Oz27

Montero is an epic framer (+109.4 runs for his career), I can't imagine the Cubs would give that up cheaply. Anyway, that information I posted is all from Baseball Prospectus. If you go to the website, search the player you want and then go to the 'catching' tab on their player page you should find it there. (although I'm a subscriber so I'm not sure what info is freely available and what isn't).

Firstly, the Angels were essentially an average offensive team (717 runs, which ranked 17th out of 30). Also, Pujols had more plate appearances with runners on base than anyone else in the majors. He had 23 more runners on base for his plate appearances than anyone else did in 2016. Nobody has had more runners on base for their plate appearances since 2013 and his total (525) is the second highest since 2008. So yeah, he was really hurt by that "offensively challenged" team. Good talk.

For a little more information, here are the framing scores for catchers with a connection to us. Perez: -2.5 Bandy: -1.3 Soto: -0.4 Maldonado: 2.1 Graterol: -0.1 And for overall fielding runs above average... Perez: -0.8 Bandy: 0.6 Soto: 0.0 Maldonado: 4.3 Graterol: -0.1 It's worth emphasizing that Perez is not the plus defender people seem to believe he is. His throwing game is above average (+1.4 runs this year, +1.2 in 2015) but he is a below average framer and a roughly average blocker. Over a longer sample he might prove to be an average defensive catcher but the stats don't support the idea that he is particularly good.

Oh this thread was fun. Never has the "old man yells at cloud" thing been more fitting.

Of course it is position based, how could it not be? A 90 OPS+ from a DH would be worthless, but from a shortstop it would be okay. A 110 OPS+ from a DH is 'meh', but you'd be thrilled if your shortstop did that. There were 12 players who had at least 300 plate appearances and played at least 50 per cent of the time at DH last year, The only hitters worse than Pujols in that group were a broken Prince Fielder, Kendrys Morales and something called Avisail Garcia (seriously who the f**k is that?). In other words, most AL teams didn't have trouble finding a DH who could post an OPS+ better than 114. Some people here don't like it because, you know, individual players are totally responsible for their RBI totals, but WAR sums 2016 Pujols up pretty damn accurately. He was better than replacement level, but below the level of the average DH. Also, Trumbo and Cron were essentially the same hitter in 2016 - Trumbo had a 120 OPS+ and Cron 117. Trumbo is a historically bad fielder, which matters. His WAR is hurt a bit by his team asking him to play a position he clearly can't play but the value he provided to his team was pretty limited. He has one skill and is terrible at everything else. Anyway I don't really get why that came up from what I said. I wasn't bitching, I was just making the point that once you've spent $250 million on someone it makes sense to try to be productive in the limited time left in which that person is still a productive major leaguer.

Well, if Skaggs or Richards or Simmons or Cron or Jose Alvarez put together amazing seasons but the team doesn't achieve anything then who gives a shit? Good for them, I guess, but what does that really mean for us? They would improve their trade value, I suppose, and that is nice. But beyond that, what does it matter? What is to say any of that helps to keep Trout? If the team is truly good (over 90 wins) and somehow misses the playoffs, I could see how people could make an exception. The point I was trying to make was the metrics some people are using, like "playing meaningful September baseball", are terrible measures of success. If you're a .500 team you're probably playing meaningful September baseball because at some point in the month you're probably within four or so games of a wild card. Is that a success? Hell no. At the end of the day, we have four chances left to win with Trout and not winning the division this year just means we've blown another one of them. It's pretty hard to view that as a success. Also, this team is clearly being designed to compete now. Every transaction we've made in recent memory has been designed to either improve our 2017 chances of winning or not hurt them. Plus, we have a $250 million player whose days as an above-replacement level player are quickly running out, as well as the game's best player for what is a relatively short period of time remaining. If the aim isn't to win now, what the hell is it?

Interesting stuff. With the new CBA, it will be fascinating to watch how teams manage to spend excess money. There are better reasons than ever to be under the luxury tax threshold with the new penalties in place (plus, you know, yacht fuel), the hard cap on international spending has taken away that avenue and you can't really go big on the draft either. There are things that can and should be done, like better food and transport for minor leaguers to improve performance, but that is pocket change in a multi-billion dollar revenue business. So, what can and should teams actually do with all that money? It's hard to come up with stuff. Put it this way, there has never been a better time to be Arte's yacht.

This. So much. We are going for it now. We are running out of seasons with the best player ever to wear our uniform. Being in contention but not making it, is not a success. It is a very clear failure. The only true success, in our position, is winning the division.

Remember when we didn't give up 100 goals per game? That was fun.

While I'm perplexed by this trade, this thread is indicating people here really overrated Bandy.

The Tigers need to sell hard. It's time for them to cash in on Verlander's resurgence, move Martinez for whatever they can get and listen to offers for anyone else too. If I were the Royals I would sell too. But their recent history of mediocre teams getting freakishly lucky will probably convince them otherwise.

I've never seen anyone say it does. That doesn't mean it should be sanctioned in a workplace.

I'm fine with selling high on Bandy because I never really bought that, but Maldonado kind of sucks. He's pretty good defensively but he's a true backup really. Surely now we're signing or acquiring another catcher.

Sure. People are idiots and idiots do stupid things. That's why we have rules and laws in society. Put it this way, the idea that this is needed for clubhouse chemistry is absurd.

Come on, the "have you ever been in a locker room" argument is extremely bad.

Really interesting piece here by Jeff Sullivan on Garrett Richards. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-angels-have-baseballs-most-important-pitcher/ It would be awesome for baseball if a non-surgical way to fix at least some UCL issues became reliable.

Okay, seriously, how is baseball in any way worse for this change?

I'm not sure I buy that theory to be honest. I've read plenty of research which casts doubt on that being something players have much control over and not much which really supports it. Put it this way, I can't definitively say that it's not a thing but I don't feel there is much to support it. Also, it would be kind of random for Escobar to suddenly get really good at that in his 30s after a period of being a low BABIP guy.

I wouldn't quite go that far. But one guy who could give you that is Cowart. There were three third basemen last year whose defensive WAR was 2 or higher and a fourth (Beltre) at 1.8. It is an extremely small sample, so we can't take it as gospel, but Cowart's play at third last year projected to be worth 20 runs over a full season - or two wins. It was similar in 2015 too (22 runs). Normally I wouldn't bother with such small samples, but that backs up what both the eye test and the scouting reports say about Cowart. He is a really freaking good defensive third baseman and I don't think people value that enough. So, worth two wins on defense and a little bit more with his baserunning, he can be a pretty terrible hitter yet still have value. He would need to hit better than he did last year, obviously, but that was in a small sample of sporadic playing time and he had put up pretty solid AAA numbers. He is a better fallback option than people give him credit for.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd all lined up to get kicked in the nuts by Chuck Norris if it meant getting to the big leagues. But that would be stupid and we would never implement that. Just because people are willing to do something stupid that they wouldn't normally do to reach their goal, does it mean we should make them? Of course not. Outrage over this is absurd.

Yep. It was probably a throw-in as part of the CBA. It eliminates something stupid. Fixing this and improving pace of play are not mutually exclusive.

Good post and I back the sentiment. People have grown to love OBP and I obviously preach the importance of it pretty regularly. But in the case of Escobar, I think people are weighting OBP too much and as a result overrating him as a player. He doesn't hit for power, is a bad baserunner and an awful defender - and that package makes him a below average regular. His BABIP still raises questions for me too. How does a guy who doesn't hit the ball hard, doesn't run fast and hits a ton of ground balls end up with a .340ish BABIP? That was the red flag for me going into 2016 but the fact he has now done it two years in a row now does imply it wasn't luck. However, it's still weird to me and still a pretty big red flag. Back to the point, though. Marte and Escobar provided essentially the same value last year even though Marte got half the playing time. He was at 1.5 fWAR, Escobar was at 1.6. Defensive metrics loved Marte at 3B and by wRC+ Marte is a better hitter than Escobar too. So the only reason to play Escobar over Marte is if you don't believe Marte's offensive breakout is sustainable. I understand that as a concern and the projection systems don't buy him yet, but I do. Of course, one problem would be what the hell to do with Escobar if we decided Marte was the starting 3B. I've come to the view that, if Escobar had any trade value, he would have been dealt in July. We've heard numerous things from reporters that there was really no interest in him. Would another team take on that money, let alone give us something in return, for Escobar? I'm not sure about that.

"Political correctness gone mad or something" Just kidding. One of the stupidest parts of our sport is gone. That is good.

You're acting like last year's issues came out of nowhere though and that isn't true. There were warning signs for awhile and it was more than fair to have real concerns about him going into 2016. 22 innings might not be a great sample size, but when those innings were as awful as they were it would be foolish to dismiss those results as readily as some of you are. Also, I don't see how it's not worrisome that the dude throws 88 and that is trending down. If you take the past seven seasons, he's lost an average of half a mile on the fastball per year. That might not be an issue if he had been throwing 98 at his peak, but he wasn't. It hasn't been a perfectly linear decline over those seven years, but his velocity is a pretty clear issue. I hope you guys are right, obviously, but he is one guy I don't see any real cause for optimism about.

His strikeout rate is down three years in a row, to a level which is hilariously bad. His BB/9 is up from 1.39 in 2010 to 4.84 in 2016. His home run rate doubled last year. His WHIP went from 0.94 in 2014 to 1.16 the year after and 1.93 last year. His average fastball velocity has declined three years in a row now, dropping a pretty concerning 1.2 MPH in that time. I try to avoid arbitrary start/end points too but his second half of 2015 was bad too (1.46 WHIP, 4.39 ERA, .798 OPS allowed). It's not like last year's struggles came out of nowhere. I don't know how much his issues in 2016 were injury-related. But there were worrying trends before that, so I'd be hesitant in believing he is going to return to being his old, dominant self. At best, he might bounce back to being a serviceable reliever but even that seems a little optimistic for me. But yes, you're certainly right about needing relief help. I don't buy Guerra, Ramirez or Bailey going forward and you know my thoughts on Street. That leaves Bedrosian - who I like a lot but is coming off an injury - and nothing else of much use. Alvarez is a decent LOOGY, I guess. If Meyer doesn't make the rotation he might be a pretty good reliever and Banuelos could be decent from the 'pen too. We're going to need way more than that, though, and we really need to find another reliable arm on the market.