At the Deadline or Before?

[rog]

I'm saying the MEDIA'S labels for GM are based upon results.


Rog -- There we certainly agree.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before#ixzz5M2bRYfgt

[rog]

These are business guys, not baseball guys.


Rog -- I think Bobby Evans is more of a baseball guy than a businessman.

[rog]

Guys like Evans are being developed to land with clubs that want to spend little and make a lot


Rog -- Bobby seems like he's one of the least sophisticated of GM's, but I'm hoping he can evaluate players as well as they and their staffs can.

The owners make the financial decisions. The GM's try to get as good a club together as they can within their salary limitations.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before#ixzz5M2dv1CYs

[rog]

Bobby Evans has more of a baseball background than most of the GM's. But he's not an Ivy League graduate as many of them are.

[sfgdood]

Evans needs to be shit canned

[klaiggeb]

Not the verbiage I would have, or did use, but I agree with Randy.

Show him the door.


If I'm not mistaken, didn't Sabean show his displeasure with Bobby earlier this year by either taking over, or assuming some of Bobby's roles?

[rog]

Brian Sabean did step back into the picture in a bigger role, which certainly didn't seem an endorsement of Bobby. The toughest thing about evaluating Bobby is that we don't know where he stops and Brian begins.

While I disagreed with the direction, I thought the Giants were quite creative in squeezing out the salary cap room to acquire the players they did. That's about as creative as I've seen, and much better than I thought they could do.

But while Randy and I would have rebuilt, the Giants were almost forced to try to compete, since they need to sell tickets. And buying themselves time to re-evaluate at the trade deadline wasn't a horrible decision under the circumstances. But I fear that now they are caught on the thorns of the lemon, being (in their minds) too good to become sellers and not good enough to be buyers.

Fan Graphs recently put out their top 50 trade value players. The only Giant on the list was Buster Posey, who doesn't seem likely to go anywhere. Madison Bumgarner was on the list a year ago.

Most of the Giants' top players make too much to be top-notch trade candidates, and the young, controllable players they have aren't good enough.

If you were another team, which Giants would you trade the most for? Even Buster seems to have become an injury risk.

[Islandboagie]

I don't even have to think about it, Brandon Crawford is the most valuable Giant. The fact that he didn't make the top 50 list just shows you the ignorance of those (as Boly would say) propeller heads that put together those lists.

[klaiggeb]

Here's the thing that Fan Graphs, and other analytical pieces don't understand about trades.


Let's begin with minor leaguers.

Yeah, I'm sure GM's look at numbers.

But there are other factors that often out weigh those numbers, especially with pitchers.

I'll use Beede as an example:

Terrible BB/K ration, BUT, and it's an important, BUT. GMs would trade for him BECAUSE of his potential that he hasn't quite reached yet.


If Randy Johnson had been evaluated ONLY by those numbers, he never would have been given a shot.


I remember when he couldn't throw a strike.

But people were patient with him, and...well, you know the rest of the story.



So why would anyone WANT a Bum or a Posey, or, for that matter, a McCutchen?


1-Their history.

And down the stretch, THAT is what they'd be trading for; their history, not what they're doing right now.


2-The player's character and influence on the team.

3-IMHO, and I reiterate; I M H O, most GMs arrogantly think they are all smarter than every other GM.

"They" know this guy: 1-Still has it, or 2, was mis-used by his former team or, 3-The guy has 1 good year left in him, and I'm the only one who sees it.


Fan Graphs is doesn't understand any of that, and therefore, should be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt."

[rog]

Here's the thing that Fan Graphs, and other analytical pieces don't understand about trades.


Let's begin with minor leaguers.

Yeah, I'm sure GM's look at numbers.

But there are other factors that often out weigh those numbers, especially with pitchers.

I'll use Beede as an example:

Terrible BB/K ration, BUT, and it's an important, BUT. GMs would trade for him BECAUSE of his potential that he hasn't quite reached yet.


Rog -- Of course. And I'll bet you 9.99% of your so-called "propeller heads" who are any good are highly aware of that. It's as if you are saying that because a person understands math, he can't understand English or history.

I believe most of the so-called "propellerheads" know a lot more about baseball than many here know about analytics.

Incidentally, Kyle Crick is a former Giants who right now is overcoming his control and command issues. Traded to the Pirates for Andrew McCutchen, Crick has cut his walk rate to a for him very good 3.86 per nine innings and has posted a 1.93 ERA and 1.18 WHIP out of the bullpen. I think the switch to the bullpen has really helped Kyle.

Regarding Beede, he has walked 56 in 70 innings this season, a 7.2 walk rate. He has improved to 7 walks over his past 12.1 innings. Tyler is now being used in relief, and his control improved soon after the June 11th change.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MC0NhUHK

[rog]

1-Their history.

And down the stretch, THAT is what they'd be trading for; their history, not what they're doing right now.


Rog -- Of course a GM wants a player's history -- both from scouting and from analytics. But I disagree that a GM would trade ONLY based on a player's history, and in fact that is where the scouts may be more valuable than the analytical types. A scout can evaluate what a player or pitcher is doing differently and how likely he is to improve or maintain it over the rest of the season (and perhaps beyond).

Of course, after I said that, I realized that the analytical guy can also give input regarding a player's PROCESS as opposed to his results, which can help the GM better evaluate how well the pitcher or player really IS pitching or playing. For a pitcher, for instance, the analytical type will show how often a pitcher is throwing a particular pitch, how often he is throwing it for strikes, not only the batting average against that pitch, but how often it's being hit hard and whether it's being missed, fouled, grounded, lined or flied. He can determine the results of the pitcher's pitch sequencing. He can look at the various pitches in the various counts. He can look at how the pitcher performs not only against right-handers or left-handers, but against different types or styles of hitters.

So once again it comes down to what baseball has believed for more than a decade: The combination of scouting and analytics is better than either is alone.

But my main difference with you is that I think that while a GM is indeed interested in a player's history, he's also looking at what the player is doing NOW to see if that is likely to be improved or maintained. The GM wants as much pertinent information as he can get to help him make his decision.

And he needs it on the players he's considering trading as well as those he's trying to acquire.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MC4CWX9n

[rog]

The player's character and influence on the team.


Rog -- Clearly important, and not something an analytical type is likely to help with -- other perhaps than identifying how well a player's TEAMS have performed over his history, just in case there is a correlation. But what is important to the point you're trying to make is that the analytical type isn't BLIND to this influence.

I myself have been considering and studying the chemistry topic since 1975. Like the rest of us, I don't have access to nearly as good information as a GM gets from his scouts.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MC6s3lV5

[rog]

IMHO, and I reiterate; I M H O, most GMs arrogantly think they are all smarter than every other GM.

"They" know this guy: 1-Still has it, or 2, was mis-used by his former team or, 3-The guy has 1 good year left in him, and I'm the only one who sees it.


Rog -- The best trait for a GM is to recognize his strenghts and weaknesses. He should surround himself with good employees to offset his weaknesses. He tries to get as much pertinent information as he can in order to be able to evaluate players and situations as well as he can. If he's looking long term, he's trying to work out mutual solutions, not to bamboozle his trading partners.

He analyzes what his team needs, what other teams need, and tries to match up complementary solutions.

He realizes that while he might have been able to outthink other GM's even recently, just about all the GM's now are pretty smart. He's looking for any type of edge that may help him receive value -- both in terms of the players he has to give up, but also the salary implications. He balances the present with the future. He realizes not every decision he makes will work out well, but he tries to play the probabilities -- which can best be determined if he has good information for his evaluations.

Most GM's probaby DO think they're the best (or at least among them). The best ones also look at where they need to improve.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MC7wW8GU

[rog]

I don't even have to think about it, Brandon Crawford is the most valuable Giant. The fact that he didn't make the top 50 list just shows you the ignorance of those (as Boly would say) propeller heads that put together those lists.


Rog -- You're misunderstanding the concept here, Boagie. Fan Graphs isn't trying to tell us who are the best 50 players. Brandon might well make that list.

They're trying to determine a player's TRADE value. The ideal player is excellent, young, low-paid and controllable.

Brandon meets the first criterion just fine. He's a very good player. But he isn't young, and he isn't low-paid (although he's not overpaid either). He's under contract for three more seasons, so he's controllable. On a 1-10 scale, we might rate him 8 on performance, 4 on age, 5 on low-paid, and 7 on controllable.

There are a handful of shortstops who meet the overall criteria better than Brandon. Francisco Lindor, Carlos Correa, Alex Bregman (who is now playing third base because of Correa) and Trea Turner are ranked in the top 10. Corey Seager and Gleyber Torres (who is now playing second base) are ranked in the second 10. Andrelton Simmons, who is three years younger than Brandon, and 19-year-old Fernando Tatis are ranked in the fourth 10. Jean Segura, who is three years younger, is ranked in the fifth 10.

The Fan Graphs trade value list isn't saying Brandon isn't a top shortstop. They're saying there are other shortstops (and players of other positions) who have more trade value because of their performance or potential, age, salaries and controllability. Every shortstop in the top 50 is at least three years younger than Brandon, and a couple of them are a decade or more younger.

I agree that Brandon is the most valuable Giant this season, and I could make an argument that he has the most trade value. And when a 31-year-old has the most trade value on your team, that is likely a problem. It means the younger players aren't particularly good.

[rog]

Randy Johnson would have appealed to numbers guys because of his extremely high strikeout rate and his 99 mph fastball. The good numbers guys would also get as much input from scouts and other sources as they could.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- You're misunderstanding the concept here, Boagie. Fan Graphs isn't trying to tell us who are the best 50 players. Brandon might well make that list.

They're trying to determine a player's TRADE value. The ideal player is excellent, young, low-paid and controllable.

Brandon meets the first criterion just fine. He's a very good player. But he isn't young, and he isn't low-paid (although he's not overpaid either). He's under contract for three more seasons, so he's controllable. On a 1-10 scale, we might rate him 8 on performance, 4 on age, 5 on low-paid, and 7 on controllable. 

Boagie- I'm not misunderstanding the concept. When I say Brandon is the most valuable, I mean in trade value. Now if Brandon isn't on the list because Fan Graphs figures him not a realistic trade possibility then I can understand that, but then why is Posey on the list? It's not likely the Giants are going to trade either, but as pure value as a player, right now Crawford is more valuable than Posey. AND if we're going with your made up criteria, Crawford takes Posey in every category.

If you want my honest opinion...Fan Graphs is a joke and the people doing these rankings are a joke. The whole thing is stupid, because most teams aren't looking for young, fantastic, low paid and controllable player, because teams don't want to give up that type of player. So what's the point of making the list in the first place?

[rog]

I'm not misunderstanding the concept. When I say Brandon is the most valuable, I mean in trade value.


Rog -- I don't think that is an indefensible point. But you should have at least thought about it before you made your comment, and if you had you might have softened it a bit.

You made it sound like a no-brainer, and it simply isn't. One could argue for Brandon, but he could also argue on behalf of Buster, Madison or possibly Brandon Belt.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MFRI16AA

[rog]

So what's the point of making the list in the first place?


Rog -- Because some people like to think.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MFSBHkHV

[Islandboagie]

Rog- You made it sound like a no-brainer, and it simply isn't. One could argue for Brandon, but he could also argue on behalf of Buster, Madison or possibly Brandon Belt.

Boagie- A three time gold glove shortstop that can hit is a no-brainer. He should definitely be on the list.

[rog]

Rog- You made it sound like a no-brainer, and it simply isn't. One could argue for Brandon, but he could also argue on behalf of Buster, Madison or possibly Brandon Belt.

Boagie- A three time gold glove shortstop that can hit is a no-brainer. He should definitely be on the list.


Rog -- If he were three years younger, he would be. But even among shortstops there are close to 10 with more trade value -- in some cases pretty much ONLY because of greater youth.

I think Brandon will age well, but I think it's likely he's been better his past three and a half years than he'll be over the next three and a half until his contract runs out.

Maybe we could look at it this way: If every single player were a free agent, Brandon wouldn't be among the 50 most desireable. If he were younger, he might be.

Among shortstops alone, he wouldn't be valued higher than Lindor, Correa, Bregman, Turner, Seager or Torres. Even just at his own position, he wouldn't have better than the 7th-highest value, and he quite possibly would be 10th, where he was ranked by Fan Graphs.

Seriously though, Boagie. Which of the six shortstops I mentioned as clearly being more valuable in trade than Brandon would you move down below Brandon? There just isn't anyone. The others are at least as good and are far younger. Much lower paid for the most part.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4684/deadline-before?page=2#ixzz5MHdmGGYl