A's trade escobar to nats for clippard

[Stradling]

What does being part of a boring team have to do with anything?

[ukyah]

I don't understand how so many of you are critical toward Escobar when the numbers simply don't support your argument. He is valued highly by defensive metrics (regardless of their flaws; it beats being valued poorly), and he is an average offensive player (for his career, he has an OPS+ of 98; 94 the last two years).

He is very underrated, and is in fact very, very comparable to Erick Aybar. And the A's just got rid of him for one year of an expensive relief pitcher.

 

 

94 is not average. 98 is getting close to average. 100 is average, anything less is below average. clippard is a stud reliever and is also a utility knife. he'll give you shutdown setup innings or shutdown closer innings. he's way above average.

[Troll Daddy]

I don't understand how so many of you are critical toward Escobar when the numbers simply don't support your argument. He is valued highly by defensive metrics (regardless of their flaws; it beats being valued poorly), and he is an average offensive player (for his career, he has an OPS+ of 98; 94 the last two years).

He is very underrated, and is in fact very, very comparable to Erick Aybar. And the A's just got rid of him for one year of an expensive relief pitcher.

Maybe the A's are trying to win now.

[wopphil]

94 is not average. 98 is getting close to average. 100 is average, anything less is below average. clippard is a stud reliever and is also a utility knife. he'll give you shutdown setup innings or shutdown closer innings. he's way above average.

The difference between 94 and 98 is minimal. And everyone on here LOVES Aybar and his 98-average offense. Is Escobar's 94 really that much different (especially considering his far superior OPS)?

Plus, again, Escobar is under contract for three more seasons, at only $7 mil per season.

I think the Nats clearly got the better end of the deal, which is of course fine by me.

[Butcher'd]

You guys would rather have a league average SS that's a head case over a rock solid reliever every year of his career?

 

Can't agree there. A's stole Clippard IMO

[Brent Maguire]

What does being part of a boring team have to do with anything?

Did you read what he said? He said he was an underrated player and being part of teams that aren't well known tend to under shadow players. I would say Escobar is partially underrated because of the teams he has played for in his career. 

[Brent Maguire]

You guys would rather have a league average SS that's a head case over a rock solid reliever every year of his career?

 

Can't agree there. A's stole Clippard IMO

Depends on what your team need is. People really underrate average players. Average players aren't that easy to find. If they were, teams wouldn't have gaping holes at positions. 

[Butcher'd]

I'm more interested in having above average players. Like Clippard for example.

 

People underrate average players? I'm pretty sure that's impossible to do unless you have a completely different definition for average than I do. Average is not good...they're just...there

 

Ur trying to use WAR to compare players that play completely different positions and it just doesn't work. That stat has flaws, especially the pitching metric

Edited January 18, 2015 by Butcher'd

[Docwaukee]

with all due respect, those who don't like WAR as a stat don't understand it and how it evolved.  

 

it's not what a lot of people think it is.  some computer nerd didn't just take a bunch of advanced metrics, stew them in a pot and create WAR.  

 

take a look at any team from any given year.  look at their wins and losses and what stats the players put up across the board.  Now, isolate each stat and do a regression analysis to see how each one correlates to the number of wins a team had.  Then, try combining a two stats and see if that gives you a stronger correlation after another analysis.  Then three combos or four or five etc.  Then give certain stats more weight than others when combining them together.  Use as many stats as you can to account for as many variables as you can and at some point you end up with a combination of the information you have available that by regression analysis most closely correlates to a win.  That's WAR.  

 

But the thing is, you can pick the variables so it's absolutely proprietary.  We hear about fWAR and bWAR, but every team has their own variables to account for.  They assign different values to different things.  But in the end, WAR most closely correlates to a win on the field than any other stat out there.  

 

Bear in mind that each MLB team has much more information at their disposal than we are privy to.  So their version of WAR is likely even more accurate than the fWAR and bWAR that we know.  Plus, they build in scores for variables such as clubhouse presence and makeup.   

 

Ultimately it's about control.  You try to account for as much as you can with the data you have available, but you can't control every variable and that is why WAR isn't perfect.  Sometimes is pretty obvious where it's not, but just removing the flawed variable is actually less accurate than including it in a form where the strength of correlation isn't as strong as other variables.  

 

ex.  You have to account for defense in some way.  Is it obvious that there are more outliers than with other things being accounted for? sure.  Maybe it works for 60% of the players.  Maybe a bit more.  Maybe a bit less.  But it's better that not using it at all. 

[eaterfan]

I'm more interested in having above average players. Like Clippard for example.

People underrate average players? I'm pretty sure that's impossible to do unless you have a completely different definition for average than I do. Average is not good...they're just...there

Ur trying to use WAR to compare players that play completely different positions and it just doesn't work. That stat has flaws, especially the pitching metric

Why are you so interested in having above average players? I'm more interested in having the best player. We should trade everyone on the team except Mike Trout.

[Brent Maguire]

I'm more interested in having above average players. Like Clippard for example.

 

People underrate average players? I'm pretty sure that's impossible to do unless you have a completely different definition for average than I do. Average is not good...they're just...there

 

Ur trying to use WAR to compare players that play completely different positions and it just doesn't work. That stat has flaws, especially the pitching metric

Clippard is a role player. Relievers are in the bullpen for a reason. Even the really good ones don't have crazy good value.

 

It's hard to find a good SS. Escobar is a pretty decent one. Their value is pretty much equal. 

 

You're not going to have above average players at every position. Do you even realize the difference between an average player and a replacement level player? The difference of having someone like Grant Green(0-0.5 WAR) start over David Freese(1.5-2.5 WAR) can be worth multiple wins. If you have this same problem at multiple positions, it can really cost you. 

 

As far as WAR hate goes, I haven't seen you bring up any stats to back up your opinion. If you have something substantial to add, feel free to do so. 

[ELEVEN]

with all due respect, those who don't like WAR as a stat don't understand it and how it evolved.

it's not what a lot of people think it is. some computer nerd didn't just take a bunch of advanced metrics, stew them in a pot and create WAR.

take a look at any team from any given year. look at their wins and losses and what stats the players put up across the board. Now, isolate each stat and do a regression analysis to see how each one correlates to the number of wins a team had. Then, try combining a two stats and see if that gives you a stronger correlation after another analysis. Then three combos or four or five etc. Then give certain stats more weight than others when combining them together. Use as many stats as you can to account for as many variables as you can and at some point you end up with a combination of the information you have available that by regression analysis most closely correlates to a win. That's WAR.

But the thing is, you can pick the variables so it's absolutely proprietary. We hear about fWAR and bWAR, but every team has their own variables to account for. They assign different values to different things. But in the end, WAR most closely correlates to a win on the field than any other stat out there.

Bear in mind that each MLB team has much more information at their disposal than we are privy to. So their version of WAR is likely even more accurate than the fWAR and bWAR that we know. Plus, they build in scores for variables such as clubhouse presence and makeup.

Ultimately it's about control. You try to account for as much as you can with the data you have available, but you can't control every variable and that is why WAR isn't perfect. Sometimes is pretty obvious where it's not, but just removing the flawed variable is actually less accurate than including it in a form where the strength of correlation isn't as strong as other variables.

ex. You have to account for defense in some way. Is it obvious that there are more outliers than with other things being accounted for? sure. Maybe it works for 60% of the players. Maybe a bit more. Maybe a bit less. But it's better that not using it at all.

The thing I take from all this analysis is that Drunk Posting is so much easier for me than Drunk Reading Comprehension.

[Butcher'd]

Clippard is a role player. Relievers are in the bullpen for a reason. Even the really good ones don't have crazy good value.

 

It's hard to find a good SS. Escobar is a pretty decent one. Their value is pretty much equal. 

 

You're not going to have above average players at every position. Do you even realize the difference between an average player and a replacement level player? The difference of having someone like Grant Green(0-0.5 WAR) start over David Freese(1.5-2.5 WAR) can be worth multiple wins. If you have this same problem at multiple positions, it can really cost you. 

 

As far as WAR hate goes, I haven't seen you bring up any stats to back up your opinion. If you have something substantial to add, feel free to do so. 

 

You acknowledge that Clippard is an above average reliever. You acknowledge Escobar is an average player

 

You know my opinion on this

[eaterfan]

My opinion is that your opinion is bad for the reasons Angels Baseball laid out and more.

[ELEVEN]

Thats like your opinion, man.