Comments on: First Pitch: Are the Free Agent Deals Really That Crazy?

By: wkkortas

wkkortas — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:57:21 +0000

Littlefield sprained a finger on several occasions while using his abacus.

By: leadoff

leadoff — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:52:39 +0000

IMO, “WAR” is not a good enough barometer to determine value to a team, “WAR” needs a range and not an absolute, you can’t give Jones a 1.9 “WAR” and Barmes a 1.7 “WAR” and tell me that they are equal. They have totally different values to the Pirates, Jones is a part time player, but with power, Barmes is a full time SS, much more valuable to the Pirates. Barmes and Martin are the keys to the defense, without them the pitching goes downhill, the old adage keep yourself strong up the middle does mean something. If you are paying big money for strength, go for it. Forget the “WAR”, pay for talent.
If it were me I would have a +/- “WAR”. For example Jones might be a 1.5 to 2.5 “WAR” adding in a factor of how much value he would be to a certain team. In other words for the Pirates he could be a 2.5 “WAR” because of his power importance, for the Yankees he might have dropped to a 1.5 “WAR” because his power is not as important, his bench prowess might be his strength.
The Giants paid 40mil for Pagan, speed might have been the primary talent that he has that the Giants want, there is no “WAR” for speed alone, so the numbers that make up his “WAR” numbers are pretty much useless to the Giants.

By: leadoff

leadoff — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:32:18 +0000

I totally agree, common sense and a scouts keen eye are on the backburner, the computer has taken over sports and looks at players like they are robots, this one has the 460 heart, he can run to first in 4.4 seconds. this one is the 450, he can run to first in 4.3 seconds, so the 450 is worth a mil more, of course the 460 can do everything else better, but!
I also agree that our GM has his head to deep into computers, but all the rest of the GM’s do the same thing.
Having said this I wonder if Littlefield used a computer?

By: wkkortas

wkkortas — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:48:10 +0000

I don’t think the metric itself is the problem, but the equation comes with some caveats–and Tim addresses some of these. One thing is that the WAR figures are backward-facing, and look at what the player has done. In Victorino’s case, 2012 was a pretty fair step down from the average figure, and if that’s the new normal for him or he slides a bit more from the 2012 performance, then his contract doesn’t give you value. If he can play like the 2010-2011 version of himself, that’s not a bad contract. I’d agree with you that he’s not worth the deal, but that’s because he’s a smallish guy who beats up his body pretty heavily and might not age well–but that isn’t the metric’s fault.

By: IC Bob

IC Bob — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:11:51 +0000

I agree. This really shows how flawed the WAR metric is. I also doesn’t take into account that Victorino received a diet of fastballs because no one wanted to face Utley or Howard. For players like Hamilton WAR doesn’t take into account how often they pitch around him or how often the guy in front of them gets a juicy fastball to tatoo. Also WAR doesn’t take into effect whether a guy played through an injury (Howard for Philly last year).

Additionally you mentioned Pagans ability to get 600 ABs. He may have done well recently but his first 7 years were littered with injuries. I would never count on a player like him to play anymore then 125 games. Victorino when given the chance to prove himself without Howard or Utley behind him laid a big fat egg.

This is the problem with relying so much on WAR and other metrics when looking at ballplayers. Their is a place for them but as a GM you have to understand some of the driving forces behind the results.

Sometimes I wonder if our GM has his head so deep into his computer he fails to look at why the numbers are where they are at.

By: TonyPenaforHOF

TonyPenaforHOF — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:12:55 +0000

Excellent article!

By: Joe Sweetnich

Joe Sweetnich — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:10:34 +0000

Sorry Tim. But any metric that tells me that Shane Victorino is worth $13mm per is a flawed metric.