moonslav59

The extension wasn't for huge money. While Grissom's value is highly speculative, in nature, Sale has gotten to the point where his value is highly speculative, too, and it's 1 year vs 5.

To me, better pitchers pitch more innings than most others, get batters to make more outs than most others and when batters do get on base, it is mostly singles or BBs rather than 2Bs, 3Bs and HRs. With batters, most of us realize all hits are not equal, so we value SLG% more than BA. SLG % also values HRs and XBHs. HRs are a traditional stat used by many to add value to batters with nearly the same BA. We also realize walks are better than making an out, so they should have some value, too. Maybe OBP gives BB's too much value, as they are not as good as a single, if the single advances a runner an extra base or leads to a run, but many of us value OBP more than BA. For this reason, I really value OPS, and therefore OPS Against for pitchers. To me, it is better than WHIP, since it counts 2Bs, 3Bs and HRs as worse than singles. I like ERA, but ERA- and ERA+ provide context that is hard for most of us to do in our heads with any precision. OPSA & ERA- are two stats I value more than wins or ERA. I'm fine with those who disagree. I'd like someone to explain why team record in starts is not more important than W-L records. It's all about the team winning, so why let dumb rules warp the final results of each game a starter starts?

It also doesn't explain why pre-arb and arb pitchers get paid less, even if they are better than FA pitchers.

Not at all. Would it change your view on two SP'ers, if the two players had identical ERA's, defense behind them and both teams went 23-10 in their starts, but one guy went 11-10, while the other went 20-10? Both pitched 94 mph+. Both pitched the same IP and went into the 6th inning the same amount of times. If you think one is better, can you explain why?

He should have said, "starting in 2025 and continuing...," but even that might not be true.

I think years of team control is very important and valuable. We have seen what happens when team control runs out of our best players- they go and we don't replace them, too often. On Grissom. I see him as being a much better prospect than Yorke or DHam- the only two guys we have that are MLB ready for the all important 2024 season. I also see him as a 2Bman who can hit 15-20 HRs in 2024, and maybe more as he matures. The guy averages 65 XBHs per 162 games in the minors w 30 SBs. He was an okay defender at SS, which should mean he ends up plus on D at 2B, after an adjustment period. I'm a hug Sale fan. I hated to see him traded. I think he might have a great season, but I've felt like that for many years without seeing much success. I like the extension the Braves gave him, and if we had extended him, I might feel different about the trade, but I doubt we would have done that. I'm not happy Sale is gone. I am very happy with Grissom's promise, and if can be okay, this year, good next year and very good for 3 more, I think it's a good trade. I also think the outlook for our 2024 season plays a role in my choice. If we sign Monty, I will like the Sale-Grissom trade less, because I would not view 2024 as a punt season, anymore.

Sale for 2024, but I'll take 5 years of a very good Grissom over 1 year of an excellent Sale is a punt season.

Indeed, and it took a long time for fans to accept ERA as a very important indicator of talent and production. Guys like Felix Hernandez are grateful to the awakening by many.

Take the other typical traditionalist stat, BA. Of course it has significant meaning and offers support for determining a player's value. It has a few flaws like who is scoring errors vs hits, how do differing park dimensions hurt or help one batter over another and then deeper things like how good or bad were the pitchers and fielders each batter faced over a season or career. Sure, BA leaves our walks, so many prefer OBP, but that does not change the meaning of BA. The thing is, these are relatively minor, when compared to what rules dictate who gets a win or loss. Some example point to absurd awarding of wins and losses. A scorer who rules a clear hit an error does not affect a player's BA all that much, oer a season or career, and almost all batters have the same thing happen to them at maybe the same rate. Now that pitchers are yanked earlier and earlier, it's harder for SP'er to get the win, due to an arbitrary rule set decades ago. Also, a pitcher can leave the game with a shut out or with a2-1 lead in the 6th, 7th or laters, and the next guy allows the tying run, and that guy gets the win, if the team's offense brings the team back to the lead by the end of the game. It is a highly flawed system of determining who gets the win. All this happens, even before you get to other factors like run support, defensive support and the same old park factors/strength of opponent issues are introduced to the equation. It's an absurd example, but some pitcher could pitch 33 CG 1 run starts and be 0-33. No batter can hit 33 out of a 100 and have a BA of .200 or .400.

...and saves and blown saves.

If a pitcher lets up 2 ER in 5 IP, every start of the year, his ERA would be 3.60. The QS stat is 3 ER in 6 IP or a 4.50 ERA. Which looks better to you?

We have a lot of players who have some very good upside potential. Many have already proven they can be very good, in recent years or for long parts of recent years. Some are based on speculation, minor league numbers of scouts' projections. Of course, many of these same players are capable of doing blah or poorly, and have recent sample sizes of neutral to highly negative stretches. In my case, whenever spring comes around, I tend to get more optimistic and see the bright side as perhaps being more probable than it really is. Maybe, part of what makes baseball the best sport of all is that it starts in spring. I've showed how Bello, Gio, Crawford, Pivetta and Houck have all had good to great full seasons or 20+ GS stretches, in the last 2-3 years. That should offer some hope that some sort of confluence of good things happening can occur. Our pen has enough talent and promise to be both good and somewhat deep. Our defense is a bit more speculative, but I have to think Grissom at 2B should be better than the worst in MLB in 2023. A healthy Story is 100 times better than Kike & Co. Yoshida at DH, most games, should improve LF defense, and the more Rafaela plays CF over Duran, the better chance our CF D improves. The rest seems about even. Our offense is a little speculative, too, especially Grissom, Rafaela, Abreu and second full seasons from Casas & Wong. Story is question mark, as are O'Neill & Yoshida. I'm still waiting for Devers to put together a career year as he enters his prime. I like our offense, this year, as much or more than last year, despite the loss of Turner and Duvall. (Dugo has a 100 OPS+, so I think his loss on O has been overblown.)

Agreed, and same with Sale and or Gio.

Every stat or metric is flawed, and I think we all know this. We feel the win stat is more flawed than others, for various reasons. It's fine to disagree. I feel the arbitrary rules set up on how to determine who gets the win is a major ding against using wins as a major factor in determining which SP'ers are better than others. (I hope nobody looks at W's and L's for RP'er evaluations.) The rules are a joke, IMO. There are other factors that make this stat not as important as others, but clearly team wins matters the most. It's just that it's a team stat. So many combined reasons can go into every win and loss. At least with something like BA, there are minimal contexts needed, such as scorer determinations on errors v hits and park factors + variations in strength of pitchers faced, which is very hard to factor.

They equate disagreeing with "not accepting others opinions." We totally understand the points being made. We accept their opinions as being opinions. We offer our opinions, which disagree, and somehow, we are being unreasonable. We know that nobody thinks wins is the be all-end all. We disagree that is should be the first thing looked at, just as others disagree fWAR, ERA_ or OPSA should be the first thing. I'm fine with anyone who disagrees with my first looks at numbers. I'm just offering my opinions and defendining them with as much evidence as I can provide. Somehow, this bothers people to no end.

Do not be surprised if Grissom has a very good year.

I can only think that they feel we were saying they were wrong with their numbers and not the idea that looking at a pitcher's win total as the first or most important thing to look at is flawed, in our opinions. This happens, often, here.

Offering context is not saying the facts presented were false. This is something that seems to happen, often. Posters assume you are saying their facts are wrong, if you disagree or add context.

A 3.89 ERA is allowing 2.1 ER in 5 IP. A very good start.

Or hit!!!!

LOL. Time will tell.

151 SP'ers have 200+ IP in the last 3 years, combined. (That's 5 per team x 30 teams.) Here is where Monty places in some key stats/metrics: 6th GS at 94 (about 31 per season and elite level.) 16th IP at 524 (mid level #1 horse.) 16th fWAR 10.2 (mid level #1) 40th ERA 3.48 (higher range of a #2) 41st ERA- at 84 (just 1 from Cease & Castillo & tied w Nate) 46th xFIP 3.79 (Mid range #2) 47th K/BB at 3.60 (mid #2) 49th WHIP 1.18 (mid #2) 51st in wins with 25 (5 wins in 3 yrs from top 30) He's about top 15 in GS/IP, and when he pitches, he ranks about top 25% to 35% in every meaningful stat- even WINS!

3.89 is above average. SP ERA in MLB: 4.45 in '23 4.05 in '22 4.34 in '21 4.46 in '20 4.54 in '19 Out of the top 150 SP'ers by IP in 2023, a 3.89 ERA places 62nd (just 0.02 from top 60, or top 40%.) That's also above average. 25% Pedro 50% (3.77 Scherzer, 3.80 Beiber, 3.86 Peralta & Strider, 3.92 JP France, 65 Stroman) 25% Kluber

He's good enough to get us closer, if not real close to a WC slot. He should still be good in the 2-3 or even 4 years after 2024, when in theory, we are looking to compete. You prefer we just punt?

Both ways? How am I flipping? Hey, I call Monty a #1. He's a 20th to 30th best SP'er in MLB. There are 30 teams. He's at worst a #2. Saying he's a #3 says 60-89 pitchers are better? He's only 30. Why is the 4th year so bad? You always have to give at least 1 more year for good pitchers. Some could argue he deserves 4 and should get 5 (at less AAV than 4, of course.)