Posted by dedelman on 1/29/2019 11:51:00 AM (view original):
To take Vasquez's defense and put it into and offensive context for easy comparison:
On defense, Vasquez turns about 22 singles/140 games into outs, compared to Belliard.

Add those singles to a typical Vasquez offensive season--take his defense and make it into offense-- and he becomes about a .305/.360/.350 hitter.
Belliard's career slash line: .270/.340/.510.

Belliard is worth about 2 WAR a year, give or take, compared to Vasquez. Are $6M a year worth it for 2 WAR? It very much depends on your team structure. If these guys were free agents that I could re-sign, asking for their current salaries, I honestly think the 2 contracts are of roughly equal value.


@dschang--I wouldn't play that guy at SS, basically ever. You've played him there half a season and he has made 24 errors and 11 (-) plays... he'd have to be Barry Bonds on offense to carry that glove, and he isn't going to get all that much better with the glove, just a handful of points in glove and AA and less than that in range and AS. Move him off SS.

Really good argument on all of this. If they resign then I would honestly take either/both and find a spot for them. But, given the exact same age (let’s go prime and say they are 27-29) I am betting in 90% of leagues I would get Vasquez for $6 million plus less then Belliard. As you said, what is worth 6 million is up to each owner but for me i’d Rather spend the extra from that on a SP.

Posted by dedelman on 1/29/2019 11:51:00 AM (view original):
To take Vasquez's defense and put it into and offensive context for easy comparison:
On defense, Vasquez turns about 22 singles/140 games into outs, compared to Belliard.

Add those singles to a typical Vasquez offensive season--take his defense and make it into offense-- and he becomes about a .305/.360/.350 hitter.
Belliard's career slash line: .270/.340/.510.

Belliard is worth about 2 WAR a year, give or take, compared to Vasquez. Are $6M a year worth it for 2 WAR? It very much depends on your team structure. If these guys were free agents that I could re-sign, asking for their current salaries, I honestly think the 2 contracts are of roughly equal value.


@dschang--I wouldn't play that guy at SS, basically ever. You've played him there half a season and he has made 24 errors and 11 (-) plays... he'd have to be Barry Bonds on offense to carry that glove, and he isn't going to get all that much better with the glove, just a handful of points in glove and AA and less than that in range and AS. Move him off SS.

Thank you for the advice here and everyone's input.

hes a 3b, projections don't matter

Posted by hockey1984 on 1/29/2019 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Everyone loves to get on my case when I say 'always' so I'll make my case and new owners can make their own decision why when it comes to defense up the middle I say 'always'

Defense tends to cost less because people tend to be less interested in it.

Looking at season 48 in Riley that just ended.

Looking at my league, the top 9 defensive SS were all under 4 million dollars with 7 of those being on entry level deals (also a bonus, you can draft them late and they won't take your picks where as the top 3 OPS SS in my league were all over $8 Million (I can post the links if you want, its just a lot of work to prove my point)

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=8429973
Ismio Bellimard is a prime example. Someone paid almost 10 million for an OPS of .882 with 17 errors on the season and 2 minus plays.

Compare that to Quilivio Vasquez:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=7282636 (hyperlink isn't working for some reason)

You're getting 10 plus plays and only 7 errors with an OPS of .548.

I'll be curious to see what Charlie Towers asks for after arb. But it won't be 5+ million.

The thing is, you can do whatever you want. Hell you can put a DH at SS that has an OPS of 1.000+ I really could care less and yes, you'll still win some games, but I have no idea why people insist on forcing hitters into SS and CF when you have a minimum of 6 other positions on the field that can hit, 7 if you are in the AL.

Tl:Dr : Not 'Always always always' for everyone. But 'Always Always Always' for me.

No, no, no, youre thinking about this all wrong in my opinion.

In the examples you gave, the gap in defense was only 22 extra baserunners (10 errors and 12 +/-). Not even 22 runs, 22 baserunners. BR are only worth about 0.30 expected runs, so even if the gap was 50 baserunners it would only be 15 expected runs saved. Belliard is not a 75-75-75-75 guy you're squeezing into SS, he's an 80-85-85-85 guy. Belliard is a par value SS, you can and absolutely should play him at SS.

Compare them to their gap in offensive Runs Created, most basically calculated by TB x (H + BB) / (AB + BB). The gap in value is massively skewed towards the hitter, an OPS difference of .300 is monstrous. The gap between a 1.000 OPS and a 1.300 OPS hitter is the difference between your typical MVP and Barry Bonds' 3 greatest seasons in the 140-year history of baseball. Enormous difference. Not only that, Belliard is an extraordinary baserunner, tons of steals, etc.

@dedelman --- Belliard is something like 10.0 WAR at SS and something like 6.0 WAR at 3B. Not 2 WAR lol. There gap in WAR between those two players is probably something like 12-15. You cannot just "add 20 singles to his hit total and divide by the same number of at bats", that's not how it works, you're dramatically overestimating the conversion from defense to expected runs (therefore to Pythagorean and to wins). The SS with .548 OPS has negative WAR at SS, .548 OPS is completely unacceptable. Horrendous hitter. Anything below ~.625-.650 is the bare minimum I am personally willing to consider.

The reason why Belliard has higher WAR at SS vs 3B is because the average OPS at 3B is way higher than the average OPS at SS so the marginal advantage is far greater at the scarcer position. You play Belliard at SS so that you can also play another similar hitter at 3B. He is more than a max contract player, he is worth max at 3B and supermax at SS

Having 9 guys who can hit and field to par is better than having 6-7 guys who can hit.

@pjf-- Your analysis is predicated on a really bad underlying error-- BR are worth WAY more than 0.3 runs. BASES are worth 0.3 runs--that is, the difference between a single and a double. But a (-) play or an error is both a base, and the conversion of an out to a not-out; it has the same value as a single, which is about 0.70 runs, give or take.

On the other hand, I missed Belliard's baserunning, which basically invalidates my whole post; there are about 2 baserunning WAR of his that I just totally blew off.

Belliard is not anything close to 10 WAR at SS; 10 WAR is Mike Trout, 1000 OPS with above average defense at a key position. Belliard is an above-average but not stud hitter, a top-flight baserunner, and provides below-average but playable defense at SS. He's a 5-6 WAR player at SS, and could be worth a max contract to the right team. Now that I see the baserunning, I'd pay Belliard $6M more than Vasquez any day; $6M for an additional 4-5 WAR is a bargain.

Also when you say

You're getting 10 plus plays and only 7 errors

you're comparing apples to oranges because Belliard played 1300+ defensive innings but Vazquez only played about 900. This means if Vazquez played an extra 400 innings he'd probably have about 15 errors and about 20 plus plays (based off Player Profile: Alexei Beltran with similar attributes and similar stats for comparison). So that means the gap in errors is only 2, and the gap in plus plays is 20 so the differential is +22. BUT now if you "add 22 singles and divide by AB" you're doing so out of let's say 550 AB instead of 340. 550 x .242 = 133 hits, + 22 = 155 adjusted hits = .282/.359/.323 for a much different outlook on how advantageous Vazquez's defense converts into offense. It is worth much less than you think, you miscalculated by almost .100 OPS

Posted by dedelman on 1/31/2019 11:38:00 AM (view original):
@pjf-- Your analysis is predicated on a really bad underlying error-- BR are worth WAY more than 0.3 runs. BASES are worth 0.3 runs--that is, the difference between a single and a double. But a (-) play or an error is both a base, and the conversion of an out to a not-out; it has the same value as a single, which is about 0.70 runs, give or take.

On the other hand, I missed Belliard's baserunning, which basically invalidates my whole post; there are about 2 baserunning WAR of his that I just totally blew off.

Belliard is not anything close to 10 WAR at SS; 10 WAR is Mike Trout, 1000 OPS with above average defense at a key position. Belliard is an above-average but not stud hitter, a top-flight baserunner, and provides below-average but playable defense at SS. He's a 5-6 WAR player at SS, and could be worth a max contract to the right team. Now that I see the baserunning, I'd pay Belliard $6M more than Vasquez any day; $6M for an additional 4-5 WAR is a bargain.

BR are not worth "way more than 0.3 runs".

A leadoff walk is worth 0.38 expected runs. Therefore, if a plus/minus play occurs with none on and none out, that play is worth 0.38 runs. But if a plus play occurs with none on and 2 out, that plus/minus play is worth much less, something like 0.13 expected runs. If a plus/minus occurs with runners on, it is obviously worth much more.

So you could create a very complicated weighted average of the different circumstances in which +/- occurs, or we could just agree to estimate based on the default circumstance of none on / none out, we can call it 0.38 if you want.

But a (-) play or an error is both a base, and the conversion of an out to a not-out;

Why would you double-count the same event? It is either an out or a baserunner, it's not both. It's a non-out not a negative-out, you don't go from 2 outs back to 1 out if a guy makes an error

We're also taking the best season of Belliard and the worst season of Vasquez.

If you go back even just a single season I'll happily take .282/326/657 with 15 plus plays, no minus plays and 18 errors over the same time span
vs
246/316/776 with 3 plus plays, 2 minus and 25 errors. for $6 million less. I do agree though. The base running does make a difference and its a stat that I missed.

But now that we have entirely confused the new owner it doesn't really matter anyways.

Here's all I want to say about this:

Preface, I see both sides. I personally draft defense. I'll tell you how and why. Also absolutely agree, having nine guys who can hit is better than having six or seven.

We talk about a guy like Belliard. Great. Frankly, if I had a guy like Belliard, wouldn't matter where I play him. He'd play. REAL hitters are hitters. They're also, IMO, the single most important resource in this game.

My only question is, what would it take for me to get a guy like Belliard on my team? Trade away a bag of excellent pitching, probably. 20+ mil IFA, definitely, maybe 30+ depending on market and timing. Draft? That's at worst a top-five pick.

I played my first dozen seasons in a league where I never drafted in the top five, more often around 20th on average, and only one team, the same team every time, gets the best IFA every season. In that league I had no chance at a guy like this.

First thing I do in every draft is find the REAL hitters. Not the maybe half-*** ones, the definite, can't miss, this guy can rake hitters. Every draft has MAYBE ten. I have seen drafts with only ONE.

We see all kinds of threads about "why isn't this guy producing" and the answer is usually "well he ain't that good." Learning to value players is job one in this game and the first mistake everyone makes is thinking sub-par players should actually be good.

In drafts, I don't like to blow high picks on guys guaranteed to end up in Rule 5. But the other thing I learned is that the Defensive Ratings do exactly what they say they will. Not like the hitting or pitching ratings which blend together and you have to figure out the secret sauce. Each of the four defensive ratings does exactly what it says.

So I end up pushing defensive players up the board. Because I know they can play in the bigs.

I got no problem putting Belliard at SS. Sure I'd rather have him at 3B if I had a better SS which I usually do. His OPS is .850. I don't care where he plays. But I can't get Belliard. And in my mind the worst thing I can do is put a poor defender at SS hoping he'll OPS .850 and finding out he's only good for .650.

IF, I can get a decent fielder with a good bat to play 3B I am playing Belliard at SS.
He doesn't have to be a better hitter than Belliard, just an above average hitting 3B, who can field above average also.

If not, then I play Belliard at 3B and get a stronger defensive SS, because I feel that a strong defensive SS is worth more than some believe.
If I skimp on hitting it is at SS first. Having a guy like Belliard at SS is a tremendous advantage (again, dependent on what kind of bat your 3B has).

OK, since I totally screwed this up the first time, I'll try again with a much better approach.

Offense-- Belliard created 7.4 runs /27 outs last season, in a season that was a touch better than his career average. Vasquez, having a typical Vasquez season, created 2.8 runs/27 outs. So Belliard is 4.6 runs/27 outs better than Vasquez. Over a full season that would be 80-ish runs better than Vasquez; Belliard was having a slightly better season than usual but STL is a modest pitchers park and PHL is essentially neutral, so let's leave it at 80 runs. That makes Belliard 8.5 WAR or so better on offense.

Defense-- Belliard makes 24 errors and is -5 for every 1400 innings at SS. Vasquez makes 18 errors and is +14 per 1400 innings. So that's 25 plays made, which amounts to a hair under 2 WAR for Vasquez. pjf disagrees but I don't have the energy this late at night to marshal that argument.

Belliard is 6-7 WAR better than Vasquez. You'd be silly not to prefer him for an extra $6M a year. In fact, looking at Vasquez' ratings more carefully, I see him as a replacement-level SS or very close to it, and I can't see paying him what he's paid at all.

@pjf-- we can resume the argument about linear weights and (+) plays in the morning or some other time. But you were fundamentally right about the Belliard/Vasquez problem and I was fundamentally wrong.

I think I got off topic but Damag pretty much nailed part of what I was trying to argue. Guys like Vasquz and Charlie Towers anyone can get. You can pick em late first round, as a sandwich pick or if you are really lucky rounds 2-5, then you give em their 3 years when they get to the majors, Arb em twice and kick em only to be replaced by the next guy doing that.
I think I got off topic a bit but I would always want someone like Belliard on my team. For sure. Always. That is a guy you arb twice, give 5 years and hope he resigns for his big contract. But as Damag mentioned, guys like Belliard don't come along that often. The trick for the game is figuring out how and where to use guys like Vazquez and Towers and how many of them you want/need on your team.

Defense-- Belliard makes 24 errors and is -5 for every 1400 innings at SS. Vasquez makes 18 errors and is +14 per 1400 innings. So that's 25 plays made, which amounts to a hair under 2 WAR for Vasquez. pjf disagrees but I don't have the energy this late at night to marshal that argument.

@dedelman I do agree with this actually. I look at WAR as an estimation rather than like clinically precise calculations, so I would have guessed Vazquez was +2 or +3 on defense, 0 or -1 baserunning and -3 or -4 hitting for an aggregate negative WAR player overall like I originally tossed out without elaboration.

The thing I disagreed with was with @hockey that this type of guy is worth $3M-$4M. I would never roster a guy like Vazquez for a penny more than $396k, even if he was a truly neutral 0 WAR player, don't pay money for something that has no value. The deeper understanding here is exactly why he had such negative value. "Fielding is the only thing that matters for SS and CF" is imprecise, it is better to take everything into account and deciding what is the best way to maximize your runs-scored vs runs-against, because that converts directly into Pythagorean which converts directly into the standings.

And I also agree that it's worthwhile to consider what park you play in, 80ish runs difference means something different in St Louis when your runs are 700 for 700 against as opposed to Durham where your runs are 1000 for 1000 against.

It's a valuable discussion, it's not about arguing or who is right/wrong, you guys are all good players but there's always new things to learn from each other

Posted by pjfoster13 on 2/1/2019 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Defense-- Belliard makes 24 errors and is -5 for every 1400 innings at SS. Vasquez makes 18 errors and is +14 per 1400 innings. So that's 25 plays made, which amounts to a hair under 2 WAR for Vasquez. pjf disagrees but I don't have the energy this late at night to marshal that argument.

@dedelman I do agree with this actually. I look at WAR as an estimation rather than like clinically precise calculations, so I would have guessed Vazquez was +2 or +3 on defense, 0 or -1 baserunning and -3 or -4 hitting for an aggregate negative WAR player overall like I originally tossed out without elaboration.

The thing I disagreed with was with @hockey that this type of guy is worth $3M-$4M. I would never roster a guy like Vazquez for a penny more than $396k, even if he was a truly neutral 0 WAR player, don't pay money for something that has no value. The deeper understanding here is exactly why he had such negative value. "Fielding is the only thing that matters for SS and CF" is imprecise, it is better to take everything into account and deciding what is the best way to maximize your runs-scored vs runs-against, because that converts directly into Pythagorean which converts directly into the standings.

And I also agree that it's worthwhile to consider what park you play in, 80ish runs difference means something different in St Louis when your runs are 700 for 700 against as opposed to Durham where your runs are 1000 for 1000 against.

It's a valuable discussion, it's not about arguing or who is right/wrong, you guys are all good players but there's always new things to learn from each other

See, that is where I disagree. Its situational to determine if a guy like Vasquez is worth $3-4 million. We are going into this as if we had run the franchise for years, have a full farm system and Free agency has a dozen guys that play SS. If you have the roles to fill the position, fill it with the best possible player. That makes the most sense. But sometimes you don't have a better option or even a next best option. Guys like Vasquez still have value of $3 to 4 million if they are the best player for the job.

(I was looking at my squad and realized I don't pay guys like Vasquez that kinda money anymore XD)

Too lazy to link but my squad has a lot of guys that pj would say have no value. The difference is none of them are making over a million and probably never will for me.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/FranchiseHistory.aspx?fid=1729