moonslav59

who needs Charles Schwab at 1B?

Except when he cried “No mas.”

I have very little issue with the FG charts or their labels. Just don’t say Barnes is an average RPer, because that’s not what the charts say, nor the data. Say he’s an average or below average player- not average or below average RPer. No complaints from me.

So, it’s Duran Duran

Now, it’s .365 OBP and .451 SLG for a total of .816. Oh, the wonders of small sample sizes,

Calling Barnes a role player and occasional solid player by the FG charts is fine with me, but he’s not below average as a RPer.

My only concern in this discussion was determine whether Barnes was average, above or below. I’m fine with 3, 5, 6, 7 or however many categories to split them into. No doubt, he has been above average among RPers of his time. When you get into all time, it gets trickier. Do you go by quantity, quality, both. How short of quantity is allowed for a great stretch. Take Uehara: his numbers for a 3, 4 or 5 year stretch were better than Mo’s, but I wouldn’t place him above Mo, overall. If you asked me who was the best for any 4-5 consecutive years, I might say Komi. No way would Barnes even be in the discussion for top 50 of all time, but he’s in any above average category that brings the sample size down to his size. Out of 354 relief pitchers with 350+ IP since 1991, Barnes places 157 in fWAR, but it might be interesting to see where he places in WAR per 60 IP. He places 84th in FIP.

actually, it's 2(.6 x OBP) + 2(.4 x SLG) That would bring Ottavino from .642 to .652. Doesn't seem like enough. 2(.6 x .347) + 2 (.4 x .295)

Agreed. Maybe.... (.67 x OBP) + (.33 x SLG) or (.6 x OBP) + (.4 x SLG) Did I get the math right there?

I wouldn't want to be accused of cherry-picking the sample size, but this is how I normally do comparative studeies. I'd figure most teams have 7-8 RP'ers at a time. Of course, they use many more over a year, and I could count every single RP'er who pitched to just one batter, but that does not seem fair. I would take 8 RP'ers and multiply by 30 teams. That's 240 RP'ers. I then go to fangraphs and move the IP requirement down or up, until I reach a sample size of 240. To me, this is more than fair, since it does not count the hundreds of pitchers not good enough to reach that threshold. I might go year by year for every Barnes season rather than the full sample size of combined years, because some pitchers just started 2-3 years ago or retired 2-3 years ago and would have skewed numbers due to timeline disparities. So, let's take 2018- Barnes' middle fWAR score from 2017-2019. I had to go to 30IP+ to get a sample size near 240 (250, in this case) If I divide this sample into 6 categories, it would be 40 per category. Kimbrel placed 27th and would be in the top tier of 40. Barnes placed 38th and would be in the top tier out of 6 tiers- VERY far from average (tier 3+4) and extremely far from below average (tier 4). I'll go ahead and do other seasons: 2017 (30+ IP creates a sample size of 235) Kimbrel was #2 and clearly top tier. Barnes was 57thy, which places him in the 2nd highest of 6 categories. (If I went to 8 categories of 30 pitchers, each, he'd still be in the second highest of 8.) 2019: (249 RP'ers with 30+ IP) Workman was 5th (top tier) Barnes was 23rd (clearly top tier of 6, 8 or even 10 categories broken down into equal parts, and remember, I'm not counting all the scrubs with 1-29 IP.) Let's go even farther back, when he was not as good: 2015: (only 214 RP'ers with 30+ IP) Uehara 21st (top tier with 7 tiers of 30 pitchers) Tazawa 37th (second to top tier out of 7.) Barnes was 194th (bottom tier) 2016 (223 sample size) Kimbrel was 31st (top tier with 6 tiers of 35 each) Barnes 107th which places him in the 3rd tier out of 6: 2 higher- 3 lower, but just barely a smidge above average. Now, I'll do what I said can be misleading. I'll go from 2015-2020, where a sample size of 130IP+ is needed to reach 245 pitchers. Barnes places 51st out of 245. That puts him in category 2 out of 6. Category 2 out of 8 and category 3 out of 10. If you want to hold 2015 and 2016 against him, or 2020, fine. The guy has been above average when you compare him to all RP'ers of his time. That's how everybody I know views "average" or better or worse: 3 categories, 5, 6, 8, 10, whatever. He's been better than the vast majority of other RP'ers, but thyat does not mean he's better than most everyday players or SP'ers.

Sounds spot on.

I agree. If it comes down to JD vs Schwarber, I'll choose Schwarber as my DH.

I think some NL teams already have a player on their roster suited for DH, or want to rotate the position, but yes, several teams will look to spend on a new DH.

It might be more. He might just take the option, and we might also sign him to an extension or redo his deal.

To me, OPS and OPS Against tell a big enough story, by themselves to determine if a player is doing well, average or badly. Sure, there are other factors, like defense, speed, timely hitting and intangibles not captured by these stats, but they both tell most of what I need to know. That being said, I'm not sure I'd agree Ottavino has been our 3rd best pitcher: OPS Against Leaders (150+ PAs against) .616 Whitlock .625 Barnes .642 Ottavino .673 Houck .679 Taylor .693 Eovaldi .697 DHern .709 Valdez .730 Pivetta .763 Sawamura'.770 ERod .847 Richards .848 Perez .942 Andriese Notables with under 150 PAs against .450 Bazardo (12) .615 Rios (98) .630 Davis (46) 1.013 Robles (54) Our Offense (150+ PAs) .897 Devers .881 Bogey .868 JD .817 Renfroe .813 Kike .791 Verdugo .787 Arroyo .712 Dalbec .650 Vaz .567 Marwin 80-149 PAs .728 Plawecki (134) .608 Duran (89) .554 Santana (113) .497 Cordero (136) Other notables under 80 1.242 T Shaw (12) 1.100 Schwarber (37) .930 MLB in 2021 (340 PAs) .896 Wong (14) .523 Arauz (32)

Agreeing with you, here, makes me think I have to reassess my whole thinking process. It would be nice to be able to make Seabold our 5th starter and use Houck as our new closer.

I didn't count 2020 for obvious reasons. Call it cherry-picking 2017-2019, but I also gave the numbers for 2015-2019. I', not locked into 3 categories. You can have 5 or 7. but either way, going by fWAR, Barnes will never fall into any average or below average category, if you make each category equal in numbers of pitchers, which is what comparing RP'ers is all about. I never argued he was anything better than a "role player." You tried to carry that over by assigning him the tag "average or below average" RP'er not player. I clearly explained what you were doing, but you kept claiming he was an average or lower RP'er. That is NOT what the charts show, but you'll never admit that. I'm not sure why you won't.

It's not a clear "safer choice." If he can get a 3-4 year deal this winter, that could be safer than not opting out and seeing himself get hurt or have a full season like 2020. Then, he may end up making less- overall. I don't think that is likely, but it is possible. One can view having a $60M/4 deal signed this winter is better than $19.4M/1. He may also get the Sox to restructure his deal, which would bring down his AVV. but he still ends up getting $60M/4 by the end of 4 years, with more front end loaded, which helps him, while the lower AVV helps us.

So, they should have an advanced high leverage stat?

No doubt. I could probably find someone else who got that and you'd think otherwise. At the time, I remember people thinking Kluber was the better guy at that price. Oooops!

Better than Robles, but I thought Taylor by default and the process of elimination method.

Beating up on bad teams doesn't always mean you sweep 'em all, but we better win, today!

And that's why that game hurt us more than we knew, at the time.

True, but they should look at what happened with the $10M deal (Richards) and the $6M deal (Perez), this year. That's what you get for the money on one year deals. Sure, you can get lucky, but it's not common.

That's how I think they'll view it, and depending on how he finishes the season, and with the thought that it's "only" a 1 year deal, I think they offer it. They may secretly wish he says no, because they'd rather have the sandwich pick, but they'd still rather have ERod for 1 year than not.