Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stephen Strasburg

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Chadwick View Post


    Finally, the fact that Puckett received awards in years immediately following his fantastic defensive performances (in which he initially established his reputation as a great defender), is as likely proof that Gold Glove voters were at least going off the man's reputation - as opposed to his specific performance that season - as it is that "WAR" (not the voters) might be off in its assessment.
    Additionally...
    Voters were also likely going off stats they had available at the time, which would not always support the dWAR or Fielding Runs numbers. For example, in 1989, Puckett had a -0.1 dWAR and -4 Runs Fielding. But nobody knew that in 1989.
    What did the voters see? They saw a CF who lead AL CFers in Assists and Putouts, and was 2nd in Fielding %. If they had access to Range Factor back then, they could have seen that he lead in RF/9 and RF/G. That doesn't look like a bad GG pick to me in 1989.


    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
      Re: Strasburg

      His only hope for election is a case built on career production. His peak hasn't been high enough and it's even less likely at this age that he'll set a new peak level than that he'll stay healthy for another decade.
      His career path thus far looks sort of similar to Max Scherzer's. Mad Max wasn't that great up until age 28, but then he picked it up a couple notches. Strasburg is actually a bit better than Scherzer was through age 30. Of course Scherzer followed that up with two CY awards and a second place finish the next three seasons; I'm not saying that Strasburg will do that, but at least it shows it is quite possible he is peaking now.
      Last edited by willshad; 10-31-2019, 08:37 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dgarza View Post
        Additionally...
        Voters were also likely going off stats they had available at the time, which would not always support the dWAR or Fielding Runs numbers. For example, in 1989, Puckett had a -0.1 dWAR and -4 Runs Fielding. But nobody knew that in 1989.
        What did the voters see? They saw a CF who lead AL CFers in Assists and Putouts, and was 2nd in Fielding %. If they had access to Range Factor back then, they could have seen that he lead in RF/9 and RF/G. That doesn't look like a bad GG pick to me in 1989.
        You are absolutely correct.

        I'm not going to haggle over any one of Puckett's Gold Gloves. The fact is he missed in a couple of years where he probably deserved one and he certainly won a good many that he likely didn't deserve. (The individual years/results don't really change the accuracy of that statement.)

        You're right that Fielding Percentage, Assists, Errors, Putouts and Double Plays were about it for the standard fielding stats at that time, but Range Factor had been around a few years and was available for those interested in looking. Heck, it sure was easy enough to calculate on one's own. There's no way to no so what I'm about to assert is just a guess, but I'd wager a majority of the Gold Glove voters - managers and coaches specifically - did not even bother looking at those numbers that were available. They went on their gut, their eyeballs, the scuttlebutt, etc. The use of statistics when evaluating electoral choices isn't unique to BBWAA members, certainly, but I'll bet its far more common among those voters than among polls of players, managers or coaches.
        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
          You are absolutely correct.

          I'm not going to haggle over any one of Puckett's Gold Gloves. The fact is he missed in a couple of years where he probably deserved one and he certainly won a good many that he likely didn't deserve. (The individual years/results don't really change the accuracy of that statement.)

          You're right that Fielding Percentage, Assists, Errors, Putouts and Double Plays were about it for the standard fielding stats at that time, but Range Factor had been around a few years and was available for those interested in looking. Heck, it sure was easy enough to calculate on one's own. There's no way to no so what I'm about to assert is just a guess, but I'd wager a majority of the Gold Glove voters - managers and coaches specifically - did not even bother looking at those numbers that were available. They went on their gut, their eyeballs, the scuttlebutt, etc. The use of statistics when evaluating electoral choices isn't unique to BBWAA members, certainly, but I'll bet its far more common among those voters than among polls of players, managers or coaches.
          And I'd bet a good number of those polled for GG awards aren't looking at the entire defensive package either. There's probably a few who have only judged a player on how good they thought they were the glove (meaning catching the ball) and don't really factor in what kind of arm the player has (meaning throwing the ball), especially when it comes to OFers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Strasburg’s case is somewhat similar to Bumgarner’s (32.5 pitching WAR, 119 wins, 3.13 ERA, 1.11 WHIP to Strasburg’s 32.6 pitching WAR, 112 W, 3.17 ERA, 1.09 WHIP), although MB has been more durable with a bunch of 200 IP seasons and has more losses because the Giants haven’t been good lately and his ERA+ is at 120 to Strasburg’s 130 due to park adjustments. They both have had about half of a HOF career, handful of ASGs, great postseason work, but lacking a definitive peak Cy Young level season, except Strasburg seems to be trending up while Bumgarner has been trending down.

            It’s possible Strasburg has turned a corner since changing his offseason training regimen last year and will be able to maintain his health better in the future, if that’s indeed the case I like his chances to finally get that Cy Young and compile a HOF caliber career. Still a big IF though given his history.

            Strasburg’s Hall chances as evaluated by Cooperstown cred: https://www.cooperstowncred.com/hall...t-miss-phenom/

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by lyrical View Post
              Strasburg’s case is somewhat similar to Bumgarner’s (32.5 pitching WAR, 119 wins, 3.13 ERA, 1.11 WHIP to Strasburg’s 32.6 pitching WAR, 112 W, 3.17 ERA, 1.09 WHIP), although MB has been more durable with a bunch of 200 IP seasons and has more losses because the Giants haven’t been good lately and his ERA+ is at 120 to Strasburg’s 130 due to park adjustments. They both have had about half of a HOF career, handful of ASGs, great postseason work, but lacking a definitive peak Cy Young level season, except Strasburg seems to be trending up while Bumgarner has been trending down.

              It’s possible Strasburg has turned a corner since changing his offseason training regimen last year and will be able to maintain his health better in the future, if that’s indeed the case I like his chances to finally get that Cy Young and compile a HOF caliber career. Still a big IF though given his history.

              Strasburg’s Hall chances as evaluated by Cooperstown cred: https://www.cooperstowncred.com/hall...t-miss-phenom/
              Your comparison of Strasburg to Madison Bumgarner reminds me of this fascinating blog post from Joe Posnanski a couple months ago:

              The Tale of Two Salaries

              A friend of mine pointed out this rather fascinating comparison:

              Pitcher A (age 30): 119-91, 3.11 ERA, 121 ERA+, 4.84 K/W, 1.109 WHIP, 32.4/31.2 WAR

              Pitcher B (age 31): 110-57, 3.18 ERA, 130 ERA+, 5.00 K/W, 1.087 WHIP, 31.5/36.3 WAR

              Now, from that, you certainly could argue that Pitcher B is slightly better than Pitcher A overall. But I would say that difference is more than made up with this fact: Pitcher A is one of the greatest postseason pitchers in baseball history while Pitcher B (though he has been fantastic in three postseason starts) is most famous for one year of NOT pitching in the postseason.

              And if ya don’t know, now ya know, Mr. President:

              Pitcher A is Madison Bumgarner.

              Pitcher B is Stephen Strasburg.

              OK, so let’s get to the money, right? The headline talked about money.

              Madison Bumgarner has made $57 million in his career and, like it or not, is about to go into one of the worst free agent climates in forever.

              Strasburg, meanwhile, has made double that, $110 million and he has another guaranteed $100 million coming his way, and he has a choice whether or not to double down and become a free agent.

              Now, let’s stipulate up front that we’re talking about cartoon bags of money. Nobody is going to to think that someone who has made $57 million and will undoubtedly make millions more is a charity case. The point here is not to cry “poor Maddy.”

              No, the point is: How does this happen? How in the world did Stephen Strasburg make twice as much money than Madison Bumgarner with 100 million guaranteed dollars ahead? I mean, forget the last couple of years because they had already made their financial beds before those years. Look at their paths:

              They were both high first-round picks and mega prospects. They both made their first big marks in 2010 — Strasburg came up that year and was a brief phenomenon before blowing out his arm, Bumgarner pitched in his first World Series game at age 20 and threw eight shutout innings.

              In 2011, Bumgarner pitched well enough to received Cy Young votes. Strasburg missed almost the whole year.

              In 2012, Strasburg returned from injury and pitched well enough to make the All-Star team. Bumgarner pitched in his second World Series game and pitched brilliantly again.

              In 2013, Bumgarner made the All-Star team and finished ninth in the Cy Young voting. Strasburg pitched better than his 8-9 record indicated.

              In 2014, Strasburg led the league in strikeouts. Bumgarner, meanwhile, won the World Series almost singlehandedly. He was named Sports Illustrated’s Sports Person of the Year.

              In 2015, Strasburg got hurt again. Bumgarner went 18-9 and finished sixth in the Cy Young voting.

              In 2016, Strasburg got hurt again. Bumgarner finished fourth in the Cy Young voting.

              So you tell me how in the world Strasburg did so much better financially?

              Let’s break it down. Strasburg got a $7.5 million signing bonus as the first pick in the draft (and one of the greatest pitching prospects in baseball history) and officially signed for a four-year, $15.1 million deal that took him through 2012.

              Bumgarner did get a not-insubstantial $2 million signing bonus, but he played for basically the minimum after that. Through 2012, he was already $12 million in the hole, having made just $3 million or so total.

              Then Bumgarner, in an effort to capitalize on his youthful success, signed what he hoped was a good deal with the Giants. It was meant to be one of those “both sides win” sort of deals, where the player gets security and up front money and the team pays some financial maneuverability (hint: They pay less). The deal was five years, $35 million PLUS two option years for the team.

              Those team option years are absolutely brutal, and it’s astounding that agents still give them away.

              Anyway, the deal was sold as a REWARD by the Giants.

              It was not a reward. Strasburg went year to year instead. And, even though he was oft-injured, he ended up making more money every single year than Bumgarner. So much for security.

              Then, after the 2016 season — with Bumgarner stuck for three more years at well-below market rate — Strasburg signed a seven-year, $175 million deal with the Nationals, one that allows him to opt out after this year or 2020 if he sees more money out there to be had. And, considering he’s putting up a Cy Young caliber season, there very well might be more money out there for him.

              Bumgarner, meanwhile, heads into the an uncertain free agent fate. He’s having an OK season but it seems eerily similar to the year Dallas Keuchel had before going into free agency last year. Keuchel then turned down a one-year qualifying offer (as Bumgarner is likely to do) and sat around and watched as teams passed him over. He eventually signed a one-year prorated deal with Atlanta for $13 million.

              That’s the nightmare scenario Bumgarner faces.

              So what’s the difference?

              I don’t think it’s oversimplifying things to say that the difference, plainly, is Scott Boras.

              This is not to say Boras is perfect — he doesn’t win for every player — but his record with Strasburg is quite remarkable. When Strasburg was drafted. Boras took negotiations down to literally the final minute before getting a record-breaking deal. In 2012, when Strasburg’s health was vulnerable after Tommy John surgery, Boras made sure Strasburg did not pitch in the playoffs. In the following years, Boras made sure to fight for every dollar for his client. When Strasburg was about to head into free agency, Boras read the tea leaves, saw how things were going, and Strasburg signed that huge $175 million extension with the opt-out clauses.

              Bumgarner, meanwhile, is with his third different agency since he signed that now-regrettable extension with the Giants.

              I don’t think there’s another sport where two terrific players as similar in value as MadBum and Stras can make such wildly different salaries. Baseball fans love to hate on Scott Boras — and I sense Boras loves to be hated in that way — but you have to say that with baseball owners making so much money (and with most fans utterly unmoved by players’ natural desire to make more money) the players deserve a fighter to make sure they get their piece of the pie.

              When it comes to Scott Boras, I can’t help but think about the Danny DeVito line in Other People’s Money: “I’m not your best friend. I’m your ONLY friend.”
              My top 10 players:

              1. Babe Ruth
              2. Barry Bonds
              3. Ty Cobb
              4. Ted Williams
              5. Willie Mays
              6. Alex Rodriguez
              7. Hank Aaron
              8. Honus Wagner
              9. Lou Gehrig
              10. Mickey Mantle

              Comment


              • #22
                In any other era he'd be Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan. But modern baseball made sure he's just been mediocre.
                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
                  In any other era he'd be Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan. But modern baseball made sure he's just been mediocre.
                  Minus 125 innings.
                  My top 10 players:

                  1. Babe Ruth
                  2. Barry Bonds
                  3. Ty Cobb
                  4. Ted Williams
                  5. Willie Mays
                  6. Alex Rodriguez
                  7. Hank Aaron
                  8. Honus Wagner
                  9. Lou Gehrig
                  10. Mickey Mantle

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post
                    In any other era he'd be Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan. But modern baseball made sure he's just been mediocre.
                    Huh? Rapid Robert and the Ryan Express were legendary for being workhorses extraordinaires. Strasburg not so much. I'm still blown away by Feller's workload before he went off to fight in WW II.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post

                      Your comparison of Strasburg to Madison Bumgarner reminds me of this fascinating blog post from Joe Posnanski a couple months ago:

                      I get into verbal fights with other Giant fans over MadBum. We all LOVE MadBum but he is clearly in decline. If he wants a contract over 3 years I say let him sign with some other team. But many of my fellow Giants fans scream, "But it's MadBum! He is a Giants for life!" Apparently they do not understand that the 2010-2016 MadBum is gone never to return.
                      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                      Comment

                      Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X