isn't any. They play the guys on the roster, and in neither 2004 nor 2012 was/is the playing time solely in the hope that value increases. Framing the question this way is disingenuous. I really need to find the ignore button... Edit: Never mind. Found it.

Revisionist history. They certainly traded him for his attitude, but dumped? Right. They got Minky and Cabrera for him. That isn't a dump under any definition of the word. Your disconnect with reality is quite amusing. You have a bad habit of ignoring what's posted and just repeating your assertions over and over. I just demonstrated why your claim that the team is hampered with bad contracts because of sabermetrics is patently untrue. You respond by saying "See? I was right!" Back this up. Go ahead, I'll wait. Provide us with data that supports the claim that sabermetric analysis is barely more accurate than a ouja board. It's claims like these that make me think you're nothing more than a troll. You blast out unsupportable opinions, and when challenged on them, just shout your opinions louder. You bring zero data or evidence to the table, insist you are right no matter what, then denounce the entirety of sabermetric analysis as being no better metaphysical woo? I was right the first time. I should have just put you on ignore.

The only other thing I can find that is even remotely like this is St. Louis trading Colby Rasmus in July of 2011, but he's never been the elite hitter that Youk has been. Of course, the question was pretty vague so it does fit the criteria. Anyway, my larger point was that an obvious answer happened in Boston in 2004 and turned out very well for the team. Even worse, Nomar was unhappy and wanted out and was showing it, and they *still* got a good return for him. It's actually a pretty good comp. Both players had extended periods of success with the team, were fan favorites who had soured a bit and were starting to suffer injuries more frequently when talks of moving them got serious. Both were injured in the first half of their last year with the team and both were closer to their decline years than their prime. Granted, Nomar was 30 at the time and Youk is 33, but Youk isn't sitting out games or making public displays of his displeasure with the franchise, so those hits to value cancel each other out in this comparison. Elktonnick's question was asked (and answered) as if championship teams never shop established vets with track records of success. That is clearly not true.

Way to move the goalposts. Your claim was that he's brought no value to the roster. Now you're saying we have to measure that against other teams? Maybe you should be more careful in how you phrase things. This statement... ...cannot be supported and is what I was using WAR to debunk. You can try to change the criteria now if you want, but I'm not biting.

Actually, the Lackey and Crawford signings were lamented by the sambermetrics crowds from the onset. They are both antithetical to the sabermetric approach. Lackey had steadily declining peripherals and Crawford has a skillset dependent on only one tool... speed. Both guys are an example of moving away from a sabermetric approach. The only two signings this team has on the payroll that are big enough to be hamstringing them while also are providing no on the field value are Lackey and Crawford. Both of which, as pointed out above, are not the result of sabermetric analysis. They reek of old school mentality. Advanced metrics are used to find value where others aren't seeing it. What about the Lackey and Crawford signings fits that? As for Youk, he was locked up in 2009 and had 2 MVP caliber years immediately following the signing of that deal. He was on pace for another one before getting hurt in 2011 and still brought 3.7 WAR to the table. It's not until the 4th and final year of his contract that he's having trouble contributing, and the reason for that is entirely due to an injury. That's a good signing and is a good example of advanced metrics working. Youk was seen as a high OBP, low power average defense type player. People questioned whether he would be a starter because he didn't have the pop for a corner infield spot. And yet, despite Billy Beane having a hard on for him, the Sox refused to trade him because they saw value in his skillset. Value where many others did not. They got 7 straight season of .800+ OPS hitting leading into 2012, with 3 of them being above .900. Textbook example of advanced metrics providing value. The problem with you and your viewpoint is that you can't see anything but what's happening right now at this very moment. You are short sighted, stat adverse and stubborn about your position to a fault. You are also prone to making assumptions without adequate data to support them. I've never said there is no human element to the game or that advanced metrics are the only thing teams should be relying on. I specifically mentioned that most teams employ boy sambermetrics and scouting... and scouting is still a vital part of the sport. But eschewing advanced metrics as irrelevant is idiotic and out of touch. It's quite funny for you to suggest that I "bone up on game theory" above implying my knowledge base is lacking while you openly denounce a huge part of running a successful franchise and claim to know more than the front office does. The first one that comes to mind is Nomar Garciaparra, who had one more really solid year after being traded and another better than average one before injuries finally forced him to retire. He brought back a package that ended up being pretty valuable to the team, especially in the playoffs that year if I recall...

Sweeney has 1.0 WAR, Ross has 1.2, Shoppach has 0.6, Punto has -0.1, Padilla has 0.4, and Byrd has -1.0 but that's with both Chicago and Boston. I don't have a way to split it accurately, so let's just split the difference and call it -0.5. That's a total of 2.6 WAR added to the roster from signings and trades. If you'd like for me to stop using the term strawman, you should probably stop using terms like "genius!" in responding to me as I'm not calling Cherrington a genius or even a great GM. I'm arguing his decisions have brought value to the big league club. Combining the above totals we get 7.0 WAR added to the roster by his decisions so far. Now, WAR is not equal when combing players versus one player. So 7.0 WAR from 12 players is not equal to 7.0 WAR from one player, but it is a significant positive value. Your position has zero evidence to support it while mine has ample statistical backing. Cherrington has brought more than nothing to the table. In fact, he's brought a significant amount of help and that's before considering what they might get out of players like Bailey in the future. You may not want to acknowledge it, but identifying useful parts on your own roster and putting them into a position to contribute is part of the GM's job, and it's a part that Cherrington has done well so far. The numbers above demonstrate that irrefutably. Note: I used fangraphs WAR.

I'm not missing your point, I just disagree with it. The umpiring is an enormous problem in baseball and it needs to change. I completely understand teams, players and managers who are frustrated by this and wish more of them would speak up. Jim Leyland did this during the series against the Sox. And he was justified. He's one of the most respected managers in the game. Was he "showing off his intellectual powers"? Again, being at a disadvantage is no reason not to fight something that is wrong. Change is slow and difficult, but it doesn't happen if people don't force it to happen.

Just because a broken system is controlled by a corrupt and incompetent group of people, that doesn't mean people affected by that system being sub par shouldn't complain. Umpires need to be held accountable for horrible performance. The only way they will be is if enough negative attention is sent their way. MLB doesn't want a ton of bad publicity regarding their officiating like the NBA has. Besides, a system being broken is no reason for Bobby or the players to simply shut up and take it. When calls are bad, they should absolutely get upset about it. Mentioning it in press conferences is frowned upon by the league, but is a great way to continue to draw attention to it. I wish more teams would do it... and some have. It's a huge issue that needs to be fixed. As for pitchfx systems being used to assist or replace umps in pitch calling... there was a time where people insisted instant replay would never be used in a million years. Progress is slow and sometimes difficult to implement, but it does happen.

He actually has a point. Here are the strike zone plots from tonight. LHH http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/fastmap.php-pitchSel=all&game=gid_2012_06_11_bosmlb_miamlb_1&sp_type=2&s_type=7.gif RHH http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/fastmap.php-pitchSel=all&game=gid_2012_06_11_bosmlb_miamlb_1&sp_type=3&s_type=7.gif The solid box is the actual strike zone. The dotted one is the typical zone called for a hitter on that side. Green are called balls, red are called strikes. Only called pitches show up on the graph. Looking at them I count 9 clear missed calls versus lefties, 6 versus righties and 7 between the two that could have gone the other way and a lot of inconsistency calling the same zone all game. Umpiring, especially pitch calling is atrociously bad in MLB and would benefit greatly from the introduction of technology to assist (or even replace) umpires for that role.

Yes, it is. That's typical of many of the more advanced metrics, though. They're not measuring real world results. They're telling us things like whether a player is performing at sustainable levels, or is a player in the process of a break out versus a simple hot streak? And that's the point. We should be trying to determine if the Sox are really as bad as their record or if we can expect them to perform better going forward. Isn't that what you and others are trying to do regarding Youk? You're just using the old eyeball test rather than these stats. These stats do a better job that people's eyes in almost every instance, though. So I'm wondering why you would discard these tools so vehemently.

seabeachfred, you still haven't told me if you want to do the donation, a sig bet or both for our wager.