FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I don’t think a 26% HR/FB ratio is that ridiculous. According to HitTracker, 34 of his HR would have been out of at least 25 parks, a.k.a. he hits a whole lot of no-doubters. I don’t see him dropping below a .375 wOBA.

    Comment by LeeTro — March 17, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

  2. His avg HR distance is ridiculous. I’ve heard people comment on the number of “just enough” HR he’s hit…but percentage wise it isn’t that out of line. And there isn’t any stat for warning track outs, where I’d imagine he’s also among league leaders.

    Comment by Jimbo — March 17, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

  3. Problems:

    1) “With 72 HR and 199 RBI in the last two seasons for Reynolds, a comparison to Dan Uggla seems apt.” Read: I’m too lazy to dig deeper than the player that other articles have identified as a comparable player. Reynolds has 89 career bombs. Uggla had 90 at the time he went to arbitration. Reynolds has 261 career RBI, Uggla had 270. Career AVG; Reynolds .257, Uggla .262. Also Reynolds has 35 steals, 24 last year. Uggla had 13 career. So, if Reynolds posts a 1/9/-22/.268 line, then yes he is Dan Uggla. If he hits 25 bombs he’s Prince Fielder minus average plus steals (FYI Prince: 17.670M for same timeframe).

    2) “Indeed, it seems like the Diamondbacks were forced to pay $14M for what is projected to be around $10.5M of arbitration market value.” Read: “Remember that Uggla talk with 13.15M? Forget all that, when you look at the recent contract of John McDoesn’texist, 10.5M is the number.”

    3) “Despite the negativity above, this contract certainly beats having to pay market value for Reynolds’ production for Arizona, and it was inevitable that Reynolds would receive a high contract relative to his production.” Simplified: This contract is cheap relative to production, also this contract is expensive relative to production. I’m going to cut you tremendous slack and assume you are flip flopping “arb market value” and “FA market value” within the same sentence without saying so outright, to stay consistent with the sentence preceeding and in complete opposition to the Uggla comparison of the second paragraph.

    4) ____________. This is your analysis of the option year you passively mention in the first paragraph. I would think this has significant bearing on the value of the deal; as the DBacks now have the unilateral decision on whether Reynolds is worth 10.5M in the final year of the deal (value minus buyout). Fairly large component to this deal which is absent from this analysis.

    5) Smart-ass comments aside, you flip-flop between comparative analysis to arb-eligible players (correct though i think you choose the wrong guy) and a percentage-of-FA-WAR-40/60/80 analysis (so wrong it hurts), which serves only to obfuscate your point. Arb $ and FA $ are different and while the latter informs whether the DBacks should non-tender or trade Reynolds and try and spend the money elsewhere, combined they completely misstate the arbitration criteria and process, which is not based on current FA value of wins.

    Comment by Scott — March 17, 2010 @ 3:21 pm

  4. I’ve always thought being a dick was the best way to provide criticism. Well done, dick, er, Scott.

    Comment by Jesse A — March 17, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

0.341 Powered by WordPress