How overrated is Bryce Harper?

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Finding 3-4 guys who will sign for $10 million and give you 2-3 WAR consistently is way easier said than done. See the Angels over the last 5 years as an example.

Who have we been signing at 10 mil per over that span?     

[Docwaukee]

23 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yeah, this.  
It reminds me of the old "We dont need a 20 game winner ill go find 2 guys to win 10 each" nonsense. 

and that was nonsense because of the stat referenced and the logic behind it.  

It's not even close to what I am talking about and way off as an analogy.  

It's like comparing WAR, OPS+ or wRC+ to rbi in terms of determining a players value.  

 

[eaterfan]

27 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Who have we been signing at 10 mil per over that span?     

Sign or trades... I guess I should have said acquired. But in that range we've acquired Maybin, Kinsler, Cozart ($13 million, but I consider that the $10 million dollar range). 

I didn't really research this so I'm probably missing a pitcher or two. 

[floplag]

21 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and that was nonsense because of the stat referenced and the logic behind it.  

It's not even close to what I am talking about and way off as an analogy.  

It's like comparing WAR, OPS+ or wRC+ to rbi in terms of determining a players value.  

 

Doc, honestly, you are the master of theory, but i fee like you get so wrapped up in theory that you ignore the reality sometimes. 

In your post you say things like "better off with 9  two WAR players on that same budget." and "aren't you better off going with the 2 WAR player in RF and spending that $35 mil to upgrade the 2 one war player to 2.5 WAR each for less than $35 mil?" or "When we get to a point where $25 mil can't give the team a 2 WAR upgrade somewhere else, I will be all for signing Harper" which are all absolutely correct ideals, BUT, it completely ignores the fact that those players are not out there to be signed. 

@eaterfan is right, where you want to fill in those gaps for what you expect to get and want to pay dont exist.

[Dtwncbad]

How about the additional, immeasurable "value" of going into postseason series with an additional player that could dominate a series and advance you?

I think it is a little silly to think that, for example, Mike Trout should be expected to dominate three postseason series and carry the team on his back.  I more expect that a smart team can pitch around him or that he might not have a great series every postseason series.

The more potentially dominating individual players you take into a postseason series, the better chance you have of one of them being an unstoppable beast in that series.

I fully get the micromanagement of trying to use money wisely to orchestrate a 95 win season.  No argument.

But I also want to win in the postseason and I personally believe having multiple players that you can envision being the MVP of a postseason series has its own immeasurable value that can't really be calculated in WAR per $$ orchestration.

Yes, I know any player in the postseason can get hot and carry a team.  I get that.  But that can still happen with Harper and Trout in the lineup and that isn't bad news!  That's good news.

My point is it is not reckless to value the simple common sense that having Machado instead of Ward through three postseason series can absolutely be the difference between a first round exit and raising a trophy.

You can win championships without Harper or Machado.  Yes possible.  But I dont want to ignore the value of having more rather than fewer obviously potentially dominating players that can step up and make it happen.

Ther is no question at all in my mind the Angels with Machado instead of Ward or Harper instead of Calhoun is a different level of dangerous in the poatseason.

Is it worth the money?  Maybe.

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, floplag said:

Doc, honestly, you are the master of theory, but i fee like you get so wrapped up in theory that you ignore the reality sometimes. 

In your post you say things like "better off with 9  two WAR players on that same budget." and "aren't you better off going with the 2 WAR player in RF and spending that $35 mil to upgrade the 2 one war player to 2.5 WAR each for less than $35 mil?" or "When we get to a point where $25 mil can't give the team a 2 WAR upgrade somewhere else, I will be all for signing Harper" which are all absolutely correct ideals, BUT, it completely ignores the fact that those players are not out there to be signed. 

@eaterfan is right, where you want to fill in those gaps for what you expect to get and want to pay dont exist.

Well you can sign Harper for $300 million or whatever the final cost is, but it will be at minimum $30 million a year for a long term deal or $35 million on a shorter term deal.  From that you could get the 10 WAR version of Harper this next year or the 1-2 WAR version of him next year.  Or you could sign Moustakas to a one or two year deal at about $10 million a season and limit your risk, but be pretty sure he will give you a 2 WAR season.  Then you could take the other $25 million and improve the team in other areas, or save that money for the next year and go after someone more predictable.  

[floplag]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Well you can sign Harper for $300 million or whatever the final cost is, but it will be at minimum $30 million a year for a long term deal or $35 million on a shorter term deal.  From that you could get the 10 WAR version of Harper this next year or the 1-2 WAR version of him next year.  Or you could sign Moustakas to a one or two year deal at about $10 million a season and limit your risk, but be pretty sure he will give you a 2 WAR season.  Then you could take the other $25 million and improve the team in other areas, or save that money for the next year and go after someone more predictable.  

Yeah, this is where remind you that this is exactly what i was asking for.

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

Yeah, this is where remind you that this is exactly what i was asking for.

And we did exactly that, but with pitchers.

[Docwaukee]

34 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

How about the additional, immeasurable "value" of going into postseason series with an additional player that could dominate a series and advance you?

I think it is a little silly to think that, for example, Mike Trout should be expected to dominate three postseason series and carry the team on his back.  I more expect that a smart team can pitch around him or that he might not have a great series every postseason series.

The more potentially dominating individual players you take into a postseason series, the better chance you have of one of them being an unstoppable beast in that series.

I fully get the micromanagement of trying to use money wisely to orchestrate a 95 win season.  No argument.

But I also want to win in the postseason and I personally believe having multiple players that you can envision being the MVP of a postseason series has its own immeasurable value that can't really be calculated in WAR per $$ orchestration.

Yes, I know any player in the postseason can get hot and carry a team.  I get that.  But that can still happen with Harper and Trout in the lineup and that isn't bad news!  That's good news.

My point is it is not reckless to value the simple common sense that having Machado instead of Ward through three postseason series can absolutely be the difference between a first round exit and raising a trophy.

You can win championships without Harper or Machado.  Yes possible.  But I dont want to ignore the value of having more rather than fewer obviously potentially dominating players that can step up and make it happen.

Ther is no question at all in my mind the Angels with Machado instead of Ward or Harper instead of Calhoun is a different level of dangerous in the poatseason.

Is it worth the money?  Maybe.

If they can pitch around one guy, they can pitch around 2.  Especially if you've got borderline replacement players and 4 or 5 other spots.  

I'd rather have JD Martinez and Mike Moustakas right now than commit 8-10 years for Harper at a similar AAV.  

Any player can dominate a post season series.  Paying them a shit ton of money doesn't guarantee that.  See Steve Pearce.  

[floplag]

31 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And we did exactly that, but with pitchers.

Which is not what i was asking for
substituting broccoli for bananas on the shopping list isnt the same thing

[Dtwncbad]

47 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

If they can pitch around one guy, they can pitch around 2.  Especially if you've got borderline replacement players and 4 or 5 other spots.  

I'd rather have JD Martinez and Mike Moustakas right now than commit 8-10 years for Harper at a similar AAV.  

Any player can dominate a post season series.  Paying them a shit ton of money doesn't guarantee that.  See Steve Pearce.  

Um, the Angels were too cheap to sign JD Martinez and Mike Moustakas.

I said the same things about JD Martinez last year and the one throbbing excuse was he was too old.

The guy is still a stud.

And Harper and Machado are still way younger.

If anyone can dominate a postseason series, then let's trade Trout for an $8m player?

I think it is a bit insincere to pretend you are not way more set up to win if you have more truly premium players.

[Erstad Grit]

I think he's dramatically overrated and Machado is hugely underrated. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

4 hours ago, yk9001 said:

Nationals tv ratings and attendance seem pretty mediocre

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/04/2018-mlb-regional-tv-ratings-in-primetime-shows-continued-strong-popularity/#4b81bf9b6257

http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2018

 

 

 

This.

Baseball hasnt been doing as well in terms of TV for years, and the owners know it. The media deal treasure chest is on its way to closing. 

Even trout isnt going to be a huge revenue stream.

A winning team will put butts in the seats for sure. But one or two big name guys wont. Not in baseball.

[Stradling]

19 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Um, the Angels were too cheap to sign JD Martinez and Mike Moustakas.

I said the same things about JD Martinez last year and the one throbbing excuse was he was too old.

The guy is still a stud.

And Harper and Machado are still way younger.

If anyone can dominate a postseason series, then let's trade Trout for an $8m player?

I think it is a bit insincere to pretend you are not way more set up to win if you have more truly premium players.

No the reason was they signed Upton instead.  

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Um, the Angels were too cheap to sign JD Martinez and Mike Moustakas.

I said the same things about JD Martinez last year and the one throbbing excuse was he was too old.

The guy is still a stud.

And Harper and Machado are still way younger.

If anyone can dominate a postseason series, then let's trade Trout for an $8m player?

I think it is a bit insincere to pretend you are not way more set up to win if you have more truly premium players.

come on.  is that the argument you think I'm making?  

when have I argued that premium players don't give you a better chance to win?  but as is the case right now, we have THE premium player and we're not winning.  Why?  because the other players are very good.  So you double down on that with Bryce Harper by paying him 30+ mil when you don't have the resources to improve those other spots?  

Again, maybe you disagree, but we don't have enough at other spots to justify harper and getting him actually limits our ability to improve those other spots.  

my point on JDM wasn't specific to the Angels.  In general, the combo of those two players for 30m a year is going to produce more than Harper and some scrub.  

I keep going back to the fact that we have a finite payroll.  Do you pay Harper for 2-3 years while waiting for the farm to develop because you now can't afford any other upgrades?  

Arte isn't going to spend $200 mil on payroll.  30 mil per has a major impact on a 165 mil budget when you've already got other high paid guys.  

 

[Angel Oracle]

There is no waaaay that an up and down from year to year OPS is worth 10 years/$300 million.

And then there's the running into walls issue, another Pete Reiser potentially, ultimately? 

Wait for Gerrit Cole the next off-season. 

[eligrba]

I don't know if Harper is overrated but is is definitely overpriced.  A player making the amount of money he is asking for should be a franchise player who would be a role model and not a distraction.

He has already demonstrated his ability to throw a fit when things don't work out.  Hard pass for that much money.

[Angelsjunky]

3 hours ago, Stradling said:

Well last year Harper gave the Nats 1.3 WAR.  So he is far from a guarantee.  

 

3 hours ago, m0nkey said:

He had a -3.2 dWAR.  I know numbers and formulas are smarter than me, but I find it hard to believe he was that bad defensively. 

Baseball Reference WAR is trash, in my opinion. Maybe not "trash," but certainly highly questionable. Case in point: Harper at 3.5 via Fangraphs, 1.3 via BR. Or does anyone actually think Aaron Nola was worth 10.5 WAR last year? That's his BR number; Fangraphs has him at 5.6. I'm not a huge fan of WAR for pitchers, but I think Fangraphs is closer to his true value than BR.

[Stradling]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

 

Baseball Reference WAR is trash, in my opinion. Maybe not "trash," but certainly highly questionable. Case in point: Harper at 3.5 via Fangraphs, 1.3 via BR. Or does anyone actually think Aaron Nola was worth 10.5 WAR last year? That's his BR number; Fangraphs has him at 5.6. I'm not a huge fan of WAR for pitchers, but I think Fangraphs is closer to his true value than BR.

Like I said I use the exact same stat bWAR every single time so I am judging one to another using the same model.  I use bWAR because I like the site better.  I am capable of adjusting that, I just haven’t.  If I am being honest I think what got me to feel this way in addition to liking the baseball reference site better is the way they value Simmons, so it could be confirmation bias on my part and I don’t have a problem admitting that.  

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Like I said I use the exact same stat bWAR every single time so I am judging one to another using the same model.  I use bWAR because I like the site better.  I am capable of adjusting that, I just haven’t.  If I am being honest I think what got me to feel this way in addition to liking the baseball reference site better is the way they value Simmons, so it could be confirmation bias on my part and I don’t have a problem admitting that.  

I can respect that, but even with SImmons I think Fangraphs is more accurate. They have Simmons at 5.1 and 5.5 over the last two years; that seems more accurate than BR's 7.1 and 6.2, which just seem a bit inflated.

I use both sites equally, but in different ways. I prefer BR for the more traditional stats and prefer their set-up. 

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

come on.  is that the argument you think I'm making?  

when have I argued that premium players don't give you a better chance to win?  but as is the case right now, we have THE premium player and we're not winning.  Why?  because the other players are very good.  So you double down on that with Bryce Harper by paying him 30+ mil when you don't have the resources to improve those other spots?  

Again, maybe you disagree, but we don't have enough at other spots to justify harper and getting him actually limits our ability to improve those other spots.  

my point on JDM wasn't specific to the Angels.  In general, the combo of those two players for 30m a year is going to produce more than Harper and some scrub.  

I keep going back to the fact that we have a finite payroll.  Do you pay Harper for 2-3 years while waiting for the farm to develop because you now can't afford any other upgrades?  

Arte isn't going to spend $200 mil on payroll.  30 mil per has a major impact on a 165 mil budget when you've already got other high paid guys.  

 

Question:  Don't you think the incoming wave of inexpensive players from the minors makes it MORE feasible to sign another premium player?

 

[Angel Oracle]

8 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Question:  Don't you think the incoming wave of inexpensive players from the minors makes it MORE feasible to sign another premium player?

 

It does, if they are ready to truly contend for a Western Division title, which they are probably a year away from doing.    Wait until next off-season, maybe signing Cole makes the Astros worse enough and the Halos better enough to catch them in 2020?

[zenmaster]

WAR sucks

[Docwaukee]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Question:  Don't you think the incoming wave of inexpensive players from the minors makes it MORE feasible to sign another premium player?

 

of course.  but we're not there yet.  

and just a reminder.  Harper is going to get premium price but is he truly a premier player?  

also, one of those inexpensive players is going to play RF.  

also, we're not very good at four other positions and two rotation spots

also, we're at our max budget per the owner

we can grab Harper in 2 years after he opts out 

[GrittyVeterans]

18 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Question:  Don't you think the incoming wave of inexpensive players from the minors makes it MORE feasible to sign another premium player?

 

It should