Wilson for Fielder?
by capn on Sep 24, 2009 5:45 PM PDT
Email
Print
I know the Cain for Fielder horse has been pretty much eviscerated, but in addition to having effectively one starting pitcher, the Brau have an almost 42 year-old closer. His numbers this year are much better than I would have predicted, but he is hardly someone they can count on forever. With Wilson, they could move him to an eighth inning role and this would make for a rather formidable back end of the bullpen. The A's have shown that moving these younger closers can be quite fruitful and that they are generally pretty replaceable. Two questions:
1) Would they even consider Wilson for Fielder straight-up or would it require a solid prospect in addition?
2) If the answer to # 1 is yes, should Sabes jump?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
180 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Closers have little to no trade value. Or rather, they should have little to no trade value, as the role is both overrated and easily replaceable in-house.
They wouldn’t consider it for a second unless we were willing to include Bumgarner.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
And even then, I have my doubts.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
1) No
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Well, the last closer he traded only got him a third of a year of Matt Holliday...
and Huston Street is actually good at baseball, to boot.
I think the returns on that particular game have dried up a bit.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
lol no
His name's Clayton, not Danny.
by walkoff baltimore chop on Sep 24, 2009 6:01 PM PDT reply actions
We would make that trade in a second. They would not. Fielder provides much, much more value than Wilson. That said, Wilson is better than others are acknowledging. Closers generally should have little trade value, but Wilson is showing himself to really be an elite closer this season (see 2.6 WAR so far), so he might actually have some. That’s getting into Joe Nathan territory.
I think trading Wilson is a good idea, I think not many teams out there have a guy like him and we have some options in house that are pretty good themselves (Romo and Affeldt, for instance). We need a bat more than we need Wilson. The problem is while Wilson is an elite closer, that’s still only ~2.5 WAR of value whereas a guy like Fielder can put up 5 WAR, so you have to lower your expectations a bit or throw in some minor league talent…
But you have to add in the value of replacements. If the Brewers believe that moving Fielder opens a spot for Gamel for instance and value the addition to their pitching staff greater than the overall loss to their offense then they could be persuaded.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Nah, value of replacements doesn’t factor into the overall market value of Fielder. If we assume Fielder really is a 4-5 WAR player, someone out there should be willing to trade up to what a 4-5 WAR player is worth to get him, so our price is measured against what our competition is willing to give up, not what it costs the Brewers to give him up. Theoretically you’re right that they should be willing to trade him for less based on the value they expect from his replacement, but if the market dictates they get more (which it does), they have no reason to settle for less.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, it’s a pretty big leap from “Fangraphs says Fielder is a 4-5 WAR player” to “The Brewers are going to demand 4-5 WAR in return for Fielder.” Major-league teams generally don’t think that way. Instead, they think, “We need a lights-out closer” or “We need a third baseman and a lefty reliever with a combined salary of no more than $8 million” or “We need as many prospects as we can get.”
Well that’s why I didn’t say they’ll demand 4-5 WAR in return. I said they’ll demand what a player of Fielder’s caliber is worth, instead of taking a huge discount simply because they have another 1B they think can produce. And I’m open to the fact that Fielder’s value may be perceived somewhat differently than Fangraphs says it is, but my point is just if the Brewers think Fielder can fetch them 5 prospects of a given caliber, they’re not going to take less than that just because they have another 1B. They’re going to make a team pay that 5 prospects price.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, I’d say, like Evan, that I don’t think that’s really the way baseball people conceive trades. From Milwaukee’s perspective they’re probably thinking that this group they have isn’t quite good enough and they need to change something up. They’re thinking their pitching is killing them and their offense is sufficient, so they move from an area of relative surplus to cover and area of relative scarcity.
The thing about market value is that it’s defined by what the market is willing to pay, not by the inherent worth of the thing being purchased. The process you described sounds a whole lot like what the Twins did with Santana. I’d say if you went back and looked at the last dozen or so trades involving true superstars, the selling team very rarely gets back equal value for the player they give up. But there’s a lot of factors that go into trading guys and a lot of them are frankly irrational (we’re tired of this guy, or we need to change up this cast of characters being prime ones).
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Sufficient offense minus Fielder equals not good enough.
Flip it. The Brewers can fill plenty of needs for the Giants with players like Hardy, Hart and a couple quality minor league position players who are currently blocked. That’s a bonanza of 4 guys who are likely quality every day players, even potential repeat all stars. The price is Lincecum. The answer is going to be no. And my offer is one hell of a lot better than Wilson for Fielder.
I expect Hoffman to come back
They really aren’t that short in the bullpen. Fielder is hitting pretty well.
I would
Brewers wouldn’t. You’d have to throw in pretty much the entire SJ Giants, or Bumgarner to make it work.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
i doubt wilson madbum gets it done
wilson posey probably would. posey never plays anyway
I think, packaged with a prospect, we might be able to get a Ray for him (Upton or Crawford?)
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
Rays are too smart
to pay a premium for a reliever. I’d trade Wilson and a prospect (can’t think of any non-Posey, MadBum, Neal prospect anyone would want at the moment) for BJ Upton in a heartbeat
by NeifiChicken on Sep 24, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not a fan of Upton. I can’t for the life of me figure out why every analyst holds him in such high regard. Every time I see him play, or just look at his stats, I’m unimpressed
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
2009: The return of Los Galacticos!
by Useful_Idiot on Sep 24, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Really? Did you see what he did as a 22 year old in 2007? That’s the type of performance/age combination generally reserved for HoF’ers. He was actually even better last year – dramatically improved both his K-rate and BB-rate and saw an expected regression in BABIP. The only thing missing last year was his power, which seemed to be missing because of an injury. He really fell off the map this year, dunno what happened to him. Huge regression in K-rate and BB-rate, which is very alarming. Looking at his stats though it’s easy to see why people held him in such high regard – .300/.386/.508 out of a 22 year old CF’er? Wow.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
What’d Seattle get for Putz? I imagine that’d be a good starting point for what his market value is (we should get more than that, of course, because Wilson is better, younger, and healthier)…
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions
not at all
He was coming off an injury ridden season. To answer your question, though, it was a three way trade between the M’s, Mets, and Indians. The M’s got Franklin Gutierrez, Endy Chavez, Aaron Heilman, and Jason Vargas.
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
Well yeah, I did acknowledge we’d get more, I just think that’s a good baseline to start with, and we know to adjust it up…
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t be happy with that kind of package. We need quality, not quantity.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Doesn't everyone?
Really, is there any team that wants to trade an excellent player under cost control for a bunch of lesser guys? Or fans of any team that are for that trade?
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
Wilson won’t be traded for all the reasons above. Other teams aren’t going to trade a cleanup hitter for a closer, and Wilson is too good to be traded for anything else. The only way you get a cleanup hitter for Wilson is if it’s a prospect who winds up reaching his potential. Even then the best time for that is at the trade deadline, if some contender is having a crisis like the Phillies are having right now. In the offseason every thinks they can solve their problems with FA’s or non tenders.
No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you
You might be right, but I definitely think it’s a good idea to test the market to see what kind of value he has this offseason. For the right deal, we should trade Wilson.
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a market for wilson
1) A contending team that is desperate for bullpen help
2) A team that is cost conscious, needs a player for multiple years, and is ready to content now
3) A team that is wants to rid itself of impending free agent hitter that is too expensive
Tampa Bay
Florida
Both fits the bill.
Wilson for Uggla would have been an almost perfect trade, but we are hell bent on keeping Sanchez so Uggla has no place on this team. Wilson for Cantu? Seems overpaying. Wilson for Cody Ross? Uh……
Rumor out of Tampa is they are seriously considering not picking up Crawford’s option. If that is the case, they are better served to trade him than to simply let him walk. Wilson for Crawford is another almost perfect trade, where Crawford’s superior talent is offset by Wilson’s cheaper contract and years in control.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
I would be completely happy to trade Wilson for Crawford and let Romo or Affeldt take on the job. Sure, they’re worse (although Romo might still get better), but the improvement in the outfield would more than make up for the slight dropoff in the bullpen.
Agree completely. We need hitting a lot more than we need Wilson. Romo has a career 10.0 K/9 and 2.5 BB/9 in the majors. Those are great numbers. Affeldt has a 3.49 FIP and 4.04 tRA this season, also solid. We won’t be taking a huge step down from Wilson.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Uggla and Sanchez
Even if they are set on keeping Sanchez, which I don’t think they should, that shouldn’t keep them from pursuing Uggla. Sanchez has a history of playing a pretty good 3b, and Pablo needs to be moved to 1b.
I’d definitely be happy with an infield of 1b Pablo 2b Uggla SS Uribe 3b Sanchez.
3B Uggla, 2B Sanchez might be the better defensive alignment, but I dig the players.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Pablo
does not NEED to be moved to 1B. I really wish people would stop saying it, because it’s not true. He’ll probably need to be moved in a few years, but right now, he’s fine.
(BODY BIAS!)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I just watched him in person on wed in AZ and he NEEDS to be moved to 1b. Most decent to good thirdbasemen are going to get those two balls that passed by his glove hand. It looked like Pablo was in quicksand. He has UZR/150 of -8.2.
But hey, if he drops 20-30 lbs in the offseason, maybe his range improves also.
Too short for first.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Sep 25, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Needs moar Posey.
But I do agree that to be a really good third baseman he needs to drop about 40 pound and gain a step… his instincts, reaction time and arm strength are all there.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Sep 25, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Nerdiculous.
Nothing undermines the morale of a young team more than a bullpen that can’t hold a lead. SInce the Giants are going younger next year, knowing they have someone like Wilson anchoring the Bullpen will work to their psychological advantage.
i prefer the physical advantage of some, you know, hitters that can give the bullpen the lead.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
Athletes are emotional beings.
Feeling like they are going to lose makes them lose — a lot more often. Not having confidence in the bullpen leads to late-inning sloppiness as guys try to make spectacularly errant dives and throws to compensate.
Feeling like they are going to lose makes them lose — a lot more often. Not having confidence in the bullpen leads to late-inning sloppiness as guys try to make spectacularly errant dives and throws to compensate.
Does it, though? How do we know this?
To address your point about our bullpen, we do have a stock of decent bullpen arms, there’s a good argument we don’t really need Wilson…
by Missing Barry on Sep 24, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions
The bullpen is deep. Do you really think the guys have that much less confidence in Romo or Affeldt? (Um, especially after tonight.)
If Romo and Affeldt had their own TV show, maybe.
This was only the third HR surrendered by Wilson this season and the first since May 10. These were the first 2 runs charged to Wilson this September. His last blown save scoring a non-inherited runner was 9/7 against the Reds.
Romo and Wilson are close in proficiency, but Wilson has more innings and fatigue is not easy to quantify by looking at stats of a guy who has only done 32 innings and one who worked his 71st last night.
Wilson is better than them, that much we can all agree on. The point is just that Romo and Affeldt are both pretty good bullpen arms themselves, so we can afford to trade Wilson.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
And not even really sure (statwise) that Wilson is better than Romo.
by San Francisco Slim on Sep 25, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s pretty close.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
If that’s true, couldn’t it also be said that we can afford to trade Affeldt or Romo?
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Sep 25, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Definitely, I just think Wilson has a much higher trade value than the two fo them.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The Phillies, the Angels, the Tigers. Three out of the eight teams currently slated to make the postseason have closers that range from iffy to execrable.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
And doesn’t that really say volumes about why the concept of selling high on a closer (ie: trading Wilson now) is a good idea? 38% of the playoff teams don’t even have a good closer. How needed is Wilson to the Giants?
by San Francisco Slim on Sep 25, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
If they're going to make a run for it next year, they need a closer they can trust.
Rod Beck and Robb Nen were psychologically invaluable even during stretches when they were not as lights out as their reputation. The reputation of the closer affects the morale of the other team as well. Knowing an in his prime Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman is on the mound forces a lot of bad swings. If you were the Dodgers in 2004, would you rather see an adhoc closer like Hemanson out there or Robb Nen if you wanted to get a rally started?
Since there’s no way to know if the pitchers (aside from Tim, Matt, and Brian) will be as stingy with runs next year as this year, the Giants need to know they have a reliable anchor in the bullpen. Only if the pitching is great and the hitting is much improved, does B-Weezy become expendable (meaning Romo or Runzler or whoever has to be even better next season). 2010 would be one season too early to consider trading Wilson.
You’re very, very, very into pyschological factors, none of which have any evidence that they have any impact on performance at all. I’m not sure why you believe so strongly that these things have an effect on the outcome of games? For instance:
If you were the Dodgers in 2004, would you rather see an adhoc closer like Hemanson out there or Robb Nen if you wanted to get a rally started?
If you were the Dodgers in 2004, you have a better chance of beating Hermanson than Nen for the simple reason that Nen was better than Hermanson. It can be shown pretty conclusively that any difference in the Dodgers performance is explained simply by the fact that Hermanson < Nen.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m going to tell you they may feel a certain way, but when it comes to how they actually perform, it has no effect on their end result.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
To use your example, yes they are superstitious. A lot of them wear that titanium necklace crap that “increases energy”. It does not increase energy. It has 0 impact on their performance. It simply feeds their superstition, nothing more, nothing less. Most of the mental part of the game yourself and many others talk about ends up having no actual impact on the results, even if it does have an impact on how someone feels.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
You only think that because you've never played a competitive sport.
You are thinking out of your ass.
Take the phenomenon of Momentum for example.
“Momentum” is a mythical asset, yet in a game situation, it’s something you can FEEL. It’s like a psychic experience. At some point you can feel the momentum lurching toward one side or the other and it will affect performance.
I played college lacrosse and...
… the only time I experienced what you describe is when I ate too many mushrooms.
Sorry capn, but I gotta go with him here. Lacrosse is a joke.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
have you ever seen a game live? it is pretty spectacular. and I played high school football. the team my senior year was in the USA Today top 25 so it was real football. The hits I took on the lacrosse field were much worse than anything I ever saw in football. It is a very rough sport (and really fun to play).
Well, I guess I wasn’t necessarily agreeing it’s a woman’s sport, just that I think it’s a dumb sport.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
dumb is kind of vague. honestly, I am not a lacrosse evangelist. I just highly recommend that you see a high-level game sometime before really writing it off.
Yeah, it’s meant to be vague, I just don’t like lacrosse.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah yes, because you know me so you know I’ve never played a competetive sport.
I love how your examples tend to be things that have actually been disproven (well not really disproven as much as shown there is no evidence they exist). Momentum is simply random variation, there’s no actual evidence it’s any more than that. Basically, the concept of momentum is similar to flipping a coin and getting heads 5 times in a row. Yes, it happens, but it doesn’t actually change the probability of getting heads on the 6th flip.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Momentum is like faith healing or cold reading.
It’s total bullshit, but it feels like something that might be real at the moment.
Sure, I don’t have any objection to that. My objection is to the fact that momentum affects the results. It’s really not that hard to do a study on this sort of thing, and people do it, and can’t find any evidence momentum affects results.
I’m beginning to come up with a theory on you hokykmksbw. I think you’re an emotional trainwreck and you naturally assume everyone else is just like you. Thoughts?
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
So you’re arguing that mental state has no effect on physical performance?
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Sep 25, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Close. The argument is that at the major league level, mental factors don’t affect physical performance in any signfiicant way. Evidence includes the fact that “clutch hitting” doesn’t exist, hot streaks don’t exist (they’re simply expected random variation), good relief pitchers do, in fact, make good closers (the closer mentality is basically a myth), lineup protection doesn’t exist…
Most of the “mental” part of the game are explanations given for why something happened after the fact. Momentum seems to exist after you see it happen, but what you don’t realize is all the times the “momentum” was building and you got the opposite results – that is, it’s basically confirmation bias for the times you the results you expect from “momentum” and you ignore the times you don’t. This isn’t a criticism of you or people in general, it’s just how we function and remember things.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not going to give an opinion on whether or not it affects other levels (I do not know). I can see that as a possibility, though.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s where I get lost in this debate. If I put myself in their shoes, I can’t comprehend how professionals wouldn’t be affected by pressures because I, as an amature, am affected by pressure when I play sports.
Well that’s one problem, when it comes to playing their particular sport, professional athletes are not representative of the rest of us. It may be just to make it to the majors requires a level of focus that drowns pressure out. It may be that they just deal with “pressure situations” so often it doesn’t phase them anymore. Pitching in front of 30,000+ people for the first time in your MLB career is pressure – if you can’t cut it then you probably won’t ever get a shot at a real pressure situation. Conversely, for so-called “clutch players”, if there were capable of raising their performance simply at will, why would they not always play at that level?
I also have questions as to whether or not it affects amateurs like us as much as we think it might. I suspect some of the affect is simply confirmation bias. I do not know much about the subject, though.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Whoops, forgot to end my italics. Oh well…
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I did come across this article recently while doing some stuff for my job…
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Only the non-Nerds.
I think you’re an emotional trainwreck and you naturally assume everyone else is just like you.
And other crazy Army vets.
I have a new theory. You are Brian Sabean.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Sabes was a GI?
You can’t fire that guy, America loves her veterans!
(Unless we get sick or go to prison)
I’d love to play a game of poker with you. People like you are how professional gamblers are made.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
2004 was a very interesting year...
The giants won 91 games and finished 2 back of LA. They also had a horrid bullpen and had saves in only 62% of the 74 save opps (they blew 28 saves). League average was 65% that year, so if they were even average, they end up with 2 more wins and tie the Dodgers. This year, the league average is again 65% and while the opportunities are fewer (worse offense- better SP and more CG), they have thus far saved 39/55 chances or 71%. I guess what I am saying is that if you could trade an above average closer for a league average closer, but in doing so, improve the run production, you do that.
What constitutes a League Average Closer?
A closer with 3-run leads is going convert more than closers who only have mostly 1-run leads. The guys who actually played with Wilson when he worked those 3 scoreless innings in Colorado will remember that next year better than the aberrant choke last night. Reputation counts.
These aren’t stat-crunching nerds playing these games. They are aware of stats but have a different more emotional perspective since they experienced those events in terms of personal experience.
Dude the Giants had no closer in 2004 and still nearly won the division. I think you are probably over-estimating the importance of major league athletes needing a blankie…
If we had better pitchers in the bullpen overall, we would have won.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Reputation can be performance.
Or vice-versa.
A reputable pitcher will more likely get close pitches for called strikes.
Will they, though? Can you look at a pitch F/X database and determine there’s a correlation between performance and getting questionable strike calls? You have a lot of claims with no evidence…
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
You don't really have evidence it's not true.
But it is generally witnesse that a Tom Glavine would get calls that a Shawn Estes would not.
I will give you the fact that I’ve never read a study on this particular subject. It could be true. I don’t have evidence against it. I personally will not buy it until I see evidence for it, though. We do have the data to find out whether or not it’s true…
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Hermanson had two major chokes at the "close" of 2004
The infamous walkathon in LA and a 9/23 meltdown vs Astros at home.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN200409230.shtml
Hermanson had also pitched about billion games in a row before that game.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Re: Astros game -- had not pitched since 9/19
The 10/2 game in LA was his 5th in a row and 9/29 was a loss to SD.
These aren’t stat-crunching nerds playing these games.
Brian Bannister disagrees.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The guys who actually played with Wilson when he worked those 3 scoreless innings in Colorado will remember that next year better than the aberrant choke last night. Reputation counts.
Good point. What does it count for, though. Can you show it lead to an actual change in performance?
(PS, I know the answer to that question already, it’s no)
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/08/07/max-scherzer-is-a-stats-geek/
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Serves ya right, Geek!
Of course, as Scherzer himself notes, all of this only takes a pitcher so far. Despite all of the data available on Arizona’s four previous games against the Pirates, in which the D’Backs pitching held Pittsburgh to three runs, Scherzer gave up five runs in just 5 1/3 innings last night, partially because of the four walks he issued. No amount of study can help a guy if he doesn’t throw strikes.
Yeah, strikes are important. That’s a stat that shows up in the scoresheet and is very prominent in how we determine good pitchers, by the way…
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Stat awareness should make him pitch better!
Knowing is half the battle, isn’t it?
Stats say a major league pitcher should be able to throw a strike when he wants to, but that isn’t always the case. Thus the problem is either mechanical or mental. And this nerd was obviously mental.
Or maybe stats saying throwing a sttrike is actually a difficult thing to do, or else pitchers would never walk anyone?
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
They walk people because they fear giving hits
One has to be totally off mechanically (physical defect) or mentally not to be able to throw a strike. Usually it’s mental.
You got me! Us stat-nerds have always been against throwing strikes! We much prefer wild pitches.
Unbelievable.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Nen’s “psychological” edge wasn’t worth squat when he became too injured to pitch effectively in the 2002 postseason. It’s all about performance.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
You're not thinking like an athlete.
You are thinking like a NERD!
And a senile one at that.
Nen allowed exactly 1 run in a 2002 postseason in which he finished 9 games with 7 saves.
Uh, did you even watch the World Series? The guy had nothing left in those last few games.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Nen got by on his reputation.
The batters kept thinking they were up against a 100% Nen and swung accordingly.
1 BB and 2 Hits in 3 innings of 3 games — 3 K and ZERO runs allowed.
Nen was throwing a FB in the low 80's by the end of the WS...
And was horrid! And lest you forget, he blew the save in game 6.
then K'd 2 of the next 3 dudes...
sandwiched a groundout
Even a healthy Nen had problems with inherited runners and he came into a 2 RISP and 0 out game against Troy Glaus.
Also…he met the curse of the Rally Monkey
The nerd community has dismissed rotorueter as well.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
I would gladly do this deal
But in fantasyland, can I have a pony as well?
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.
Of course!
In fantasyland, you can always have a pony. (One of the all-time great blog posts.)
The problem with trading Wilson
Is that, except maybe the Mets (and they alrady have one), no other team in baseball is going to put as much trade value on a closer as the Giants.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Make that trade in a second.
Maybe milwaukee can no longer afford fielder.
Did everyone just miss the boat when the Brewers owner said a few weeks ago that they won’t be trading Prince Fielder? Or does just nobody take him seriously?
It’s a slightly different situation, but the Brewers maintained the exact line when they were shopping Overbay in order to create a spot for Fielder in the first place.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
Melvin has made statements roughly equivalent to he’d trade anyone if the deal was right. I’m sure the Giants could consumate a deal for Fielder tomorrow, but McC world would explode in fury at what it would take to get done.
Attanasio is the owner though, not the GM. Fielder wins games and makes money. Personally I hope they keep him till the trade deadline in 2011 and that’s assuming they’re not contending.
Winning is much, much, much, much, much more important than star players when it comes to fan interest….
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I was using fan interest as a proxy for revenue….
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Now you’re talking about a completely different subject – the market a team plays in. The thing is, that market is the same no matter the conditions, so why worry about it? Having a superstar and winning are both subjected to those same conditions. The point is winning is the driving force in increasing a teams revenues.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
My point was Star Players pay for themselves.
Meaning YOU changed the subject.
Attendance is the primary factor in deciding how much money a team makes, but having a star player defrays the cost through merchandising. Fans in other ballparks are also more likely to buy a ticket if they think a Sammy Sosa is playing against the home team than if they think a Tony Gwynn is playing.
Show me a team full of power/speed guys who, as a team are below .500, and I’ll show you a team that isn’t selling enough merchandise.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
The Braves were a crap team while Hank Aaron was selling chocolate.
Oh, Henry! was much better than either Reggie or Ken Griffey, Jr. bars.
The team can exploit top players for side revenue even when the teams aren’t doing well at the turnstile. But you need a player with a gimmick. HR, SBs (or Ks if one is pitcher) draw the best attention.
I hate to bring out this old chestnut, but:
I work in baseball. That isn’t how it works.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
The question is...
How much merchandise can a winning team with no star players move compared to a losing team with a 40-homer guy outside the local market?
Well, that’s hard to answer since winning teams tend to have star players. You’ll have to compare losers with even worse losers. I’ll hazard a guess that AZ will make more money from Mark Reynolds stuff than Pittsburgh will from any 3 guys on the roster.
One can win a championship and still have poor attendance.
1971-75 Oakland A’s
Attendance: 914,993 (7th of 12)
Attendance: 921,323 (5th of 12)
Attendance: 1,000,763 (8th of 12)
Attendance: 845,693 (11th of 12)
Attendance: 1,075,518 (6th of 12)
On the flip-side
1992 Los Angeles Dodgers
63-99, Finished 6th in NL West
Attendance: 2,473,266 (2nd of 12)
It helps to be in one of the most populous and busy metropolitan areas in the world.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
On the flip-side 2
1992 California Angels
72-90, Finished 5th in AL West
Attendance: 2,065,444 (8th of 14)
And your point? If they were losing with a “superstar” their attendance would be even worse.
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Wilson is about to hit the Giants for a huge raise in arbitration,
and frankly, he isn’t worth the $4-6 million he’s about to get for 2010. Too many blown saves, and too limited an arsenal. A deal with the Brewers won’t happen, but there are teams that can afford Wilson at that price who may want to move a player back our way who can fill a need of ours.
Responsible for the last great homegrown Giants team.
Suppose the Giants actually traded Wilson
Can you even imagine the hammering they’d take in the media? Giving up their All-Star Proven Closer and starting a rookie catcher on a supposed contender would be blaspheme against mainstream sports media groupthink. Every half-assed pundit from KNBR to ESPN 8 would ravage Sabean mercilessly. It would probably be a bigger obstacle to Sabean’s continued employment than all his bad signings combined.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Eh, I think even the mainstream sports idiots realize how desperately we need offense. If we traded Wilson for prospects, I could definitely see that, but if he was part of a deal that landed us a much needed bat, I think most people would see the reasoning behind it. Let’s hope it’s another GM making that trade, though!
by Missing Barry on Sep 25, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
That's nothing
compared to the beating Sabean is currently taking on McCovey Chronicles, which has him scared for his life!
by San Francisco Slim on Sep 25, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s a little different when said rookie catcher is one of the top prospects in all of baseball.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Wilson might get JJ Hardy in return
I’ll gladly take that despite Hardy’s slumping 09, but I think the Brewers need solid SPs more so than a CL.
Hey BWeez, how’d you like to start a few games this homestand?
Win the inning.
i think we could get a lot more than jj hardy for wilson
of course, you could argue that a 100% hardy is worth wilson, but…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
