Jump to content

Demetri

Members
  • Content count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Demetri

  • Rank
    Squire

Recent Profile Visitors

328 profile views
  1. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    No, it's simply the profile for a generic power hitter (that's why that K% isn't going anywhere) who doesn't make much contact in general, but sometimes really gets a hold of one. But so what? There are better stats unless you're trying to prove he can hit HRs. I concede he can, that's what generic power hitters do my definition, and not much else. Sure he barrels balls a lot, but he also has a lot of weak contact. It is illogical to suggest his barrel % suggests amazing bat speed but disregard that his bat speed still doesn't save him from overall weak contact. Sure, you can focus on literally 25 balls he's hit (while claiming SSS on other stats?), or we can use the more holistic xwOBA or the more commonly occurring hard hit %, which is below average entirely because he makes so much weak contact. But let's say he does have legendary bat speed. His plate discipline stats are HORRID. He whiffs at an above average amount of pitches in the zone, and makes well below average contact for pitches out of the zone. This means he isn't extending ABs and isn't getting a lot of quality contact. It further reinforces that his BB% will remain low. He still has a below average xwOBA, meaning that even with all his barreling (which is included in the stat) that once luck settles his xwOBA of .323 is below the average of .324 for major league hitters. His barrel ability and power merely make him an average hitter, propping up poor plate discipline and bad contact. The barrel % is incredibly limited (Again...25 data points...) and doesn't indicate a renaissance. In fact, it indicates that he's probably a finished product. Plate discipline doesn't really change too much, nor does poor contact (barring a swing overhaul), so the fact that power and ability to barrel keep his head over water means that he has developed the skill that all generic power hitters use to get by: ISO. It would be foolish to not bend to an inclusive and more holistically defined stat like xwOBA because a tiny subset of that data shows promise. I'll spin it and say that he's learned to do the one thing he does well and can actually do it (power and barrel). But it balances the stuff he does poorly, it doesn't outweigh it. So you're citing literally 25 balls hit as barrel rather than hard hit % which has more data points and xwOBA which is more holistic (and simply a better metric) and then citing sample size? It isn't so much that I'm "invested in the metrics" so much as they explain what Frazier is doing perfectly. Sample sizes for advanced batting metrics stabilize VERY quickly. It might not be the best sample size, but it is no longer insufficient. It also just so happens to reflect past performance. It would be an incredible coincidence if two flawed data sets spit out essentially the same data. Szymborski (who is a super nice guy who pops by the Braves blog almost everytime his name is mentioned- we joke there is some sort of Szymborski symbol) would certainly say that projections are conservative, but they are also pretty damn accurate. He'd also tell you that the sample size for Frazier is sufficient as offensive stats stabilize pretty quickly. 200 PAs is generally sufficient to start saying that the information you're looking at has statistical validity offensively, with more data being better. Combining years, the stats are pretty consistent if you aggregate the nearly 400 PAs. If there were wildly different things among the two major data sets (2017 and 2019) then perhaps we should just look at 2019 (which we could, as it is over 200 PAs and thus has some good value) and ignore the other set. Because they describe the same thing, we can aggregate them. We're now at just under 400 PAs, and they tell about the same story, but with ridiculous luck in 2019. But more importantly, Szymborski himself points out that sample size requirements vary by the stat being looked at. Most of what I've looked at is in the lower end of PA requirements: (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/when-samples-become-reliable/) (By Dan himself: https://library.fangraphs.com/principles/sample-size/) So, yes, you're right that we don't have a great sample size. We have an alright sample size. But more importantly, we have data! It has a value beyond 0, obviously, and is starting to have predictive value. The projections you call inherently conservative actually say his BB% will increase (while everything else regresses). And where in the world are you getting the "inherently conservative" notion and how does that affect accuracy? As in that they don't generally predict crazy outliers? That strengthens, not diminishes, the accuracy of projections. What you call "inherently conservative" is simply placing projections closer to league average. That's good statistics unless you have a crystal ball that can tell you which ones are conservative and positive for the player and which are conservative and underestimate the player. But look at Acuna. He was projected at around 125 wRC+, which people thought was crazy low given the phenom that is Acuna. He's currently at 129. The projections are generally accurate. The onus is on you to explain why you think the projections are wrong, because the projections are finely crafted statistical models that are balanced and fed new information (remember, until two posts ago, you were uncertain about what data these projections included). They are in the business of being accurate, and are quite good at it. More importantly, how wrong do you think these projections are exactly? And why do you think he's going to retain this level or improve it when stats, projections and luck-defining metrics all suggest they're going down? I need a more substantial critique either on the systems as a whole, or for you to tell me why Frazier's is just wrong. Very rarely are they just completely wrong. I'm not saying projections are infallible religious texts, but they ALL think that Frazier is playing over his head. All of them, independently, saw the same things I saw. Mostly, it is the xwOBA and the BABIP which suggests that he's merely average. That's costing him in the projections and that is frankly how BABIP works. We need like 300 more PAs before it stabilizes, but I'd bet everything I own that it does not stay above .340 (it doesn't for anyone, really, that's top 20 in all of baseball and Frazier has no skills suggesting he is an exception.) When that BABIP falls, so will Frazier So Frazier is currently a starting OFer for the Yankees? They didn't expressly trade for a player and demote a guy who is having a good offensive year for an aging player to fill a starting OF role? The Yankees JUST TREATED HIM like a 4th OFer. You're speculating, but we KNOW the Yankees went out of their way to replace him. Is that how starters are treated? The Yankees demoted the guy after a purposeful trade, I'd say it is contradictory for you to suggest that he isn't a 4th OFer. Hell, if you simply extrapolate his current numbers, he is, by definition, a sub player (War generally considers 2+ as starter and Frazier would have to keep up his offensive pace and improve his defense dramatically to even get to 2.) His WAR and his treatment by the Yankees PROVE he is not viewed as a starter. They also really aren't contradictory if you understand the valuation stuff, which I've provided several links for. His 4.5 years of team control give him an estimated surplus value of $20.4 million. That is somewhere between 2-3 wins above what they're paying him. He is still pre-arbitration, that isn't going to be hard to do. It certainly isn't nonsense. First of all, the calculator is ba sed on past trades (including gregorious). Am I saying that value is properly captured in individual trades? Of course not. But does that mean we don't have any data to get an idea how the industry works and that there aren't general rules? Absolutely not. There is a ton of scholarship in this area. Beyond the calculator I already provided. Once again, this data litters the ground. I concede that there FOs differ, obviously, but you're denying that there is any consensus and that is simply false. Here are just SOME of the work that suggests all the same stuff: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2018-trade-value-1-to-10/ (this deals with MLers more, if you read only one, this is a good one) https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-minor-leaguers/ https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-to-prospect-valuation/ (this is very good for prospect valuation) http://www.thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2018-updated-edition/ (this has methodology explained in more detail on its original platform, I'm happy to provide) https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2019/02/prospect-valuation-much-top-prospects-worth-professional-baseball-teams/ (I could go on and on, again, there is a lot of scholarship here. We are no longer in the days where analytics departments are rare or unknown) The Yankees, like many teams, have created their own models https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2019/4/4/18294438/mlb-yankees-data-analytics-brian-cashman-steinbrenner-chapman-betances-voit-ottavino-world-series So, yea, FOs differ. The argument isn't that every FO views data the same way, but we do know that they endeavor to value players and that there are finite numerical inputs in the world. Logic follows that the Yankees didn't invite something that isn't already represented (at least in part) by any of the others. Beyond prospects, we already have a system that values players: that is what arbitration is aimed to do (though in an adversarial, all-or-nothing process). We know the value of WAR from free agent figures. This information isn't simply made up, it is derived from and compared against historical events. But we're talking about how the industry as a whole does things, not what you can trick one GM to give you. Again, if you can trick a FO (like the Braves did with Stewart) then fine and dandy. We know overpays happen, we know some folks value players differently, but there is a general consensus. There is a lot of historical data on top 100 prospects being traded. The same data used for these figures (all shockingly similar....) also suggests that a 50 FV position prospect is worth more than 50 FV pitching prospect. We've seen that play out and also is conventional knowledge. But here is a guy who knows a thing or two who completely disagrees that there aren't common approaches (Scott Boras): "How do we know teams are using numbers like ours? We don’t for sure, but we have enough evidence to suggest they’re using a similar model. Even super agent Scott Boras acknowledged it, in an April 2019 story in The Athletic by Ken Rosenthal (by way of criticism of it): To hear Boras tell it, the problem is not his negotiating style, but the way that clubs use analytics to value players, often landing at similar dollar amounts in their appraisals. “These markets are very different because we have got a dynamic where the valuation component is common to all teams by design,” Boras says." Boras is basically saying that the FA market situation comes from a market "where the valuation component is common to all teams by design." In fact, many agents claimed collusion (which isn't impossible) because of the similar approaches. Look, what I'm doing is providing an objective baseline. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I mean by "general industry consensus" if your rebuttal is "well, that doesn't apply to every player and every team." I never said that. I'm saying that this is a useful baseline. Whether you like it or disagree with it does not detract from its validity. Furthermore, the world you suggest (where every team is different and mysterious) then we can't say Frazier should/could be the centerpiece for any trade. We'd have to ask each team "Hey, what's a Clint Frazier" as if stats didn't exist. They do. The Yankees, by action, have indicated that they don't think Frazier is a starting OFer. They probably based this on his luck-driven results, just like I am. That isn't even to mention the bargaining position power. And of course things like bargaining position, urgency, window for contention etc are all factors and all very impactful. I never once denied it. But Boras seems to think that the finite data is being used in similar ways by teams (hence free agent results). Rather than assertions, I've provided independently consistent models (how independently is debatable at point of origin, but they are not directly affiliated), pragmatic evidence in the form of FA consistency, and a quote by an expert in the field of valuing players (Boras) as well as pointing to a MLB mechanism for player valuation (arbitration). That's a lot of evidence for nonsense! Of course, the real world isn't simply plugging in a figure. Who in the world said we plug in an exact figure? First, the valuations aren't simply saying "Prospect of X FV is worth Y". They build in bust rates, position v. pitcher, bands of performance that we see from similarly ranked/rated prospects, bust rate, star rate, median WAR etc etc. This data isn't simply made up, it is based in empirical data and leads to the resulting valuation. One thing that helps a prospect's value is how much younger he is than competition. You cite Florial as repeating A+ (most recently, he spent 75 games at A+ in 2018 and 11 thus far in 2019) and yet he is still 1.5 years YOUNGER than the average competition. Saying he's "repeating" A+ is not totally true as 75 games in 2018, but furthermore, it misses that he remains younger than the competition which is far more important than playing the level again (being -2.4 years from average in 2018 and -1.5 in 2019). Injury certainly creates uncertainty, but does it move his value to 0 or does it simply shift it around what history suggests? Does playing older competition compensate? The injury question is a fair unknown, but again, I was providing a baseline stat not a definitive value. But the general valuation I provided SOMEWHAT built in injury questions, as it accounts for his current place on lists that also accounts for injury. Furthermore, why would they promote a player coming back from injury? Many medical experts suggest that an entire year of playing is necessary for power to fully recover from hamate injury. Given that injury and the second wrist injury that was uncovered after the hamate injury (pardons if the timeline there is a bit off) what's the concern? He is young, has carrying tools, and is coming back from injury. There is a lot of promise there. As said previously, you can value ability over tools. Teams do often divide on such lines, but he has plenty of loud potential tools and I still think arm and speed (and, to a lesser extent, defense) are all carrying tools for him. Those kind of tools even out the wide gaps in expected WAR. In terms of FV. It is remarkable how many prospect evaluations come out, and how generally similar they are. I won't argue that scouts might differ. But to suggest that FV ratings have no value is to say that FV ratings are entirely meaningless. And yet, we hear constantly that teams are seeking "a top 100 prospect" for a certain guy or "need a top 50 prospect and a top 100." I could produce countless articles on that. When negotiating a trade, we KNOW FOs reference top prospect lists. Do you think that they all compare their independent top 100 lists? What happens when a GM asks for a top 100 guy, only to find out that the other team thinks that the guy is really a top 300 guy? That just doesn't really happy (though, it does happen a bit more in pitching prospects.) We know that such industry lists are relevant because we hear such lists cited EVERY offseason and EVERY trade deadline. It is also remarkable how similar lists are. A guy can probably be fairly considered top 100 if a well thought off prospect service has a guy on a top 100 list. You're right, that the individual tiers of lists (representing jump from 50 to 55 FV within top 100, for instance) might and do change. But that is not the same thing as suggesting that there is no usefulness to that data at all. We also know that there is movement between scout evaluating professionals and front offices (Kiley McDaniel and Jeff Sullivan are notable examples.) This all suggests that FOs, to an extent, use this data. I also tend to think they are more likely to differ on players in their system versus players from another system. But no one is saying it is a perfectly crafted and absolutely predictive number, but history suggests that it represents the approximate value of a guy with a general consensus FV of a certain number. It isn't perfect or directly translates, but it is present and it is increasing. The fact that the data is derived from historical data further gives it application to MLB (whether by informing FO personnel or by expressing why and what happened in a generally correct manner.) The idea that each team has to take every trade conversation by first having to prove that at top 50 guy isn't actually a guy more worthy of a top 200 spot is ludicrous. The evaluators and the FOs are rational actors and are using the same, limited, published data. FOs are even taking it further by starting to install measurement systems in JUCO and minors. So, yes, they have proprietary data and more access, but the data they're gathering is bringing them in step with what the industry was already, at least in part, doing. I think the Florial issue is agree to disagree. I think that you'd really enjoy some of the resources out there, but prospects are a personal pursuit. I personally love it, but arguing about prospects doesn't take us far. Now nearly 25 year old MLers with major question marks defensively and concerns offensively, I think we can meet openly and have a legitimate discussion on that.
  2. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    They incorporate live stats as the season goes. Current projections seen on fangraphs are what the projection systems think will happen MOVING FORWARD, meaning add that production (or rate of production) to the present figures. As to how often they're updated, I'm not sure, they keep their methodology hush-hush. But it is updated and is approximately live and inclusive of all data he's produced. He is also not solid in exit velocity and hard hit%, he is actually below average. For hard hit %, he is the 25th percentile of MLers, his exit velocity is at the 37th percentile. This is the "generic power hitter who doesn't do anything well" thing I was saying. The baseball savant link shows that he is below average in both categories. His hard hit % is actually a major cause for concern, as is his exit velocity. I wasn't trying to prop up a straw man with the Hank Aaron thing, I meant to say that anything is possible, but the numbers don't suggest any reason for optimism. Yes, there are some players who inherently have high BABIP and xwOBA players. They are the exception, not the rule. And generally there is some skill that can be identified to explain it (such as preternatural speed.) No such explanation exists for Frazier. It would be nearly unprecedented to outperform your peripheral stats by THAT much. A BABIP of .347 is super elite. A great way to illustrate how flexible BABIP is is that pitchers and hitters EACH have an approximate average BABIP of .300. A BABIP of .347 only makes sense with elite contact. His current .347 would tie him with Baez from last year's leaderboards. The only player from 2018 to have a similar BABIP with a BA below .290 was Brandon Nimmo (BABIP of .351, BA of .263.) This year, he's regressed in a big way. BABIP is just luck accumulation, on average, with rare cases in which especially speedy guys can outperform. Frazier is graded as fast, but he is not fast enough that he's worth of that luck. He has simply gotten lucky. And almost all FOs (We miss you Dave Stewart, we can also probably include the Orioles) are savvy to this. They won't pay for half a year's worth of luck-driven stats that only make him 20% better than average. I concede that his defense will bounce back (it virtually has to) but his offensive stats are gloom and doom. I'd be down for a sig bet if you are with the terms being some level of production with some PA threshold for him. As to the trade value, yea I'm not sure we disagree on Frazier having value. I'm not saying he's without value. But while the Yanks might push to have FOs consider him as a 2-3 WAR player, it is based solely on speculation and a best case scenario. By centerpiece, if you mean more than half the trade value for Bauer, then sure. But industry consensus is that Florial provides almost the same value (the calculator has it off by $500,000 which is consistent with various other prospect valuation figures). These figures ARE hypothetical, but they're grounded in common practice and past trades. Once again, you need to add about 80% of Frazier's value to Frazier to get to Bauer's surplus value. I'd agree that that is a centerpiece, but you still need about 16-18 million value added onto the $20.4 million for Frazier. And that is disregarding market factors for the Indians (are they competitive, when will they decide to sell, if they rebuild what is their timeframe). If I'm the Indians and I decide to sell, 50-55 FV prospects (especially position prospects with some pedigree/history) are my target, not 25 year olds with looming questions. Once again, industry consensus suggests Florial and Frazier have nearly identical value moving forward. Frazier has a smaller range of outcomes, Florial has MUCH more upside. Pick your poison. I simply struggle to term any 50 FV position player a "lotto pick", especially when he already has two carrying tools. Yes, there is risk, but also more upside. A club fully devoted to a rebuild might well prefer the prospect with loud tools but inconsistency over Frazier. But speaking objectively, disregarding for a moment who Florial is as a player, he is worth about the same amount (approximately $20 million in surplus value). Florial and Frazier together only exceed the suggested surplus value of Bauer by $3 million and change (or something very close to that.) MadBum isn't really that valuable. SF fans think he is, but Frazier and Florial are about double his value. I also have major doubts about his efficacy moving forward, but that's a different subject. I think the calculator also overvalues him but it might be baking in a compensation pick if he is kept (which isn't a ton in reality but does represent an opportunity cost both of choice and of slot money flexibility.) Stroman is super close. You'd need to add something to Frazier, but that could almost get it done and only leaves about $5 million surplus value needed. You're right on Stroman, he's close but I would be surprised if he alone is sufficient. MadBum would be a HUGE overpay at Frazier alone. Yea, we don't disagree that much once we come down to that. Those 4.5 years of team control are exceptionally valuable, even for a 4th/5th outfielder (which context suggests Frazier is). It is interesting that we come to about the same general view despite the fact that you think I'm undervaluing him and I think you're overvaluing him. Florial, however, is much more a philosophical disagreement based on a tools v. ability approach to scouting that I'm trying to smooth over by pointing to general industry consensus. As a result, I won't argue about deep stats for Florial as it is perfectly legitimate to want to see ability whereas someone else might salivate over the 5-tool potential and adjust value accordingly. As a bit of a wander, teams are more and more approaching hitters with the mindset of "Is this prospect viable for a swing adjustment." Clint Frazier is who is he, basically, or at least in terms of general batted ball profile (generic power hitter who doesn't excel at anything in particular) but Florial's upside and relative youth might lead some teams to believe he is a viable candidate for a swing renaissance. This generally happens more in the draft than trades (at least, with a top 100ish prospect) but the shift in thinking is happening. To take it big picture again, it is happening because the industry is more and more looking at the same stuff. Some of, but not nearly all, are the factors mentioned above that give me great concern about Frazier moving forward. On Snell: Did you see the Newcomb come-backer? (https://www.mlb.com/video/comebacker-hits-newcomb-in-head) That....is scary. But concussion is a wonky pursuit. They just put him on the 7 day IL, but reports are that it is largely precautionary. Yet, we all know that concussion symptoms can be dormant or present themselves a time after the initial injury. Super scary. Tyler Flowers and AJ Pierzynski each have companies or products designed for the health of catchers. I think maybe it is time for pitchers to start considering wearing SOME gear. I mean the 102 mph liner on Newcomb bounced off his head INTO THE STANDS!!! That is super scary stuff. When I played, a friend of mine was getting BP from his dad (sans an L, I think you see where this story is going). Hit one low and right back up the middle. His father now has 1 testicle as a result of the shot. Obviously, he should have taken more precautions. But the combination of a throwing motion that leaves you somewhat helpless, the nature of balls hit back at the pitcher on a line, and the short reaction time means that seriously bad things can happen. I'm glad to hear that Snell is okay, or at least that it wasn't horrific. Sorry if I'm throwing a lot out here. I LOVE baseball and I derive great joy from talking about it. I think we probably love it for similar reasons (we both seem to enjoy stats and baseball is a game in which EVERYTHING can be expressed mathematically). I'm not trying to pick on you at all, or nitpick, so much as stoking conversations. Cheers for playing along. Drinking and watching baseball is a perfectly valid excuse, so if you'd respond later I'm about to be on the drunk baseball train myself.
  3. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    I am most certainly not "quite clearly wrong" but disagreements are fine. We don't have anything suggesting how most teams view him. We do know that Scott Boras, of all people, has said that teams have reached a general agreement and that that general perception of value is tied into analytics. And it isn't just me who thinks he's, at best, a 4th outfielder. I put more stock in statistical projection models than blog posts, but I could easily dredge up contradicting opinions. Hell, the link provided for trade value is a static tool that inputs data and pops out other data and it disagrees with you. He might be ready to go now, but the concern is what he's going to be able to do when he gets out there. All data indicates a 4th or 5th outfielder (depending on the quality of the team.) I explained my rationale in detail as a basis for why I (and the projection systems, and this random resource that is linked below) all tend to agree that he is limited. He's being traded because he is not a legitimate starter. We can say "Oh, maybe he turns into Hank Aaron" and that's fine, but we have no reason to think he will. We have a lot of reason to think his offensive production is going to drop as he adds more and more data to 2019. I highly recommend scanning over the rest of my post because I explain precisely what is happening with Frazier as a player and why he's likely to be worse moving forward. It wasn't an assertion, it was carefully constructed support for my contention. I'm not simply asserting that he'll get worse at the plate. BABIP and xwOBA demonstrate that he is paying over his head. The regression isn't theoretical, we can point to numbers that indicate why and how much he'll regress. It might not be hard to imagine him as a 110-120 wRC+ hitter, but it is still imagining. But the projections that incorporate his data total and from this year all see that his results are luck driven. Without him being super lucky, he's not a 120 wRC+ guy. He's a 100-110 wRC+ guy who, with bad defense, has extremely limited value. Namely, his value is that of a 4th of 5th OFer (this isn't some rogue assertion, look at the projections! look at his batted ball profile, look at the gap between his production and his expected production.) I'm deep-diving in the numbers to reach these conclusions, which happen to jive with projections. Teams use such models and data in valuing player. In fact, the player trade link I provided is based on a bunch things, including past trades, market value, arbitration history etc. They value him as providing $20.4 million in surplus value, which is right around Florial and what I've been saying. Sure, regression goes both ways and in all things, but there is a subtle distinction here as I'm speaking directly to how and why his offensive output will regress to HIS mean. The luck driven results indicated by BABIP and xwOBA show WHY regression is going to happen. Projection systems have his BB% regressing UP to maybe 8%ish. That still isn't great. His K% is very unlikely to regress. It isn't high relative to his performance or any expectation, simply high compared to the league average. But he is unlikely to regress to THAT mean because he doesn't have a league average batted ball profile. He's a generic power hitter, and with that comes a high K%. That K% might be the most predictable stat we have on him. BB% will go up, but it won't ever be good. The regression from him comes from his performance indicating better results than his below average hard hit %, exit velocity, xwOBA and launch angle suggests. That's where the regression comes from, not simply cancelling out the noise from data. This isn't hypothetical. I guarantee you that his BA is going to go down over the course of the year UNLESS his luck holds. Again, note that the gap between average BABIP and his BABIP is bout .040-.050 points. That's what I mean when I say it's going to hit hard. Everything points to him playing well over his head, if you guys find a suitor willing to buy a half season of solid, luck-driven offensive production then pull that trigger immediately. After all, you only have to find one team willing to trade. I also agreed with you that he can be a centerpiece for Bauer (that link I provided earlier and mentioned earlier in this post, this one: https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/) is super interesting. So, centerpiece, yes. But that calculator suggests you need to at least provide 80% of Frazier's value to Frazier's already $20.4 mill surplus value to reach Bauer's value. Sidenote: I hope Snell is okay. I didn't see the play, but after Newcomb had a 102 mph hit bounce off of his head into foul territory, perhaps it is time to start seriously considering those protective pitcher caps.
  4. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    I don't think a single team will accept valuations that suggest he's a 2-3 WAR guy. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that. It requires that he both a) Continue hitting at his current pace, b) reverse his trends defensively. I'm with you that perhaps he can become a below average guy instead of terrible, but any addition to overall war is because his defensive contributions become less negative. Teams can sometimes be convinced that a guy is a 2-3 WAR guy if he's done it before. But Frazier as a 3 WAR guy is a lotto ticket, too as you're buying the chance of a potential upturn in value that doesn't really have a very strong basis in reality. I think his defensive metrics will get better (they really can't get worse) but not enough to really shift the narrative. What is concerning though, is that he's also due (perhaps even moreso) for some serious regression at the plate. Altogether (and even with a rosy outlook defensively), I think 2-3 with regularity is unfathomable. Speaking to Frazier's success at the plate this year in particular. It looks to be flukey when you dive into the numbers. First of all, Yankees stadium gifted him with two HRs that are outs in most stadiums (4-16 and 4-22). https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/clint-frazier-640449?stats=career-r-visuals-mlb Shows his spray chart and with an overlay of average stadium dimensions. The short RF porch in NY has dramatically altered his result and in only 53 games has transformed two possible (one very likely) out into HRs, contributing tremendously to his SLG%. The 4-16 HR was the more respectable of the two at 364 ft, a 100.6 mph exit velocity and a 29 (!!!) degree launch angle. It had an xBA (probability of being a hit) of .670. Let's say that one turns into a double. The 4-20 HR, however, was simply an out that Yankee Stadium made into a HR. It had an .xBA of .270, travelling 356 feet with a pedestrian exit velocity and a poor launch angle at 34 degrees. That's an out elsewhere. There is a very good argument that his home stadium has helped his numbers (including defensively, given the limited range to cover). In fact, it already has. That all sounds very anecdotal, but when you delve into his batted ball profile, it is apparent that he isn't doing anything special. His exit velocity is below average, he isn't making solid contact at a higher rate. His spray chart is consistent. His BB% is TERRIBLE (6.4%), his K% is slightly improved but still quite bad at 29.3%. He doesn't really do anything particularly well that would give you any reason to think he's a 120 wRC+ guy moving forward, or will even retain this level of hitting. To illustrate how luck driven his 2019 has been thus far: his BABIP of .347 is going to lead to regression and it's going to be painful. A BABIP of .347 is extremely elite (average is about .300). That's a huge expected drop-off in production. Frazier has a sprint speed above average, but he's not a candidate for having a sustainably high BABIP. Even if he was, .347 is not within the realm of possibility. With regression, he probably ends up a slightly above average to average hitter (as Steamer, ZiPS and the other prominent projections predicted). The difference between his wOBA and his xwOBA (expected wOBA) is around .030, a meaningful and notable gap also suggesting that his results are largely driven by luck (.322 xwOBA vs .355 wOBA, which shows that his results have indicated performance beyond what we would expect given what he has actually done.) Regression is coming, and it's coming hard. Meaningful data suggesting that he's going to sustain or improve on his 2019 isn't really out there. There is a quantifiable reason to believe that he will regress as a hitter, but what suggests that it is a) improvable or even b) sustainable? But the up-to-date projections systems (which incorporate data from 2019 thus far) ALL have a pretty bleak outlook on his future. I looked at his batted ball profile before looking at the projections and we basically agree on the output (a hitter about average or up to 10% better than average.) Most projections agree that he will remain a poor defender over the course of the year but not continue to bleed value on his present pace. (sidenote: I was not intending to suggest that his present defensive performance will persist at these low levels, but merely that there is reason to believe that he is not a very good defender. His rates at the moment are some of the worst in statcast history. That won't continue, but he's still probably pretty bad.) Those projections have him as about a 1.2 WAR contributor over the course of a year. I tend to agree. He is a generic power hitter who isn't really good at anything and has been getting very lucky so far this year. Even with that luck, he is only 20% better than the average hitter. That is not a rosy outlook. Notice the percentile rankings on the top right which bear out that he has a poor hard hit %, poor exit velocity, poor launch angle, and a poor xBA and xwOBA (https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/clint-frazier-640449?stats=career-r-visuals-mlb). There is no good explanation for his luck beyond luck. Therefore, regression looms. Two final notes on Frazier: 1) Thank you for clarifying the team control number. I noticed it didn't fit with what I was reading, but the issue for me was more about what he'll be moving forward. More concerning than team control is age. People continue to have a collective misunderstanding of aging curves for baseball players. The conventional wisdom is that peak is 27-32 (or something similar) but that isn't the case anymore. At nearly 25 (24, 9 months, I believe) Frazier is either in his prime or leaving his prime, depending on what source you look at. This really hurts arguments that suggest that he is due for improvement. To further undermine those arguments, his prospect pedigree directly suggests that "late bloomer" is not really the case for him as it has been a confounding factor for some (read: few) other players. It isn't impossible. But 25 can no longer be said to be pre-peak. It is damning for what sort of improvement can rightfully be expected. The age chart for defenders is even less forgiving and suggests that his age already comes with some defensive decline. 2) For the sake of rough math I tripled his current figures when they rightfully should be doubled to reflect his contributions moving forward. Steamer thinks he'll get just over double his current appearances, others think he'll get far less. But they all agree that BABIP and xwOBA is about to regress like mad. (Here is a source overlaying his hits on various parks. I picked Atlanta just for funsies to help illustrate the point made on the two HRs- 2 of 11. But there really is at least one more HR that is questionable.) https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search?hfPT=&hfAB=triple|home\.\.run|&hfBBT=&hfPR=&hfZ=&stadium=&hfBBL=&hfNewZones=&hfGT=R|&hfC=&hfSea=2019|&hfSit=&player_type=batter&hfOuts=&opponent=&pitcher_throws=&batter_stands=&hfSA=&game_date_gt=&game_date_lt=&hfInfield=&team=&position=&hfOutfield=&hfRO=&home_road=&batters_lookup[]=640449&hfFlag=&hfPull=&metric_1=&hfInn=&min_pitches=0&min_results=0&group_by=name&sort_col=pitches&player_event_sort=h_launch_speed&sort_order=desc&min_pas=0#results Florial is also, in my opinion, poorly characterized as a "fringy lotto pick" unless you think that all low-minors prospects are inherently fringy lotto picks. You're obviously more informed on having observed him, but I'm looking at industry consensus which has him as AT LEAST a 45 FV, most as a 50 FV. For prospect evaluators, that's approximately a top 100 prospect (which seems to be the GENERAL area of Florial- let's not quibble over top 100 versus top 125). Given his injury issues and being 1.5 years younger than the average at A+ (not famous for housing AAAA players), I think his outlook is better than you seem to (given what I've inferred.) True lotto picks have no carrying tools. Florial has two in speed and arm. Speed, as a carrying tool, actually presents value with regularity (and is also baked into defense and, to a lesser extent, hitting ability). If he had 0 carrying tools and was simply a 5 tool potential player with nothing manifested, I'd agree. That isn't really the case. Which is probably why he's still a 50 FV (very, very good) top 100-125 prospect. Those have a lot of value. Yes, it depends on what you think of him personally. But that applies to everything in baseball evaluation. As a numbers guy, check this fun little thing out. https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/ It does exactly what it says, it calculates surplus value and does the calculations for proposed trades for ya. It also, interestingly, has Florial and Frazier as having a difference of value of precisely $500,000. I happened upon this site earlier and put it in for funsies and would have posted it regardless of what it said on that particular valuation. But it isn't controversial. 50 FV position prospects have a general consensus value and are only lotto picks insofar as any other 50 FV prospect is a lotto pick and that is only because all players not in MLB are, by definition, lotto picks. Edit: You're absolutely right Frazier can be a centerpiece for Bauer, but you need to nearly double Frazier's value to really get there. And that assumes that the Indians (currently -0.5 of a WC spot) are willing to sell. Luckily, Bauer's value drops more precipitously from the passage of time than Frazier's, so if you wait he'll become a larger slice of the value-pie required. But to convince the Indians to sell and abandon 2019 playoff hopes, you'd have to purposefully overpay. Yanks should be perfectly happy waiting until the trade deadline or until the Indians are willing sellers, at which point Frazier will represent a higher percentage of the value required for Bauer.
  5. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    I'm not very sure that either really has tremendous value at this point, my point was not so much Florial > Frazier. His defensive metrics have been very consistent over his piecemeal playing time. They also stabilize more quickly than you might think, so while full year sample sizes would be preferable, he has sufficient information to judge. And even aggregated, his defensive numbers really bear out the positional adjustment from LF to RF. He has had a decent 91 innings in LF, but also has 236 additional LF innings that grade out as very bad. The LF number are probably anomalously bad, but he hasn't shown the ability to be even an average defender yet. Additionally, various metrics agree that he has been bad and almost agree on how bad (which is super duper rare and suggestive.) The problem appears to be that he isn't fielding all the really high percentage plays and doesn't field any of the low percentage plays. Normally, the profile for a defender set for improvement is that he makes some of the really unlikely plays but also misses some of the easier plays, suggesting that raw athleticism and mental errors are being reconciled. Not so for Frazier. Sure, there is a possibility to improve, but that's as speculative as Florial's value. I don't really think either has tremendous value and I think if Frazier is traded, that unless a team gets had, you'll probably be disappointed by the return. Frazier is on pace for either about 1.5 fWAR or 1.0 bWar. There is not a lot of excess value there, whereas a generic 50 FV position player is valued at around $28 million (just outside of top 100, as you mentioned.) That is a prospect valuation general rule of thumb, irrespective of distance from minors. Florial's hit tool is certainly questionable, but I think Frazier has plenty of question marks of his own and only 3.5 years of team control for a player who, as you cede, is a project at least defensively doesn't make for an attractive trade candidate. Maybe a AL team will take a flier, but I don't think NL teams would be that interested. That further limits his trade value. I personally think Frazier is actually over-performing at the moment. His BB% is ghastly, his K% remains super high, he's simply gotten quality contact that has allowed a high ISO to prop up a .330 OBP. Combine those concerns with very legitimate concerns about his glove, and I think lots of ML clubs view him as a known commodity. Defensive awakenings at age 24 (soon to be 25) are rare. Even rarer when you consider that he has a sufficient sample size at the ML level and both UZR and Total Zone basically agreeing on how bad of a fielder he is (and even why). He might be more valuable than Florial, but he isn't going to get back more than a 50 FV prospect (precisely what Florial is) unless someone overpays. Frazier has yet to suggest that he's anything more than a sub at this point. Only an overpay gets you more value than that, to be honest.
  6. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    I can't overstate what a great community it is. Minor League recaps every week. Great prospect guys. One of the best analytics/statistically minded guys that writes as baseball stuff as a hobby. Really active both on posts and comments. I'm GumpBrave over there. Feel free to say hello. It can be a bit daunting to join in, but it is a really friendly group and most people are incredibly welcoming. It is fairly analytics driven, but it can be a great way to spruce up on that viewpoint of baseball understanding.
  7. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    If you're a big Braves fan I highly recommend www.talkingchop.com . If you ask me, best single team sports blog around. We'd love to have ya.
  8. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    I think you might be overestimating Frazier's trade value. First, he has less team control than Florial. Second, he is a terrible defender. Like, breaking the metrics bad. Most FOs are savvy enough to realize this. Despite his wRC+ of 118 (18% better than league average), ALL defensive metrics agree that he bleeds value defensively (it is super rare for multiple defensive metrics to paint someone as aggressively bad at defense.) That certainly mitigates his value moving forward. He is a liability in the field and, as a result, his fWAR is on pace for about 1.5 for the season. And that's assuming his offensive production stays on par, with most projections seeing him as playing well above his skill level. Meanwhile, Florial still has some prospect hype. His value already has baked in his lefty status and defensive positive. At 21, he's just outside of top 100 prospect lists and is probably worth about $28 million in excess value as a 50 FV prospect. He's also trending towards increasing value, and moving from a 50 FV to 55 if his hit tool plays up nearly doubles that excess value. That is a fair amount of value, especially if traded for a MLer and especially if that MLer signed a FA contract. Frazier is also likely to be overpaid in arbitration as his offensive stats look fine, and defensive metrics are less thoroughly examined than counting stats. Frazier is a nice piece, but he is NOT an attractive OFer, instead he looks decidedly like a liability. He would be a fantastic occasional DH, PH for interleague games, guy off the bat who can at least play as well as a cardboard cutout in the field. That's a fair amount of utility for one roster spot with questionable value. He also represents a ceding of trade leverage to the other team who can easily ask "So....what is Frazier to you moving forward? Why ya trading the guy?" and changing the asking price.
  9. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    We have ample material such a trade. I think it is a mistake to trade too much for relief pitching, as it is such a crap shoot. Almost categorically, it has been a bad idea to sign relief pitchers. Minter looked great in his most recent appearance. Jackson...well he needs to get his head on straight if he's going to be the 9th inning guy. You're not wrong though, it is the obviously lacking bit of the Braves. But we have a lot of pitchers, hopefully Ynoa and other reinforcements can make only one closer necessary. We'll see over the next few weeks.
  10. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    The extent of their performance so far has surprised me and every projection system around. The addition of Kuechel and a little bit of clarity among the top 3 in the rotation should go a long way. A slight nudge in pitching could really move this team from playoff hunt to WS contender. If..we can get over our Dodger baggage..
  11. Demetri

    MLB 2019: The Good, The Bad, and The Mets

    How about those Braves?
  12. I really enjoyed the back and forth. This thread has some pretty heady commentary here and there and I was pretty impressed by your analysis/argument despite personally disagreeing about the legal meaning. The legal community has argued impotently about it in here and there for a while, with a particular spike in the mid to late 90s and then another round of scholarship directly post-Obama. I think that while legal analysis tends to rightfully gravitate around the illuminating sun of precedence, untried or undecided issues should not be considered unimportant. That's why I pushed arguments regarding why such a precedence could, maybe someday, kinda sorta happen. Not because I actually think it will happen (who knows? It would take a lot of things lining up so it does seem objectively unlikely) but to try to bypass issues of "But who cares because they're just words on a page and will never be relevant." I think that's a really reductive approach. A properly legitimate legal framework should be discussed and understood on several different levels. I'm a philosophy guy. That's what drives my love for this stuff, so I find it intrinsically valuable to discuss intent and meaning of a document even if that part hasn't been extrapolated by official legal force. I don't think it'll happen. I'd absolutely love for the practical reason to be that we've adopted a Parliamentary system. But that's basically the holy grail of solvency concerns. I don't think it will happen, and I perhaps erred in emphasizing factors suggesting that it conceivably could become an ISSUE. As a result, it sounded like I was saying that that issue will be resolved by it successfully being proven that my interpretation of permissibility, in essence, happened. Cheers though to you and @DMC . It was a fun mental detour.
  13. I see what you're getting at, but all manner of data exists which shows that the American public does not hold a president and vice president to the same standards. Our understanding of the VP role is defined by contrast to the presiential role. The differences are both understood popularly and imminently provable by discussing the difference in roles. So why would the presumption be that VPs are popularly held to a specifically and exclusively Presidential standard. If opinions on the president's term limits has solidified then that is because the President represents a special and unique office in federal government. The VP nomination wouldn't even necessarily be in violation of that. When a VP wins and gains that role they were not elected to the office of the president. So what are they in violation of as a VP, precisely? A VP isn't a president-elect but a contingency plan for president. 22nd clearly states that the measuring stick is "times elected" 22nd does not apply to 12 here simply because a VP isn't going to be elected to the office of a president and that and that alone is the determining number: amount of elections (barring time as VP ascended to President). Being elected president a third time would be barred, sure. But that's all 22nd limits. No where does it say a candidate is ineligible to be elected a third time, but merely that a president cannot be elected a third time. The fact that the Constitution tells us what happens if the President is found to no "qualify" for their role shows that they understand the distinction. This and more wording opens a gaping hole. A President would only be ineligible for office AFTER being elected for a third time. A twice elected vice president never gets elected a third time and thus is not rendered ineligible. It should go without saying that we don't look at it as if the Vice President is really running for President and offering him/herself for election. That would be ineligible, but that isn't what would happen here. We need not worry about being elected to President invalidating the vice president because the vice president, even if they served 8 years, never was elected a third time and therefore would not be ineligible for Presidential office. We don't consider the offices held by VP and President to be similar, it makes no sense to assume that the VP's proximity on the ticket to the person being elected (president) computes on them a Presidential election. Otherwise, we might as well say that proximity to the Oval office while working means that the VP was really, kinda sorta, holding the office of president. Arguing semantics isn't a bad thing, it is an amazing thing. It is discussing what words mean in context. It sucks that people use it as a pejorative. I realize your mention of semantics was to moot. But this might sound like semantics to some. But to legislative drafters semantics and context mean everything. I have yet to find a knowledgeable legal scholar with published working saying that such a vice president would be found invalid. Not a single one. I've found lots of arguments that it is totally acceptable. I've found some saying that we don't have empirical basis to pull from and thus cannot extract and apply particular parts because we only have the words and their interplay to guide us, not a full court decision. Hopefully, the fact that requirements for election and requirements for office eligibility are easily understood as two distinct things. Two elections affects eligibility. 22 states only election eligibility requirements and NOTHING ELSE: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." 12 says: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Those are two different types of eligibility. Legislative purpose explains why, but the chain of succession might help the skeptics. Can anyone reasonably assert that this means that a former two-term president cannot hold only office within the line of succession because a future event could occur leading to a person gaining the presidency again. Hell, does anything in the Constitution suggest that Congress cannot chose a former president for the Presidency if an emergency led to legislative appointment to the role? Of course not. That doesn't exist anywhere. What we do have are two different terms and conditions that set two standards. I'll try to revisit this tomorrow as I'm beat and frustrated that this isn't more apparent. Viability issues are fine to present. But legal framework for preventing such a vice presidential candidate is entirely non-existent, contradicted by legal intent and the Constitutional wording, and has minimal supporting evidence with possibly painful repercussions if interpreted wrongly. I feel very confident that a Court would settle this issue very quickly, finding that two standards exist: One for rightful election, one for eligibility to office. Nowhere is that gap bridged. We do not read laws in ways that give them the assumption of non-delegated/stated power. We certainly shouldn't start here.
  14. We know that tradition can be broken easily because the government is designed to have the power and means to do so. Any claim of tradition is outweighed by millions of Americans voting to act against it. It was the vote, not perceived tradition, that created the issue. I have never heard attempting a 3rd term as an American political tradition before, notable for its inclusion to the loser's table where everyone in this proud tradition beyond one single person sits.. But tradition arguments are further undermined by suggesting that Congress acted to change term mandate only once the long-standing tradition of trying to get a 3rd term as due course was broken (please show your work here because I'm at a bit of a loss). How exceptionally silly and indicting it would be to have a common tradition and let it be tried again and again (after all, it must be or it isn't tradition) and then only ever think that maybe codified limits are useful once it succeeds. Basic logic suggests that you don't have to legislate tradition. It also suggests that tradition can survive one outlier (as you characterize FDR). That isn't how tradition is handled and codified. And one shift in an allegedly lasting tradition doesn't cause panic and amending the Constitution because either there was never really a tradition or FDR somehow changed popular perception. It doesn't compute. If FDR did something that changed perception then we have to ask why it was successful when it was or even why at all. The results suggest that the American public alive at the time understood the tradition differently than you do. But furthermore, if such a tradition has any continuing value then it would either be so self-evident as to not need codification or so rarely violated that it would be equally silly. Based on your framing of it: millions of people, in voting for FDR, voted against tradition. That seems like fertile grounds to me! If FDR was not a crazy rare outlier, then it makes no sense to hurriedly codify something that is unlikely to ever be an issue again because no one else would dare defy phantom tradition. We must then presume that either no such tradition exists or that it is worthless moving forward. But your reply doesn't really refute my post. In fact, it agrees with it. I said that FDR was the cause for a Constitutional change. That change was limited expressly to presidents. Not VP, not some vague and unspecified concept of how they interact and whether they must both functionally the same. It was limited to an issue not relevant here. This has nothing at all to do with the issues I raised. Tradition does have usefulness here, though as it suggests that a shift in word choice indicates a shift in intent by the legislature. Courts have meaningfully expressed, defined and promoted this tradition by using this logic in countless court cases. You say presidential terms are simple obvious convention. But the much more important and defensible tradition is the court's desire to note shifts in terminology and to fit that into a greater, holistic understanding. Within that tradition, which is tangible in court decisions, is living and breathing in present and future decisions and guiding as a tool for judicial review and law interpretation, is actual solvency and actual discourse. Nothing you said really undermined anything I said, but tradition as a broad thing means absolutely nothing. The tradition you described is absolutely a lesser form of real, legal tradition than American jurisprudence and that collectively suggests not only that tradition is not permanent, but also that judicial tradition is infinitely more important to America's political history than whatever is being alleged here.
  15. Poor Obama needed to be airlifted to a spa ASAP after leaving the White House. He didn't like it and it was obvious. Many of the great leaders have been unwilling recipients of the yoke of power. I wouldn't necessarily cast him as the norm, was my larger point. The fact that Reagan and Clinton agree on Constitutional repeal/reform is definitely a hell of a statement regarding the place such issues have in the Overton Window of politics. Clinton's time has passed, but you can definitely tell he still loves it, relishes it. That is the more usual outlook of a politician than Obama (who I always imagined using a dull piece of metal to mark off each day served in some sad concrete wall beyond the White House kitchen.) The really interesting thing to me when assessing the political attractiveness of this is how potentially appealing it can be to so many different sorts of political affiliations or interests. A conservative might say that the Framers made it clear that the most important attribute of a President is being the best man for the job, not years served. A liberal might say that we need to modernize two areas of law created specifically because of long past issues with specific politicians or regimes. Someone might say "That is shit writing for the girding document of our country." A textualist might say that the careful, circumspect and considerate construction of the Constitution means that the words and lack thereof have tremendous value and inconsistent terminology is not a clerical issue but a purposefully created opening. A pure realist might say that democracy being limited by an arbitrary numerical figure rather than popular mandate is no democracy at all. Any multitude of arguments have validity. Will it happen? Who knows? Unlikely events =/= impossible events. Is there reason to think that public opinion of such limitations could/will change? Absolutely. It already has several times. First, upon creation. Second, with Washington's one term. Third, when VP were not elected discretely. Again with FDR. And Fifth and finally with two politically opposed two term presidents advocating for repeal or reform. Can I track this change and predict what it looks like after X years? Of course not. But I'm not even certain we need to limit assessments of likelihood to greater political acceptability/approval. Like many other issues that seem integral, and thus irremovable, to the political process, a specific set of facts and a specific scenario is what leads to a need for action or clarification. We've skirted awfully close to that with family presidential dynasties. I can totally buy that ain future unknown situation in a future where our election system continues to lose appeal and substantive 22nd analysis occurs rather than merely factual recording (Should it say this vs. What does it say) that this could occur in reality. We know it can occur in theory because the Constitution tells us what the general rule of law will be guiding how they legislate on the issue. I think it's a cool thought exercise because you get a ton of American history, consider longitudinal changes to political culture, get to analyze our central legal document and, always the best, get to speculate rampantly about things that only political nerds would ever even think about once.
×