Reactions to the Astros' transactions, by the numbers
There are a few sources that I trust and value for their penchant/availability for sabermetric insight/resources. It's no secret that TCB has a sabr-slant with a streak of Astros-homerism mixed in as well. I imagine that such is the plight for an sabr-fan. Not surprisingly, the Astros have taken a beating this week in the majority of the places I referenced, but there have been a few that shrugged their shoulders with relative indifference, possibly bordering on distanced approval.
In spite of my professed sabr-leanings, as I'm sure you've gathered, I'm prone to a more subjective gut reaction that I'll then cloud with number's based evidence, and roll from there. Eventually, the emotions will die down, and I'll filter through all the statistical evidence (Usually clack will do that for me off the bat. Clack is like my sabr-fan sensei.). Consider this post a post-moretum recap from the various statistical voices who have either denounced or did not denounce (I really don't think anyone truly approved of any deal, just couldn't find a strong reason to disapprove).
I'll break the reactions down by three categories: The Indifferent, the bad, and the ugly, but move in reverse order. After the jump
The Ugly:
Per usual, the pundits at Fan Graphs didn't hesitate to lambast one of their favorite whipping boys: Ed Wade. Dave Cameron called Brandon Lyon's signing the worst of the winter, citing luck inflated stats, mediocre FIP, and value that won't match his contract. Below, Zach Levine takes him to task, and clack has already fleshed out the weaknesses of Cameron's argument here in a few places. Matthew Carruth also decreed the Pedro Feliz signing as terrible, reasoning:
Whether their arguments resonante as truth, depends on how much faith you want to put in the numbers that they cite. While I initially was on board with Lyon as being a miserable signing, I've backed off that stance since, and I never saw the Feliz deal in such a negative light. There's a certain level of sabr-dogmatism that seems to filter through these two assessments of the Ed Wade's moves from the week and that's never a healthy approach.
It should be noted that Fan Graphs did approve of the Matt Lindstrom signing at the time.
The Bad:
Beyond the Box Score didn't exactly crucify Ed Wade like Cameron and Carruth did at Fan Graphs, but they were far from giving Ed Wade credit. They were able to read positives into all three transactions of the week, but also a lot to cringe at, too. While caustic of the Lyon signing, they approved of the Lindstrom deal, and could, in the end, see some positive in the Feliz signing.
Zach Levine crunched the numbers that Cameron cited for Lyon and came to a far more neutral assessment of Lyon's penchant to produce for the Astros. Levine pretty much sees the potential for upside in all three of the Astros transactions the week, but can't find a lot to smile at, either. Reading through his summary of the transaction, I glean a disapproval, but nowhere is their the vitriol that Fan Graphs ladled on the deals:
Levine kind of straddles both the Bad and the Indifferent, but I feel like he sits more in the Bad camp than the Indifferent.
The Indifferent:
Professor of economics, JC Bradbury is currently at work on a book about the Hot Stove. He's already published on book on economics and baseball, too. So when he renders an opinion on the matters of player valuation, my ear's perk up. Bradbury, of all the sabr-slanted writers I've read, came the closest of any to giving a implicit seal of approval to Ed Wade's deals.
For both Lyon and Feliz, Bradbury believes the Astros will actually garner surplus value from the contracts. For Lyon, he even stated that the deal seems right. Not that it's a good deal, but that price tag fits the purchase. Feliz, the same thing.
Finally, Fan Graphs did like the Lindstrom signing, so I'll tally it in the Good.
***********
There are more links that could fit in the bad and the ugly categories, but they would just be repetitions of the same arguments—basically. We've already noted all the relevant projections for all the players that will soon be donning an Astros uniform here, and in all it looks like this week has resulted in a marginally improved baseball team (if you consider the fact that the Astros couldn't afford to hold onto Valverde and Tejada). Does this mean Ed Wade did a good job this week? As fans, we seem to be leaning towards the indifferent to bad categories. Considering that Ed Wade had a limited budget, little chance of gaining premium pieces, has upgraded the defense, and at least filled the bull pen with average to slightly above-average relievers for around $11.5 million in extra spending, I don't think the week was ugly.
Whether it was bad or indifferent, though, is hard to say—at least by the numbers. Arguments can be made for either cause, it just depends on how you want to spin it: As a sabr-slanted observer, or as a fan looking for hope in 2010.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Comments
Look, there are legitimate criticisms to be made of Wade; I’ve criticized him, myself. But when I read some of these rants from the sabermetric community (the Cameron article as a good example), I get the impression that the vitriol and prejudgement toward Ed Wade biases the analysis.
Rob Neyer quoted Cameron’s blast at Wade, and then added his own thought that evidence of Wade’s incompetence is the 200-some run differential for the Astros teams over the last four years. Now I usually like Neyer. But check your facts on when Ed Wade began running the Astros if you are going to try the attack game. How can Ed Wade be held responsible for runs scored and allowed two years before he joined the organization?
The Fangraphs’ article which criticized the Feliz signing failed to note that Wade paid Feliz $1.2 million less than Fangraphs’ WAR says he is worth. Apparently the prevailing view is that Wade shouldn’t do anything to improve the team unless the move puts the team in contention for a division title.
That same criticism isn’t levied when saber-friendly GMs do what Wade is doing. Billy Bean signed/traded for veteran players last year even though the team wasn’t going anywhere with a rookie-laden pitching staff. Bean explained why: the veteran players give the young pitchers confidence and allow them to stay in games longer, particularly with their defense. I think Wade’s effort to improve the defense and provide veteran support will help the young pitchers (like Norris, Paulino, Gervacio, Arias) develop and improve.
by clack on Dec 11, 2009 12:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Fangraphs’ article which criticized the Feliz signing failed to note that Wade paid Feliz $1.2 million less than Fangraphs’ WAR says he is worth. Apparently the prevailing view is that Wade shouldn’t do anything to improve the team unless the move puts the team in contention for a division title.
I think the implication is more that Wade should be trading away players for prospects and rebuilding. The thing is this is just a routine response to any team that is old and mediocre and it doesn’t take into account the realities of the team’s situation. We are completely incapable of trading Lee and Matsui, for instance, and it would be difficult to trade Berkman and Oswalt, who are also considered franchise players and would enrage the fanbase if they were traded.
The Astros are pretty much stuck. I would like to see more focus on younger players instead of patching with veterans like Feliz, but I can see the argument for providing stability around the young players you have—the Astros can’t afford to become the Pirates.
by OremLK on Dec 11, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its a routine response
It seems more for any team that a writer doesn’t like. Guys like Neyer probably look on the Astros as an irritating obligation.
As you say, reality isn’t a requirement. What I like is that they’ll trash a player at one point and then come back later and wonder why he hasn’t been flipped for a treasure trove.
And then there is the fetish for changing positions…
by ol Pete on Dec 12, 2009 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't pay a player for what he has done
You are supposed to pay a player for what he will give you. If 2009 Pedro Feliz is what you get, then sure its an ok signing, but chances are 2010 Feliz won’t be as good.
by njd.aitken on Dec 12, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Projection systems seem to think his offense will be slightly better than last year. ZIPS projects an OPS which is 1 points higher than last year, CHONE projects an OPS 10 points higher than last year, and Bill James projects an OPS 3 points higher.
by clack on Dec 12, 2009 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Picture comment
Did the Matsui contract not cause the same kind of reaction?
by timmy_ on Dec 11, 2009 7:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think so
I stayed postive on Matsui since Astros needed a second baseman who could hit and run.
I don’t see the need for Lyons.
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 11, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My take on Lyon
At $5 million, he will be the fifh highest salary on the Astros (or thereabouts)
After paying for the big four (Lee, Berkman, Oswalt, Matsui), Astros have about $45 million budget to pay for 21 players. Lyon gets 11% of that budget. I cannot see how he will pitch enough in critical situations to be that valuable to the team
I can make a similar case about Feliz, especially if he is relegated to Blum’s or Johnson’s backup.
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 11, 2009 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure Feliz is intended to be the starting third baseman, so it will be the other way around. Geoff Blum ($1.5MM) will be his backup.
by OremLK on Dec 11, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see
I assumed it is Feliz’s to lose (though Iread Johnson may win it in spring training – I had assumed Johnson was to be back in Round Rock, which may not be the case).
Based on Feliz’s age and steadily declining numbers, I can foresee Blum (or Johnson) starting more games during the season.
We’ll see.
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 11, 2009 11:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The more pre-arbitration players who are starters or significant contributors (e.g., Norris, Paulino, Manzella, Arias), and make a lot less than their contribution warrants, the more feasible it is for the Astros to pay a set up man that percentage of the remaining salary amount. That is an advantage of using pre-arbitration players—it allows the team to spend more on free agents.
by clack on Dec 11, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct . . . . . . . . but
right now I find it hard imagining myself saying in July, "I sure am glad Astros signed Lyon. He’s worth every penny of that five million dollars ($15 millon) "
On the other hand, I sure hope I will post those two sentences!
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 11, 2009 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
I am a week into grading exams and am overly critical of everytihng so don’t go by me.
Astros fan for life
by Joe in Birmingham on Dec 11, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sabr-blogging fatigue factor
Maybe it’s just due to getting older, but I’m getting tired of the tone of a lot of the sabermetric bloggers. I’ve been reading Bill James et al. since the early 80s, and I think Sabermetrics is the most interesting thing to happen to my understanding of and enthusiasm for baseball in those 25-plus years, by far. But the blogosphere rhetoric of these guys has a sort of “look at me,” polemics-driven heat that is increasingly tiresome. Of course, that last sentence could apply to all sorts of blogging in other areas nowadays where generally the implicit tenor seems to be something along the lines of: all infobabble is infobabble, so if you’ve chosen to read mine, you must be a part of my choir, etc., and if you don’t agree, you’re obviously an idiot, etc., etc.
Someone was commenting a couple of weeks ago about Joe Sheehan and his tone. I can’t stand watching the guy on TV, or reading him. I don’t care HOW much he knows. That mp3 a week or so ago with Keith Law on the phone responding to those local St. Louis sports-talk radio jocks about his Cy Young vote—gawd, who wants to listen to an arrogant jerk talk down to kneejerk homers? It was like eavesdropping on an eternal conversation taking place in a special little corner of hell. Law was in a position there to do a little educating, bringing people along a bit so that they realize it’s not always “either/or” in sports (i.e., “Carpenter had a great year and is a great pitcher, AND nonetheless he didn’t quite earn the Cy Young IMO, and here are some reasons why”), or nudging them into seeing the sport from the perspective of a broader, less cliche-laden frame of reference—but he obviously is way too important to have to do something as pedestrian as that. How lovely for him. I thought those blowhard sportstalk jocks by and large were pretty civil with him depite his arrogance. Sabr-talk has just changed a lot. Half the reason I so looked forward to reading Bill James every year was because the guy was so damn funny. Remember? There’s no humor in this stuff anymore.
In other words, beating people over the head with information just to prove you’re right and they’re not is to me a pretty sterile phenomenon. True genius is using the information to persuade people, getting them to expand their horizons a bit, which in turn makes other such expansions possible down the road (at least among those capable of such mental perturbations). In the defense of the know-it-alls, I’m sure it gets super-tiresome dealing with the mentally incapable, of which there are plenty in the world of sports fandom. But if you’re in this business to grow awareness of the beauty of baseball, then you need to be patient, and have several different tacks of response ready to switch to on a dime, depending on who you’re talking to/how receptive they may or may not be. Conversely, if you’re just in it for yourself, then go ahead and blow everyone out of the water whenever anyone poses a question that is anything short of fawning. That econ professor that was mentioned—for example, that’s a guy who obviously has spent a serious amount of time over the years (if he’s any good in the classroom) at bringing people along with what he’s trying to get across, and not just browbeating the students over their lack of knowledge. it’s all about wearing your knowledge lightly instead of using it as a blunt-force trauma instrument. You get better results with the former—the ancient Greek rhetoricians figured this out, ohh, about several thousand years ago, right?!;-) The flow of info has changed a lot since then, obviously, but human nature has not. Plus, we are not yet biologically wired for info flow 24/7, even if the technology makes it possible, and we are not going to evolve to that level of efficient info-processing any time soon—maybe in a few millennia?!
Which brings me to my point. (I promise;-) People popping off within minutes and hours, from a 24/7 national perspective, from prefabricated opinions about GMs, etc. and readily accessible sabr-based conclusions about every which transaction, like Mel Kiper extemporizing on the spot about some unexpected draft pick—I mean, WHO CARES what they think? Their perspective is so narrow, and purely of the moment. Running a baseball club is more than a paper exercise based purely on stat-juggling and mathematics-based projections. We can’t get rid of some players or, as was insinuated, MMP would become like the Pirates’ beautiful-but-empty band box. Much as McLane drives me nuts, we have to work things through a real-world scenario of his crafting, whether we like it or not. It’s real, and has to be accounted for—the owner can’t be traded, or compelled to leave the scene of the crime. For someone on a national blog site, none of this is their concern, because: (a) they are not really fans of that team, and (b) they’re in all this for themselves, to make a name for themselves. Their rhetoric is sterile to a significant degree.
The use of sabr-based perspectives on a site like THIS, though, is far from sterile—because we all CARE about the site’s subject matter, and we watch all the games. The opinions of a self-important expert, out to promote themselves, opining about a team they don’t follow day-to-day, is ultimately sterile—some heuristic value, yes, but ultimately sterile. A FAN utilizing such analytical tools to understand THEIR team, in all of its nuances, is a whole different thing—and when they voluntarily share it with other like-minded fans, and ask for our feedback/response!—well, that’s a beautful thing indeed. THAT’S a productive and enlightening use of information, and I’ve learned a lot just by lurking about and reading what you guys have produced. Rany Jazayerli’s rant last off-season about the overspending of the Royals on replacement-player-quality players—that was great to read, because he really CARES about the Royals. It was not sterile, “look at me” rhetoric; he was COMPELLED to write what he did out of true despair and anger, and to apply his understanding of sabermetrics to HIS team. Folks who think they can understand ALL the inner workings of all MLB franchises and aren’t getting paid good bucks to do so need to get a life, IMO. Beyond an occasional, slight bit of heuristic perspective-tweaking, at best provisional, I don’t CARE what they think.
Sorry this took so long—I needed to vent more than I thought, I guess. Thanks for your patience.
by va que va on Dec 11, 2009 9:58 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
Well done, sir
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Dec 12, 2009 9:55 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Sheehan bothers me for a variety of reasons,
but first and foremost is an overall dearth of real analysis. It has seemed to me that SABR-style writers have, over the course of the past few years, used less of their creative and rational faculties when writing about pro baseball, instead relying upon preconceived narratives about their subjects. Sheehan (and his ilk) is clearly an intelligent, skilled baseball analyst, but it doesn’t seem like he’s actually using those abilities.
Frankly, this strikes me as odd, given sabermetrics’ history and its point – it is ultimately the most creative method we’ve developed to look at baseball, after all. Maybe it’s because we’re just running out of things to look at: every offensive contribution on the field is perfectly valued at this point, we have pretty good (though by no means perfect) models for defense, and all that’s left is the Pitch f/x stuff. In twenty years, after we have enough data accumulated, there’s a good chance that baseball will be totally and perfectly modeled and valued by advanced statistics. Hooray.
So maybe certainty breeds complacency. Sheehan and Co. assume that they know what’s going on, when their own biases (and the fact that baseball stats aren’t quite perfect yet) obscure reality.
The other side of that coin is the fact is that we really do know quite a bit about a lot of things in baseball. So when Keith Law goes on a radio show, mentions advanced stats (and, look, we’ve gotten to the point that WARP and the logical supposition that a win in June is as valuable as a win in September is in no way “advanced”), and gets shouted down and accused of not watching baseball, I agree with him when he treats them like the dumbshits that they are. Maybe that drives some potential fans of sabermetrics away, but I sincerely doubt it. As condescending and abrasive as Sheehan, FJM, etc. can be, they are in no way as condescending, abrasive, and closed-minded as most other sportswriters.
by Only_A_Lad on Dec 12, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
On one of the BBTF threads a few days ago (I think it was a comment on a BP article praising the Nats’ signing of Pudge because of the intangibles he brings to the team), someone said that they had ended their subscription to Baseball Prospectus because the articles had become more about the authors’ subjective opinon rather than a stats-based assessment of players/events, etc. The commenter said that they had originally subscribed to BP because it was purely stats-based, and he goes to other sources (like ESPN writers) when he wants subjective analysis of baseball news. That opened up some other comments in the thread, about how the changing landscape of baseball sports web sites—with more competing web sites with advanced stats, and major corporation entering the market a BP competitors—may have led BP to change the business model and target audience somewhat.
by clack on Dec 12, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it was Joe Posnanski
who wrote on his blog once that statistics can be manipulated in a variety of ways to prove a point. I can use one statistic to prove my point, yet someone who has the opposite opinion can use a statistic to prove their point. So I think it’s always good to take people’s analysis with a grain of salt. Essentially that is what the core of sabermetrics is about, to question and find a deeper understanding of baseball.
by timmy_ on Dec 14, 2009 8:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW...Heyman calls Astros a "winner" at winter meetings....
SI’s Heyman has a list of winners and losers from the winter meetings, and puts the Astros on the winners list. I mostly mention this as a curiosity. Heyman says the Lyon signing was an overpay, but that the reliever makes the Astros “better.” He calls Feliz “reliable” and at a “very reasonable” price.
by clack on Dec 12, 2009 12:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I tend to stay away from Heyman articles.
by timmy_ on Dec 14, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I find really weird about this
(though I shouldn’t be, given that this is exactly what happened with Kepp and Drew Sutton last season), is that the Feliz signing has been criticized for blocking “one of the Astros’ best prospects” in Chris Johnson.
So the Astros obviously have a terrible farm system and virtually all of the upper-level players suck, but, at the same time, Chris Johnson is just waiting for a shot so he can become a real contributor to the team.
Now, I really don’t believe in Chris Johnson. He can’t walk, can’t hit for average, and I’ve heard so many conflicting reports about his defense that I don’t know what to believe. And if he can’t do those things in AAA, I don’t think he’ll be able to do them against major league pitchers. At best, at very best, Johnson translates his skills into being a Pedro Feliz -type player: low OBP, high slugging cornerman with good defense. But the track record for low-avg, low-bb% players is not a good one (for obvious reasons).
by Only_A_Lad on Dec 12, 2009 2:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t get that criticism at all. I believe that Johnson still has a chance at being a productive big leaguer, but he needs work on his plate discipline first. Worst case he tears the cover off the ball at AAA and forces the team to call him up, in which case we could trade Feliz or Keppinger and use the other as a utility infielder/bat off bench. I don’t see this blocking Johnson. It’s not a multi-year deal.
by OremLK on Dec 12, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, I’m not worried about blocking Chris Johnson, mostly for the reasons suggested by Only_A_Lad, namely that a player with his profile is unlikely to succeed in the majors. I think Chris Johnson has a good arm, but the rest of his defense is a work in progress. TotalZone indicates that he is a below average defensive 3d baseman: -13 runs/150 at Corpus in 2008 and -2 runs/150 at Round Rock in 2009. If Chris Johnson turns things around with another season in Round Rock, that would be a welcome surprise, but I’m not counting on it.
by clack on Dec 12, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















