Author Topic: apologies to LaRoche  (Read 9755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17470
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #400: September 07, 2012, 12:46:23 PM »
Adam LaRoche is trending to end the season with a fWAR of 3.6.  His previous career high was 2.5 in 2006 so yeah he's definitely having a career year.


fWAR is a relational rating system. You're using it incorrectly.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #401: September 07, 2012, 12:46:34 PM »
If you go LHB leadoff, Harper becomes the LHB power bat.

Do you trust him in that role?  Doesn't seem to me that he's earned that yet.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #402: September 07, 2012, 12:47:27 PM »
fWAR is a relational rating system. You're using it incorrectly.

fWAR is just fangraph's version of the WAR stat.  I'm not using it incorrectly.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34396
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #403: September 07, 2012, 12:47:47 PM »
I trust him more to grow into it than I do LaRoche to sustain multiplie career years during his decline phase.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #404: September 07, 2012, 12:49:01 PM »
I trust him more to grow into it than I do LaRoche to sustain multiplie career years during his decline phase.

Fair enough.  I can agree with that.  I would still like to bring back LaRoche on a 2 to 3 year deal to hedge our bets but I could certainly see Harper making him obsolete as well.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34396
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #405: September 07, 2012, 12:50:05 PM »
I'd be fine bringing back LaRoche, but no more than two years, max, and I doubt LaRoche or his agent would go for that.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16830
  • No Trade Clause
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #406: September 07, 2012, 12:53:02 PM »
I'd be fine bringing back LaRoche, but no more than two years, max, and I doubt LaRoche or his agent would go for that.

Or maybe he would? There's something to be said for playing for a winning team. What other contenders need an everyday first baseman? (I actually have no idea - I'm asking the question)

Anyway, I think a lot depends on how things turn out this year

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17470
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #407: September 07, 2012, 12:55:06 PM »
fWAR is just fangraph's version of the WAR stat.  I'm not using it incorrectly.

I think you would be better served looking into the component pieces of fWAR.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #408: September 07, 2012, 12:56:47 PM »
I think you would be better served looking into the component pieces of fWAR.

Feel free to explain to me the inner workings that I don't understand.  I understand what the math represents but I confess my understanding of how they arrive at these stats isn't as good as it could be.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #409: September 07, 2012, 12:58:12 PM »
Or maybe he would? There's something to be said for playing for a winning team. What other contenders need an everyday first baseman? (I actually have no idea - I'm asking the question)

Anyway, I think a lot depends on how things turn out this year
The majority of the teams in baseball believe they will be contenders every year.  Someone will pay him.  That's not a question.  However, I'm not convinced LaRoche wouldn't give us a home-team discount either.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17470
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #410: September 07, 2012, 12:59:27 PM »
Feel free to explain to me the inner workings that I don't understand.  I understand what the math represents but I confess my understanding of how they arrive at these stats isn't as good as it could be.

fWAR is a rating system that is heavily influenced by league and position. Look at who played first in the NL in 2006 and compare them with the 2012 players.

Offline Hogie

  • Posts: 521
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #411: September 07, 2012, 12:59:40 PM »
Does anyone agree with this at this point:

Qualifying offers will be worth $13MM-plus, and recent history indicates the industry doesn't view LaRoche as a $13MM player. The SFX client obtained $16MM for two years following the 2010 season. Before he signed with Washington, the Diamondbacks declined to pick up their side of a $7.5MM mutual option, another indication that teams view him as a player whose value sits somewhere south of $10MM per year.

If the Nationals do make LaRoche a qualifying offer, it’d likely be advisable for him to accept. Teams probably wouldn’t want to surrender a top draft pick to sign a solid but unspectacular first baseman who turns 33 the first week of November. As a result, it seems likely LaRoche would say ‘yes’ if the Nationals extend a $13MM qualifying offer.


http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/08/adam-laroches-2013-option.html

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #412: September 07, 2012, 01:02:20 PM »
fWAR is a rating system that is heavily influenced by league and position. Look at who played first in the NL in 2006 and compare them with the 2012 players.

That makes an even stronger argument for LaRoche then.  In 2006 we were in the middle of the steroids era and offensive stats were better across the board.  Additionally my understanding is that adjustments for position and league aren't based on who else played those positions but rather an estimated value ranking system based on expectations for the position and league.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17470
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #413: September 07, 2012, 01:05:02 PM »
That makes an even stronger argument for LaRoche then.  In 2006 we were in the middle of the steroids era and offensive stats were better across the board.  Additionally my understanding is that adjustments for position and league aren't based on who else played those positions but rather an estimated value ranking system based on expectations for the position and league.

Then I stand by my original statement.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17630
  • Let's Do This
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #414: September 07, 2012, 01:08:21 PM »
That makes an even stronger argument for LaRoche then.  In 2006 we were in the middle of the steroids era and offensive stats were better across the board.  Additionally my understanding is that adjustments for position and league aren't based on who else played those positions but rather an estimated value ranking system based on expectations for the position and league.

Ummmm . . .  No.

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 16830
  • No Trade Clause
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #415: September 07, 2012, 01:12:20 PM »
Does anyone agree with this at this point:

Qualifying offers will be worth $13MM-plus, and recent history indicates the industry doesn't view LaRoche as a $13MM player. The SFX client obtained $16MM for two years following the 2010 season. Before he signed with Washington, the Diamondbacks declined to pick up their side of a $7.5MM mutual option, another indication that teams view him as a player whose value sits somewhere south of $10MM per year.

If the Nationals do make LaRoche a qualifying offer, it’d likely be advisable for him to accept. Teams probably wouldn’t want to surrender a top draft pick to sign a solid but unspectacular first baseman who turns 33 the first week of November. As a result, it seems likely LaRoche would say ‘yes’ if the Nationals extend a $13MM qualifying offer.


http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/08/adam-laroches-2013-option.html


That would be a frickin gift

Not sure I agree with it though. LaRoche is arguably the MVP on the team with the best record in baseball. You'd have to believe someone would pay big for that

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #416: September 07, 2012, 01:18:41 PM »
Ummmm . . .  No.

The Mitchell Report came out on December 13, 2007 so ummmmm... yeah.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17630
  • Let's Do This
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #417: September 07, 2012, 01:20:36 PM »
The Mitchell Report came out on December 13, 2007 so ummmmm... yeah.

Testing began in 2006; so ummmm . . . .  no.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #418: September 07, 2012, 01:21:40 PM »
Testing began in 2006; so ummmm . . . .  no.

And everyone stopped using immediately which is why 2006 saw no one suspended for performance-enhancing drugs.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17630
  • Let's Do This
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #419: September 07, 2012, 01:26:32 PM »
And everyone stopped using immediately which is why 2006 saw no one suspended for performance-enhancing drugs.

Spin it all you want.  You said, "middle of the steroids era" which most people can agree was actually mid-to-late-90's.  Drug testing began in 2006 and whether all usage ceased in 2006 is immaterial.  Baseball began cleaning up the sport in the spring of 2006 by testing for drugs effectively closing "the steroid era." 

Claiming that usage in 2006 was as rampant as in 1998 is disingenuous and you know it. 

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 4893
  • #EatFace
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #420: September 07, 2012, 01:28:35 PM »
Spin it all you want.  You said, "middle of the steroids era" which most people can agree was actually mid-to-late-90's.  Drug testing began in 2006 and whether all usage ceased in 2006 is immaterial.  Baseball began cleaning up the sport in the spring of 2006 by testing for drugs effectively closing "the steroid era." 

Claiming that usage in 2006 was as rampant as in 1998 is disingenuous and you know it. 

I never said those words.  I said it was more rampant in 2006 than in 2012.

Online blue911

  • Posts: 17470
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #421: September 07, 2012, 01:37:22 PM »
I never said those words.  I said it was more rampant in 2006 than in 2012.

Since only Mike Jacobs has ever been linked to PEDs I don't see the relevance.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17630
  • Let's Do This
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #422: September 07, 2012, 01:38:03 PM »
I never said those words.  I said it was more rampant in 2006 than in 2012.

Yes you did:

That makes an even stronger argument for LaRoche then.  In 2006 we were in the middle of the steroids era and offensive stats were better across the board.  Additionally my understanding is that adjustments for position and league aren't based on who else played those positions but rather an estimated value ranking system based on expectations for the position and league.

I'm not going to argue stats with you because you know a lot more about SABR stats than I'll ever forget.  But come on.  In terms of steroid usage in the game, let's not pretend 2006 was anything like the 1990's.  2012 is a lot closer to 2006 than the "middle of the steroids era."

Offline MorseTheHorse

  • Posts: 2285
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #423: September 07, 2012, 02:17:32 PM »
ah so is this how Espinosa always has such a high fWAR?  The crappiness of other NL 2B?

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: apologies to LaRoche
« Reply #424: September 07, 2012, 02:38:03 PM »
LaRoche is a G