I am obsessed with transactions that never happened. That's probably a poor choice of words because the dictionary definition of "obsessed" is pretty strong. Transactions that never happened do not dominate my thoughts. I don't have clipped out articles of transactions that never happened taped to my wall. I don't put on a hat and sunglasses and go to the mall so that I can observe transactions that never happened while they talk to their transactiony friends. But I do really like them. I eat them up, every time. They're so interesting!
And today we might have one that's relevant to the Mariners. It seems like it's all that people want to talk about this morning. The Blue Jays held a function Monday night. GM Alex Anthopoulos said that he recently turned down a trade that would have taken a player from the team's Major League roster. Jeff Blair did some digging and came up with the names Brett Lawrie and Michael Pineda.
Now, it's important to understand that this is just a rumor. We can't confirm that the Mariners were offering Pineda and looking to get Lawrie. Headlines reading "Blue Jays turned down Michael Pineda for Brett Lawrie" are presumptuous and unwarranted. There could be more to this than we know, and that needs to be indicated.
But it sure does make sense. The Mariners, obviously, traded Michael Pineda. That wasn't a hang-up of theirs. Jack Zduriencik suggested afterward that there were four young hitters for whom he would've considered dealing Pineda. Jesus Montero was one. The other three haven't been formally identified, but if Montero was one, then Lawrie was probably another one.
Further, the Blue Jays were reported to have engaged the Mariners in talks about Felix Hernandez, and while those didn't go anywhere, it'd be pretty easy to go from talking about Felix to talking about Pineda. That's how it happened with the Yankees. Lawrie's a third baseman so he couldn't be a better fit for the Mariners at this time. Geoff Baker alleges that Tom McNamara practically has a crush on Lawrie after having followed him close.
We don't know for sure that the Mariners and Blue Jays talked Pineda and Lawrie. The Mariners and Blue Jays will never publicly confirm that they talked Pineda and Lawrie. But it makes sense that they would've talked Pineda and Lawrie. Great young pitcher for a great young hitter. The Mariners had a desire. The Blue Jays had a desire. There were the elements of a fit, but ultimately there wasn't a fit.
Let's just say that this rumor has validity. For the sake of the rest of this post, let's assume that it's true. Where can we go from here? Well, for one thing, keep in mind that Pineda might not have been traded for Lawrie straight up, just as he wasn't traded for Montero straight up. The Montero trade involved two other pieces of value. Any Lawrie trade might have involved other pieces of value. Perhaps the proposal was Pineda for Lawrie straight up, but the proposal was rejected.
It's really easy to see this turning into a debate about how the merits of Jesus Montero stack up against the merits of Brett Lawrie, just like how people used to debate about how the merits of Jesus Montero stacked up against the merits of Justin Smoak. That wouldn't be fair. We don't know what it would've cost to get Lawrie. The Mariners didn't turn down Lawrie and go for Montero; the Mariners had Lawrie turned down for them, and then they went for Montero. Lawrie might have been their first choice. If it's any consolation, based on the previous example I guess this means Brett Lawrie will be a Mariner within the next two years.
For what it's worth, I think getting Lawrie instead of Montero would've made the Pineda trade easier to digest initially. People in Washington love Brett Lawrie. There's the Canadian thing, and the Danielle Lawrie thing, and the not-Chone-Figgins thing, and so on. Montero's not an unknown, but I think in the area he's more of an unknown than Lawrie. Lawrie would've been welcomed.
These are a lot of words about a trade rumor. A trade rumor where we don't know for absolute certain whether it's true, and where, if it is true, we don't know how close it came to happening. For all we know the Blue Jays were like "nope" and that was that. But it's an interesting rumor, and I know I'd really like to know the names of those four young hitters. We know one. We might - we probably - know a second. We can try to guess the others. With Montero and probably Lawrie, we have a better idea of what Zduriencik was looking for.
The Mariners have Jesus Montero. Be happy about that. Maybe the Mariners could've had Brett Lawrie. It looks like the Mariners tried for Brett Lawrie. But the Mariners didn't say no. The Blue Jays said no. So it'd be super great if we didn't have Montero vs. Lawrie subthreads for the next 18 months.
1 recs | 192 comments
Would you give up Paxton, Hultzen or Walker for Lawrie?
Not intended as rosterbation, apologies if it comes off that way. Just trying to gauge relative worth, and indirectly the faith people have in the current projected Seager / Figgins time at 3rd.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Without question
Jeff Sullivan - January 31, 2012
Off the top of my head, I would give up two of any players in the organization not named Felix or Jesus to get Lawrie.
22, position of need, rakes. On a one-for-one basis I would way rather have Lawrie than Montero.
Aaron Campeau - January 31, 2012
Ackley and Smoak for Lawrie, eh?
Punkhazard - January 31, 2012
"Off the top of my head"
Forgot about Ackley for a second.
Aaron Campeau - January 31, 2012
If you take Ackley out as well as Montero and Felix
I think I would agree with you
Punkhazard - January 31, 2012
Although I would certainly consider Ackley for Lawrie and I'm not optimistic about Smoak
Aaron Campeau - January 31, 2012
Trading Ackley for Lawrie would make me laugh.
Somehow getting Ackley and Lawrie on the same team would make me laugh harder. Since most of you don’t know why, the reason I’d be laughing is that, for whatever dumb ass hell reason, Lawrie was constantly compared to Ackley by the denizens of Sickels’ site. Apparently ranking Ackley so high but ranking Lawrie low was a crime against nature or something. Those of us who aren’t stupid didn’t think it was worth comparing those two at all since they’re not similar players or in the same situation. Those arguments got pretty ridiculous
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Yikes - in that case, meet our starting lineup: Jesus Suzuki, Jesus Gutierrez, Felix Ackley, Jesus Smoak...
Seriously, I don’t know as I’d give up Ackley. Maybe Smoak & Franklin.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012
I'd trade Ichiro for Lawrie faster than you can propose the idea
And I’m not really keen on trading Ichiro
Corco - January 31, 2012
Anyone who wouldn't is irrational.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
I'd trade Ichiro and pick up his entire salary for Lawrie.
KC Mariner - January 31, 2012
I'm finding it impossible to understand the subject line of this comment.
BigR - January 31, 2012
He's giving various players on the team the first names of "Jesus" or "Felix" in order to suggest that he would not strongly consider trading those players.
It’s a bit of a stretch.
JY - January 31, 2012
Thanks.
Now I’m not sure if I should be embarrassed that I needed the explanation or not.
BigR - January 31, 2012
Somebody recced it, so I'm guessing there were a few people that might have needed the translation.
JY - January 31, 2012
You're being very kind. I assumed people got it but just didn't think it was funny.
Chris_FB - February 1, 2012
I would not give up both Walker and Hultzen to get Lawrie.
Yeah, he’s a good hitter, but he’s almost certainly not as good as he looked last year. He has had questions about his defensive ability. I’d certainly give up either for him straight up, both? Too much.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
I would even give Monetero for him.
I don’t like Montero having to either be a DH or a bad-defensive Catcher. Lawrie fills a different positional need, and I feel like his bat is more of a sure thing, even if it doesn’t have the upside of Montero.
In short, I would support a trade of any single player in the Mariners organization for Brett Lawrie, except Felix.
mamaxmax - January 31, 2012
In a heartbeat
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
Is it just me or is this whole thing just speculation?
Mayo - January 31, 2012
Probably, but based on this, I think it's likely that Lawrie was at least involved
“… the other team wanted a major-league-ready player …” sounds to me like an advanced prospect rather than a veteran, and for whom in the Jays’ system would someone be trying to trade a quality major leaguer, if not for Lawrie?
BrownL - January 31, 2012
Furthermore, the Jays could theoretically contend this year if they can find some starting pitching.
Romero is one thing, Morrow is another, and the rest are a mixed bag. Pineda would have given them something to work with in establishing a legit major league rotation. Aside from Kyle Drabek, they don’t have much at the advanced minor league levels that can help them out in 2012 or soon afterward.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Well, Hutchison maybe. The rest are all still in A ball now or starting AA this year.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Deck McGuire could sort of help.
Could be a nice back-end starter.
Pikachu - January 31, 2012
They already have a couple of those.
They don’t have the front end guys. Morrow could be it, but he’s got his issues. Romero is a fine pitcher. Beyond that? Not much.
Bear in mind, I mean ML ready or close. McGuire might be able to help in a couple of years, maybe this year. But you’d expect to give him a bit more time before he can really have an impact.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Even if they were trading from a strength though, is it not the same as the Mariners trading from a strength to gain an advantage in a weakness?
The whole “a run is a run” thing? Brett Lawrie could turn into the only stable hitter on that team aside from Bautista.
Kenneth Arthur - January 31, 2012
I suppose. It really depends on how comfortable they are with some of their guys.
Namely Lind, Snider, and Rasmus. I would think that they’re not putting too much pressure on Lawrie to perform right away. It’s also possible that they thought they could turn around and flip some parts for another third baseman. Or, maybe flip Morrow or Romero for other parts they need.
While Lawrie for Pineda might seem like a lateral move, it also might open up other options. There may have also been other parts involved in the trade that we didn’t know about which would make things clearer.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Arencibia, Johnson and Escobar too.
…with Gose quickly approaching. They’re pretty loaded on offense, so a young hitter for an already ready young All-star pitcher would make sense for the Blue Jays
jameslcrockett - January 31, 2012
Not a Gose fan.
The names I listed were people who were question marks. Lind has been up and down. Snider has basically sucked. Rasmus hasn’t lived up to his talent level either.
KA mentioned positions of strength, and I had to think about it for a second as to whether the Blue Jays had a position strong enough to trade Lawrie. Mostly I was theorizing that the Jays would have options open up if they got Pineda. Even if they lost Lawrie, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t trade for someone else’s third baseman with their pitching depth.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Just as long as it wasn't Jed Lowrie.
plish - January 31, 2012
The fun thing is
we’ll probably spend the next 5+ years needlessly comparing the two.
jose luis - January 31, 2012
5 years?
The debate over trading Randy Johnson for either Garcia, Guillen, and Halama or Raul Mondesi and Ismael Valdez is still raging 15 years later.
G_ - January 31, 2012
Someone's still talking about that?
Two Rs and Two Ls - January 31, 2012
What else is there to do between bingo rounds?
d0nkey - January 31, 2012
I'm not sure about this Johnson fella we picked up from the Expos.
I mean, sure he might be good in the future, but Mark Langston won 19 games two years ago on that 78-84 team. Sure, he was a little down last year, but he’s still striking 8 guys out per 9!
Two Rs and Two Ls - January 31, 2012
If anyone over the age of 65 were to reference K/9, I would be rather impressed
cwel87 - January 31, 2012
My Dad (71) mentioned strikeout rate the other day which impressed me.
Then he talked about pitcher wins and how Ichiro “lost it” several seasons ago so the feeling was short lived.
KC Mariner - January 31, 2012
Lawrie might suffer that Adrian Beltre effect.
Great glove, power that doesn’t play well at SafeCo, and an entire mass of uneducated fans that do not understand his value.
Mariner Melee - January 31, 2012
I've always been under the impression that Lawrie's glove at 3B was a bit questionable
Punkhazard - January 31, 2012
He got moved off second because his glove wasn't good enough there either.
Though scouts and coaches think he’s improved enough at third to stay, there’s still folks who think he ends up a corner outfielder eventually.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Which is weird because 3B and 2B are similarly hard to play
But in different ways. 3B tends to be more about reaction time and arm strength/accuracy while 2B is more about range and turning double plays. Players who can do both stay at SS.
CMC_Stags - January 31, 2012
UZR was kind to him in a small smaple size last year.
He certainly didn’t look lost.
Mariner Melee - January 31, 2012
UZR in a small saple is actively worse than no UZR at all
Aaron Campeau - January 31, 2012
I don't buy into any defensive metric!
Poochie - January 31, 2012
Personally I'd give your opinion more weight, and I'm not being a smart ass
Kermit. - January 31, 2012
My opinion isn't worth the pixels it is printed on!
Poochie - January 31, 2012 via Android app
But it's free!
Kermit. - January 31, 2012
Nothing is truly free
Poochie - January 31, 2012
How much for your opinion on Montero sticking at catcher?
Kermit. - January 31, 2012
Seven
Poochie - January 31, 2012
Aww man. I only have a fiver, a broken 3 in 1 tool, and pocket lint
Flat head and phillips head screw driver still work but the allen wrench broke.
Kermit. - January 31, 2012
Maybe I should call it a 2 out of 3 tool, that outta be worth something
Kermit. - January 31, 2012
Seven
seattlebruin - February 1, 2012
I only buy into a comprehensive collection of what all defensive metrics say at once
And even then with an air of skepticism
OlSalty - January 31, 2012
UZR in a small saple is actively worse than no UZR at all
This statement is basically saying “a small sample is worse than no data at all”. I think unless you are ignorant to the fact that you are looking at a small sample, this statement is completely false.
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
UZR in small sample is misinformation, which is worse than no information.
UZR in small sample compels you to lean in a certain direction with respect to believing in a player’s defensive value, when it has been shown that UZR is suspect and inaccurate even at decent sample size. If the best thing you can do with small sample UZR is completely ignore it and anything else you would do with it is irresponsible or misleading, having nothing is better than having small sample UZR.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
Dammit, I always type too much.
CapSea - January 31, 2012
If having nothing is better than having 100 innings of UZR then why is 200 innings of UZR better than 100 innings of UZR data?
I’m not saying I think a small sample is super useful. Its not. There is no reason why we can’t regress a small sample of UZR just like we regress small samples of other data unless you think that UZR is a useless stat. Maybe it takes a lot of data to stabilize so we would regress small samples a lot but that doesn’t mean UZR is useless in small samples.
Basically the point I’m trying to make is that its not the stat that is useless. Its our ability to accurately regress the information the stat is giving us. For defense when I have a small sample I’m obviously going to rely on a lot of scouting information to determine if I think a player is a good defender however the information UZR contains is information and if you believe in UZR at large sample sizes then UZR at small sample size must (on average) must contain some information.
I’m fine with regressing UZR very hard at small sample sizes. I’m even ok with people not “believing” in UZR as a valid stat, but if you think UZR is useful then a small sample of UZR should contain some useful information that we can use to improve our knowledge about a player’s performance (on average).
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
Quoting unregressed UZR is dangerous because people are stupid irrational morons who latch onto numbers
no matter how many provisions you put in front of or after.
What should happen is something like UZRr where UZR below a certain threshold is regressed toward 0 and that’s the only number you look at.
Matthew - January 31, 2012
I totally agree with that
My major comment was just addressing maybe a more theoretical notion about the value of data. I agree with you, it is far too easy to just quote numbers than to think deeply about what they mean.
I would love fangraphs or baseball reference if they made available somehow estimates for confidence intervals right next to the stats they post or color coded numbers that had low confidence so that the stupid irrational morons you speak of knew when to not use certain numbers.
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
No one is arguing about the theoretical value of data. That would be mental.
We’re talking about UZR and its usage.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
Ok maybe this is a better example
I have UZR data for April, May, June, July, and August for a player. Let’s say 1 year of data is enough to get a somewhat reliable interpretation of how good a player is. If UZR for each month does not contain any useful information on the player’s ability then UZR for the whole year does not contain useful information.
UZR (or any other stat) doesn’t magically become useful after a certain sample size. Its a sliding scale. As we get more data, we become more confident that the number calulated is an accurate representation of a player’s ability.
Maybe we both actually believe the same thing. Often a small sample of UZR will have much too much faith put in it. I agree with this. Its a problem associated with people wrongly interpreting the data. I think calling it misinformation means its flawed data somehow when it is actually a data point with large error bars.
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
I'm saying that UZR is massively flawed and, especially in small samples, can be incredibly misleading.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
The point is that at small samples the amount of error in the results is unacceptable to draw conclusions from
Sometimes it is better to draw no conclusion if there’s a very good chance you can be lead to draw one that is completely wrong by data with unacceptably high error.
OlSalty - January 31, 2012
Or as Matthew said, you could regress the results towards zero and maybe it would say "something" about their defense
But if you did that the results would probably be so close to zero that again it would hardly tell you anything anyways.
OlSalty - January 31, 2012
My point is that if you believe UZR is useful at a large sample size then you'd regress it to a non-zero value
It might be close to zero but it still should have some useful information in it somewhere.
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
It would be "useful" information but not useful enough to draw firm conclusions about a players real ability from
You would have some number to work with that had less error, but still no guarantee that the data will keep moving in that direction as even a small amount of new data could reverse everything, so you could easily run into the same problem with people taking a +0.5 run UZR over a year and concluding that the player will continue to replicate these results when they won’t. They might, they would probably have a better chance of sticking to that trend than if the results hadn’t been regressed towards average because you’ve regressed it, but still we’d be dealing with very minor conclusions and the problem with minor conclusions is they’re rather easily changed. So it would present very little conclusive value as far as determining how good at defense a player is.
OlSalty - January 31, 2012
I think I agree with what you just said.
Mostly listen to scouts, maybe watch a little video (but my opinion isn’t probably good enough to be worth anything) and glance at UZR to get a different viewpoint. For small samples I think there may be some things that UZR picks up on better than a scout but scouts opinions obviously are way more valuable when you have very limited data.
For a player that had a month or two of playing time I might use 90% scouts opinion, 5% my own and 5% UZR to come to a conclusion about how good a player is.
In these situations UZR is probably most useful when it contradicts what scouts are saying. I wouldn’t use UZR to prove that the scouts were wrong but it would be a red flag that hopefully would cause us to investigate further.
I think we both agree we’d love to see a giant asterix on any UZR stats from players with small sample sizes. I just disagree its detrimental to look/use UZR when you have small samples.
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
What's this? A chance to complain about UZR?! It's like you addressed this comment directly to me!
Yes, AC is correct, because UZR – unlike nearly every other metric – is prone to what I’m going to term for this comment “Stupid Errors.” For example, if a fielder has two different plays – one the fielder catches and one the fielder does not – a great deal of how that’s scored in UZR depends on the stringers and range data. So if the stringer rates the catchable one an easy catch, and the uncaught one a hard catch, the player is going to maintain a UZR of 0ish.
But wait! Stringers are often inaccurate! And the range values and other data that goes into UZR metrics is potentially flawed and not held accountable! So if the stringer rates the one that was caught as an easy catch AND the one that was not caught as an easy catch, now the person has a negative UZR. BUT WAIT! The opposite can happen as well! The easy catch could be rated a hard catch, and the missed ball could be rated a hard catch, and suddenly the person has a positive UZR, all on the same play!
UZR isn’t like batting average. At least with batting average you can say something happened and didn’t happen. UZR is like 20% opinion, 30% questionable data calculations, and only 50% what actually happened at best, potentially leading to numerous issues with not only small samples, but large samples as well. UZR, at a small sample, is like picking a number out of a hat and saying it’s probably right because you picked it.
CapSea - January 31, 2012
I'm not going to try to talk you into liking UZR
But your last paragraph is just not true.
davidcameron - January 31, 2012
Could you explain why it's not true?
Dewey N - January 31, 2012
Here's the issues I have with UZR, laid out as quickly as possible for easy reading and because I'm short on time:`
1) Stringer Errors – MGL and Tango both admitted there are errors with stringers that can affect as much as 5 to 10% of the total. They then claimed that over a large enough sample those should even themselves out. But they offer no evidence of why this should even out. It could also exacerbate the errors over time, especially if the stringer errors are in favor of a single player.
2) Run Values – Gutierrez has been a 2 to 3 win fielder for most of the last several years. Most people here assume that defense represents maybe 20% of the pitching/defense combo. At 2 wins, that means that Gutierrez is the equivalent of a 10 win pitcher. At 3 wins, he would be a 15 win pitcher. That, to me, is an indication that the run values are wrong.
3) Eye Validation – I know how much we hate the idea of the “eye test” here, but Chone Figgins was a disaster at third base last year, and he was given a UZR/150 of 4.5. That’s wrong. I remember one week where they watched as balls went right by him without him moving – two or three a game and then a couple the rest of the week. He didn’t take a step either direction. He made almost no other plays all week. His UZR went up by 2 runs.
The idea that UZR can go up or down erroneously from a play or two is known. Batted ball data, stringer errors, positioning – all of these can make the number in UZR on any given play wrong. But there is this assumption that those errors will even themselves out over time as the sample grows larger, but there’s no evidence that this is the case. It likely evens out for some players, but with other players it’s going to be and remain completely wrong. Unlike with offensive metrics, you can’t compare UZR against an already accepted defensive metric to see if it makes cognitive sense.
All of this also ignores the fact that we don’t know where each calculation is made for each player in each park at each position or whether it adjust correctly based on positioning, etc. Nor does it correlate well with BABIP against, which is a serious problem.
The 20/30/50 number is just for illustration, but I’m going to be honest – I don’t think it’s far off. However, even if you wanted to claim it’s 90% what actually happened and 10% opinion and questionable data (due to stringing and positioning/park issues), that’s still a huge number, because it’s not going to be 10% for every player. It’s going to be 20 and 30% for some players and 1% for others, due to stringer biases and what have you, and those 20%/30% are going to be exacerbated by what looks to be inflated run values per play. It’s legitimately possible that a -10 fielder and a +10 fielder on any given year have exactly the same true talent, because some numbers are biased in one direction and others in another. That’s a 2 win difference, with no guarantee or evidence that two more years of data will give any other indication. That’s huge.
After all of this, I feel I can safely conclude that UZR is seriously flawed to the point of being absolutely useless if not misleading in small samples, and potentially useless in general. UZR was a great tool to teach people about what they need to look for to judge defensive prowess, but it has way too many issues for me to look at it as anything other than interesting.
I already outlined many of these thoughts here, but above is the quickest summary I could write. I would be interested in hearing a reason to disagree with any of this.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Excuse me, and by "true talent" I mean that they literally had the same defensive year.
Since UZR is supposed to be a counting stat.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
What do you prefer to use?
Chris_FB - February 1, 2012
Observations
Aaron Campeau - February 1, 2012
So, scouting reports and going to games oneself? I.e. there is no good stat for defense right now?
Chris_FB - February 1, 2012
Over a large enough sample, like 2 years, UZR should (read:not necessarily) at least lean in the right direction.
But beyond that, no, not really.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Yep, pretty much.
Aaron Campeau - February 1, 2012
Does that skew WAR so much as to make it unusable too?
I thought that at its most basic level, WAR is wRAA + UZR and then some positional adjustments.
Chris_FB - February 1, 2012
I think WAR is still usable, so long as you don't take it as the gospel truth
Aaron Campeau - February 1, 2012
It probably skews it more for players who derive a lot of their run value from their defense
Fangraphs has the run values listed in separate categories so you can distinguish where the value comes from if you want
OlSalty - February 1, 2012
Or who are particularly hurt by their UZR for that matter
OlSalty - February 1, 2012
Use can use BR's oWAR
Poochie - February 1, 2012
I don't.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
What?
I don’t believe that and I don’t recall anyone stating that before. I think defense is much higher than 20% of run prevention
Matthew - February 1, 2012
.
Link
CapSea - February 1, 2012
That hardly justifies "most people here"
Matthew - February 1, 2012
And you're example above is wrong.
Though you corrected it below, but if defense were 10% and pitching 40%, a 2-win defender isn’t equivalent to a 10-win pitcher, but rather an 8-win pitcher.
Matthew - February 1, 2012
Right. I was thinking more along the lines of extrapolating over a complete bottom or top inning.
So in the pitcher’s case I was thinking more “if there were no such thing as defense.” Offense is an easier example.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Secondly, you ask two different questions in that link
Question 1: According to your belief what percentage of a baseball game is your team’s defense?
Question 2: Of the remaining 50% of the game, what percentage is pitching and what percentage is defense?
Three of the replies didn’t specify which question they were answering. The one that did used roughly a 3/4 split for pitching v defense. Which would imply a 2-win defender ~ 6-win pitcher. Which hardly seems unreasonable. Since the number of 2-win defenders, by UZR, last year was.. 1. Brett Gardner.
Matthew - February 1, 2012
It doesn't matter which question they were answering. I doubled the 10% to 20% to account for that.
If you want to argue that defensive contributions are worth a larger percentage than okay, and that would certainly change the argument about whether it would be possible for someone to be a 2 to 3 win fielder. But if you believe it’s more along the lines of 10% of a game, or even 15% which seems more realistic to me, it’s way too highly valued.
And that still doesn’t account for this belief that stringer errors, among other things, are going to even themselves out over time, even though there’s no evidence this is the case. Colin Wyers does a good job explaining this in the comments of The Book, where he writes:
CapSea - February 1, 2012
That's just nuts. It doesn't matter? Of course it matters!
One is expressing percentage over the entire 100%, the other over only the run prevention half.
If you take the three unspecified ones to mean % out of all baseball value then you get responses that defense accounts for: 10%, 10-15%, 10-20% and 15%, which averages out to roughly 25% of the pitching/defense combo.
If you take them to mean % out of the run prevention half then you get: 10%, 20-30%, 10-20% and 15% of the 50%, which averages out to roughly 15% of run prevention.
That’s a big difference.
Matthew - February 1, 2012
That's why I doubled it. I was going off 10/50, doubled would be 20/100.
Most people said “somewhere between 10 and 20” so if you want to go with 15, you get 30%. A 3 win fielder would then be equivalent to a 10 run hitter – the Barry Bonds in his prime of defense.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
If they were answering 10% of 100% of the pitching/defense combo, then the number would be even higher in favor of my point.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
No one in the post seemed to disagree. So what number would you go with. 40%?
UZR is a counting stat. So theoretically if a player saves 30 runs (3 wins), then the player really did save 30 runs regardless of their true value. Using the offense example, that would be a 7.5 win offensive player. That’s a bit more realistic, but still… that’s pretty high. I’m skeptical that the pitching half of an inning is 40% defensive contributions.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
I think 25-30% of run prevention being defense is reasonable.
But regardless of that, your objection is really strange because you keep talking about 2 or 3-win UZR players like it’s a common occurrence. It’s not. Over the past four seasons, there’s been exactly one player each year surpassing 20 runs in UZR.
Is it crazy that one person a year is equivalent with the glove to the best person with the bat when weighted? The best hitters over the last four years have been around 60-70 runs with the bat. Weighted, that’s saying defense is something in the 10-15% range overall, or 20-30% of run prevention.
Or, to turn it around, the top pitchers each year are usually at or above 8 WAR. So if pitching is 80% of run prevention, why is a single 2 WAR fielder so crazy?
I’m no defender of UZR, but I find your argument here unpersuasive.
Matthew - February 1, 2012
I accept that.
The more you weight defense in the defense/pitching tandem, the less the argument holds merit as a separate point, and that’s fine. I still believe it’s 20% of that combo, and that means that – as a counting stat – a 3 WAR player shouldn’t be possible. If this was a rate stat, an average stat, or considered to be an estimate then okay – but this is a counting stat. Players don’t magically get 400 hits in a season at random, so a player shouldn’t be worth the offensive equivalent of 15 wins, no matter how well they performed.
We can argue that point separately of course, and I think reasonably we can disagree, but I think it’s a valid addition to the number of reasons to question UZR’s accuracy in measuring defensive contributions.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
That you insist on putting UZR and Hitting value on the same single-season scale is just so wrong.
They’re not compatible that way. The guideline is 3 years of fielding ~ 1 year of hitting so the proper comparison is the best 3-year UZRs which is about +15 runs, not this now 30-run fantasy you keep mentioning. I don’t think I can successfully see your side while you continue to use 30 runs as if it means something realistic for fielding.
If you want to put it on a single-season basis, you should be using full UZR against a two-month hitting sample. Do you think it’s crazy to find the best two-month hitting period out of anyone to be something like a 10-WAR pace?
Matthew - February 1, 2012
The three year UZR theory is based on the idea of finding true talent.
MGL still argues that it’s an accurate measurement for what happened during a season with some error bars to account for stringer biases. That’s presumably (read: I have no idea) why it is used in WAR. Ergo, a 3 win player according to UZR genuinely provided 30 runs of value during the season.
Why would the guidelines be 3 years equals one year if it’s added into WAR on a single season basis. According to Fangraphs, Gutierrez was worth 6 wins (60 runs) between 2007 and 2009. You sound like you’re asking me to average them, but it’s not an average stat, it’s a counting stat, and it’s counted as six wins on Fangraphs. If I’m meant to average them, then that would imply that defense is being overrated.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Batting average over five games is an accurate measurement for what happened during those five games,
in terms of batting average. I don’t see the analogy you’re shooting for.
Why would you not average 60 runs over 3 seasons? Doing so implies defense is overrated? What?
What?
Matthew - February 1, 2012
Yeah, I'm with you here.
I completely misread your last two comments and thought you were taking this in a whole weird direction. So ignore my comments too, they’re talking about something else.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Also, what?
You:
MGL, in the post you linked to:
Matthew - February 1, 2012
From that same post:
That’s part one of my issue – it does do this, because – as a counting stat – UZR IS claiming that a player was worth X runs. MGL, however, then says that regressing it will give the most likely value for his single year worth – he does want to regress it first, but he’s still claiming that’s what the player generally did, at least to me. But that’s also flawed, and addressed in comments like this.
Similarly, what can it be regressed to? How can it be regressed to a player’s true talent when their true talent is determined by the system that gives them the flawed number in the first place? How is there any way to know if it’s regressed enough or still being overrated? How could it determine run values that are that high while still claiming that it’s accurately measuring how much each play is worth?
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Maybe it's not clear - that might be my fault.
I’m not arguing these points one at a time, but rather all together. It doesn’t make sense that there’s a system that adds numbers like a counting stat but can end up with numbers that are essentially impossibly high. Then that same system claims that it needs to be regressed to a number that the system itself determined. Then it needs a three year sample under the assumption that errors will average out over time, even though there’s no evidence of this at all. Then there are plenty of other obvious issues, like discounting line drives, not properly addressing positioning, etc., that all affect how these numbers are added together.
After all that it appears, at least to me, that UZR even over a large sample can be misinformation.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Also,
I’m forced to use the extremes because there’s no way to show that a 0 win fielder is overrating defense without knowing exactly how each run was calculated, the actual, non stringer error play, etc. Extremes are the only way to show that the numbers that go into the counting stat calculations are very likely inaccurate.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
If you claim defense is 20% of run prevention, 10% overall, and thus 1/5 as valuable as hitting.
And the average best hitter is 60-70 runs then you think the average best fielder should be worth 13 (65/5) runs. Is that correct?
Matthew - February 1, 2012
Yeah, that sounds about right. I'd have to look back at the numbers more, but at cursory glance I'd say yes.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Okay, well I don't agree that it's only 20%
and so I don’t find one or two 20-run fielders per year to be extraordinary in comparison.
Matthew - February 1, 2012
I don't understand your second point
“At 2 wins, that means that Gutierrez is the equivalent of a 10 win pitcher. At 3 wins, he would be a 15 win pitcher.”
At 2 wins, Gutierrez is the equivalent of a 2 win pitcher. A win is a win. I think I’m confused about what your saying or am missing something.
Edgar for Pres - February 1, 2012
You're missing something.
We can look at it as offense/defense if you like. Offense is 50% of an inning, defense would then be 10% at the bottom of the inning. If a player can be worth 3 wins in 10% of an inning, then it would make Guti the defensive equivalent of a 15 win hitter – in 10% of the game he would be saving as much runs as a 15 win hitter would make in 10% of his offensive game.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
Oh I see, you are talking about talent distribution.
How do you know the true talent distribution of defensive players?
Do you have a better estimate for how much the defense of the best CF in recent should be worth?
I would say it seems high but I don’t have any reason to think defense isn’t very important. You did pick an example with an insanely good defensive player. If you pick a good defender (+1 WAR) then your above exercise would say he is the equivalent of a 5 WAR hitter which sounds just fine to me.
Edgar for Pres - February 1, 2012
But if UZR, a counting stat, is counting accurately using numbers that make logical sense
then a 3 WAR defender shouldn’t be possible. If you believe defense is 40% of the pitcher/defense combo, which some believe, then okay. But I have a hard time believing that and regardless it’s only a small portion of the multitude of errors that fail to convince me that UZR is measuring anything accurately, regardless of sample.
I mentioned this above, but Colin Wyers does a good job arguing my point in this post. The authors of UZR offer no evidence that these errors even themselves out over a large enough sample.
CapSea - February 1, 2012
UZR has issues. I know the issues.
Since I know the issues that cause UZR to produce random and/or systematic errors, I have a reference frame to judge whether I believe what it tells me about a player’s value.
FIP has issues. I know the issues. Since I know the issues that cause FIP to produce random and/or systematic errors, I have a reference frame to judge whether I believe what it tells me about a player’s value.
I can repeat this statement for any stat (for baseball or any other source of data). When you know the strengths and weaknesses of information, it is up to the user to interpret the data as they see fit.
I feel like UZR is a useful stat because it does two things. It gives me another source of data that is not susceptible to the same sort of bias as scouts and fans (Derek Jeter is bad at SS) and it gives me a way to quantify a player’s defense (especially useful if I don’t have access to other sources of information). I agree that there are problems with all defensive stats but I think we are at the point where they provide us with unique and useful data that we should not ignore.
Edgar for Pres - February 2, 2012
I disagree. But I also think UZR has considerably more systematic and random errors.
At some point the variance is too high. It’s not implausible for a +10 fielder and a -10 fielder to have had literally the same defensive season, but with scoring errors and failed positioning adjustments and incorrect park factor calculations and so on. That seems far too problematic, and why I can’t trust it as a source of any real statistical data. I look at it too, but only as something that’s interesting, not as something I give much weight to.
CapSea - February 2, 2012
One of the things that is nice about the Pineda trade was that it pretty much killed all the Montero vs Smoak conversations.
I know you (Jeff) will do a good job of not letting things go too far here, but it really blows how a young M’s hitter will once again be compared to another team’s young hitter.
Aaroniero Arruruerie - January 31, 2012
And I guess Matthew will do a good job too. Accidentally left him out...
Aaroniero Arruruerie - January 31, 2012
Lawrie has had one really good year.
His MiLB career before 60 some games at AAA was pretty pedestrian. His K rates are pretty high and his BB rates aren’t exceptional.
Admittedly I don’t know much about him other than draft status and numbers. I think some of the Lawrie excitement seems to be based on about 100 games between AAA and the bigs last season.
vertigoman - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Not sure what you're looking at. His k-rates were never a concern.
The hold up was making solid contact. His power is legit, so it was always a matter of learning how to get good wood on a ball. His 2011 has enough folks excited that he’s figured out how to be selective enough to wait for his pitches and hammer them.
The other concern is his glove, but for a bat that projects that well, you can deal with some defensive liabilities.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
I'm not trying to say Lawrie isnt a legit prospect
Just that he hasn’t consistently put up the numbers and the peripheral numbers to suggest he’s a slam dunk prospect.
Plus his limited time in the majors suggest he’s more successful as a pull hitter. Minor league spilts would be awesome. Whatever happened to that site?
Maybe he’s a legit bat, his defense is average or better and thus he’s awesome.
But it’s not like he comes without question marks.
the debate that Jeff doesn’t want to have here isn’t as polarizing as it seems to be IMO.
vertigoman - January 31, 2012 via mobile
.
You cocktease.
the other side - January 31, 2012
That would just mean Lawrie would be ours in 18 months anyways.
joof - January 31, 2012
Well it's worked in nearly 100% of situations almost exactly like this.
the other side - January 31, 2012
I wish a GM would publish a list of all the trade offers he proposed and were proposed to him
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
The dossier of Felix for ... trades
Would destroy the rainforest. Think of the trees before you wish.
Tamuzi - January 31, 2012
E-books
Edgar for Pres - January 31, 2012
Toronto loves Lawrie.
I don’t think Pineda would be enough to get him.
Llewdor - January 31, 2012
This would be an awesome situation for one of those freaky multiple-team trades that Z could pull off.
I’ve also always been under the impression that Toronto has no problem finding good position players in general, and offense especially, in their own system. Some tempting-sounding pitching could be enough, I’d think, with perhaps some minor moving parts from a third team. Not quite a ‘two teams dealing from strength’ sort of arrangement like Pineda for Montero, but still.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012
Billy Beane's head just perked up
just like Brad Pitt’s in the Moneyball trailer
G_ - January 31, 2012
Just watched that last night. Good movie.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
That seems to be the consensus, yes.
katal - January 31, 2012
I think the idea is that if it was, we would be having a conversation about how Brett Lawrie is a Mariner.
Kenneth Arthur - January 31, 2012
It would be funny to see Cashman turn around and trade Pineda for Lawrie.
Just to spite us.
Tucci Mane - January 31, 2012
Or for Z to trade Montero to the Jays
Just to spite the Yanks
J0SER - January 31, 2012
Yeah!
abender20 - January 31, 2012
Dang, I always get sucked in
Trade rumors after the fact. How bout you cook up some new ones?
phiat - January 31, 2012
Oh, I was wondering WTF
This was about
J0SER - January 31, 2012
heh...pump the breaks.
grips - January 31, 2012
Also why does everything have to be @
grips - January 31, 2012
She wanted to communicate with those accounts.
Mariner John - January 31, 2012
Because Twitter has an idiotic design
That encourages people to use it in stupid ways.
J0SER - January 31, 2012
Ok, so we know Montero was one of the potential target bats.
It looks like Lawrie, predictably, was number two.
Number three was probably Mike Stanton.
Who was number four?
ThirteenOfTwo - January 31, 2012
Chone Figgins?
Punkhazard - January 31, 2012
LoMo?
EthanN - January 31, 2012
Don't really think he's in the same class.
Mariner John - January 31, 2012
My guess would be Trout.
katal - January 31, 2012
Justin Upton?
ThirteenOfTwo - January 31, 2012
Maybe Heyward.
CapSea - January 31, 2012
Again I'm late to the party.
CapSea - January 31, 2012
Mike Stanton probably isn't too fond of Seattle.
.Bonzo - January 31, 2012
Lawrie might have been a slightly better fit but...
He seems like a huge jerk-face. He and Bryce Harper seem similar in that way.
Any guess to who those four players were? I’d guess:
1) Jesus Montero
2) Brett Lawrie
3) Mike Stanton (I’m pretty sure this was hinted at recently)
4) ??? Either Bryce Harper, Jay Bruce, Logan Morrison….maybe Votto?
bbd1996 - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Trout maybe.
Tucci Mane - January 31, 2012
Thought of Trout but..
Can’t imagine that trading Pineda to the Angels would have even been a thought. That would all buy crush the fanbase, Trout or not.
bbd1996 - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Typo
*all BUT crush… :/
bbd1996 - January 31, 2012 via mobile
*Shudder*
sanford_and_son - January 31, 2012
I doubt Bryce Harper. We would have had to give up a gigantic package to get that guy.
EthanN - January 31, 2012
That's irrelevant to the question
Matthew - January 31, 2012
Not entirely. Wouldn't most people deem Harper nearly untouchable?
With Z targeting a bat he had a realistic chance at adding, he probably wouldn’t have gone after someone that would require he sell the farm, especially considering how hard he has worked to build up the farm system. I’m not saying it’s impossible that he asked about Harper, just that it’s very unlikely that Harper was ever one of the four targets.
EthanN - January 31, 2012
Yes entirely.
Is not “Jack Zduriencik called around about four players he thought would be a suitable return for Pineda.” There’s nothing in Jeff’s actual wording, or the discussion around it which started post-trade, about the feasibility of acquiring any of the four such players in a trade. It states that there are four players Jack would have considered worth giving up Pineda for. You’re applying a different standard.
Matthew - January 31, 2012
Dammit, I read this article pretty quickly before my first class this morning and I completely interpreted that wrong.
I was thinking Z said that there were four hitters he was actually targeting, rather than just ‘four young hitters for whom he would’ve considered dealing Pineda.’ My apologies.
EthanN - January 31, 2012
Probably not Bryce Harper simply based on proximity to the majors.
I’m guessing that the 4 guys were all ML ready. Montero and Lawrie both are, so it would stand to reason that Z would want someone who he can put in immediately.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Wouldn't you heartbeat slam Pineda for Votto?
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
Votto, who is only signed through 2013?
I don’t think I would, no.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
What is Lawrie's contract like? I like the fact that Montero is locked up for a good amount of time.
d0nkey - January 31, 2012
Believe he is in the same spot as Montero with six years left
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
For some reason I always think Joey Votto is younger (and has less service time) than he actually is
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
I thought Dave Cameron always posted under his real name here. Hm.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012
This would be funnier if this screenname weren't on record bashing Dave Cameron roughly 8,500 times
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
I didn't think I had that much of a rep as being a Cameron "basher". I'm kind of surprised you said that.
Actually, I didn’t think I had anything like a rep as an anyone around here, really.
Anyway, apologies if my joke was out of line.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012
this screenname = me
seattlebruin - January 31, 2012
yes, yes, I know
Man, did that joke flop. Yikes. Mea maxima culpa! I’ll just be over here.
Chris_FB - January 31, 2012
Makes you wonder
If a similar-ish opportunity was there for Pineda/Lawrie to be the core of a deal and instead of opting for (arguably) the more talented overall player Jack opted for a player he had rated a notch below but who projected to hit better in Safeco (i.e he wanted the RH with the most opposite field power). This would fall right in line with Cameron’s soul crushing comment from last year (with a tip of the cap to J0SER for recently linking to the same comment).
C Dubya - January 31, 2012
Not to be a dick, but why is this even a "thing" for Seattle fans?
Other than Z’s possible attempt at trading for him? Is it surprising we went after Lawrie? Not really. If the Blue Jay’s were in fact the ones to say no to the deal, what is all the talk? Z acquired what he thought was the best player he could get for Pineda. Maybe Lawrie was option 1, couldn’t acquire, and then pulled the trigger on Montero.
I may be missing something here.
GriffinNW - January 31, 2012
Because people were likely to speculate about the Lawrie rumor and it's better to consolidate the dialogue into one front page post than to have several fanshots and off-topic discussions elsewhere.
JLC - January 31, 2012
Because we're still weeks away from ST and we're bored.
wazzu93 - January 31, 2012
This is what I assumed was the case.
JLC- Makes sense, thanks. My first reaction to people talking about it was that we made a mistake, when I was reading the Blue Jays said no, so I guess I was just a little confused.
GriffinNW - January 31, 2012
Jason Hayward
Hayward, Stanton, Lawrie, Montero?
bookbook - January 31, 2012
Heyward.
GasolineSnuggie - January 31, 2012
Heyward is Left-Handed
Z was most likely targeting RH power bats with 5-6 years of control, hence Lawrie, Stanton, Montero. He’s talked about our need for RH power a lot this off-season.
valencia - January 31, 2012
I seriously doubt this.
If someone offered him Heyward for Pineda (and assuming there weren’t other options) he’d probably take it. Handedness would not, and should not, trump the talent and abilities of the player in question. You can get RH bats in other ways.
The only names we know about for sure are Lawrie and Montero. Though both are right handed, that isn’t their only commonality. They’re also both top level prospects who project to be great hitters. They’re also question marks on defense.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Assuming no other options sure
I think a LHB like Heyward would be 5th, but the top 3 (Stanton, Montero, Lawrie) he preferred were RHBs, and I think the 4th unnamed option would be a RHB as well.
Although after looking through KLaw’s Top 50 under 25 and positional prospect lists, there are no other RH power options after those 3 except Trout, so 4th could have been Heyward who’s arguably the best young LH power bat next to Harper.
valencia - January 31, 2012
Your argument is formed around a single possible misconception.
You have twice invoked Mike Stanton as if he was included in this list of four. I haven’t heard this. The poster above says he thinks it was hinted at, but that doesn’t mean squat. If you can provide evidence that Mike Stanton was one of the names, you can continue to say things like “(Stanton, Montero, Lawrie)”. Otherwise, we only have Lawrie and Montero.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Heyward
Only has 4 years of team control left and is coming off a down year
Punkhazard - January 31, 2012
Heyward
The Braves have zero need for pitching and need Heyward to be a centerpiece of their offense. That trade wouldn’t make sense for them.
bbd1996 - January 31, 2012 via mobile
No it wouldn't. Unless they thought the sudden suplus of pitching allowed them to move some of it to fill needs.
If this offseason is any indication, you can flip good pitchers pretty easily.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 31, 2012
Alternative sub-thread idea
Geoff Baker or MRSA: Which one would you rather have?
Henry Valz - January 31, 2012
MRSA because I would really not like it if Geoff Baker were inside of me
Matthew - January 31, 2012
Either way you're going to need IV antibiotics.
abender20 - January 31, 2012
No, just lots of Purell.
twelveoutof10 - January 31, 2012
Me either
Poochie - January 31, 2012
Pineda AND Campos
I’m interesting in whether the Mariners offered both of them for Lawrie like they did for Montero.
jameslcrockett - January 31, 2012
I don't think the Mariners offered Pineda and Campos for Montero and I doubt they did for Lawrie.
That’s probably not quite how this stuff happens. If a team has no interest in trading a guy or the trade offer isn’t in the same universe, sure, reject it. If the team would consider it but it isn’t quite right, then they start talking components. It makes sense that teams would work under the idea that an offer of Pineda for Lawrie is really more like a package around Pineda for a package around Lawrie.
abender20 - February 1, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.