Comments on: Gillick Chimes In

By: Desu

Desu — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:00:10 +0000

I love you, buttsecks?

By: DavidCEisen

DavidCEisen — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:20:14 +0000

I think the problem was that we tend to try very hard to isolate player talent on an individual level and remove the effects of team play. So when we look at Pat Burrell and Raul Ibanez over the last few years we compare their wOBA ect, but we often don’t consider the environment in which they produce those numbers (I’m not talking about ballpark factors).

Last year, Ibanez was by far the Mariners best hitter (both Ichiro and Beltre were about .02 points below in wOBA), while Burrell was at most the third best hitter on the Phillies (Howard had a worse wOBA, but barely and Howard had a better .ISO, .SLG, and OPS. Burrell’s ability to get on base through walks, isn’t as impressive when you remember had of a base runner he is).

Ibanez’s success this year is at least a partial result of the production around him. He is probably seeing better pitches this year, as teams are much more worried about Utley and Howard–not to mention Werth, Victorino, and Feliz (off to a hot start, we’ll see if it lasts). Now Ibanez is not going to sustain a .487 wOBA, but he is very likely to out perform Burrell this year. Hell he has already earned half his salary already!

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:36:06 +0000

Anyone in Philly complaining now?

This guy is KILLING it in that small park. Ibanez wOBA and ISO have skyrocked (albeit in a small sample size) in the bandbox in Philly while Pat the Bat’s have dropped off the table.

By: CH

CH — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:35:01 +0000

If we’re concerned about team chemistry and leadership, then I’d much rather have Aaron Rowand playing for the Phils for $12/year than Ibanez for $11.5/year.

I know that was never an option because Rowand left before last year, Amaro wasn’t the GM last year, Pat Burrell was still under contract and they had Victorino and Werth to take over in CF and RF, maybe the Phils don’t win it all with Rowand blocking those guys, we’re not talking about Rowand we’re talking about Burrell, etc.

I know. I fully understand all of these things. Still, I’d much rather have Aaron Rowand shift to LF. If the Phils traded Ibanez straight-up for Rowand right now, I’d consider it a steal for the Phils.

By: MAS

MAS — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:03:10 +0000

LOL, good stuff.

By: MAS

MAS — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:35:11 +0000

It’s an interesting discussion. First, there is no need to “prove” that Ibanez is more consistent than Burrell. It’s not really a worthwhile exercise. Burrell and Ibanez are consistent and inconsistent in different ways. They are what they are. The Phillies chose Ibanez. We’ll see how it works out. What’s more interesting to discuss is whether stats are the only method to build a team. It’s the stats v. scout argument to some degree. Yes, stats are important, but it is reasonable to suggest that intangibles also matter. For instance, anecdotally, Moyer’s mentorship appears to have been helpful for Hamels. W/ Moyer and Hamels, the Phils won a world series and Hamels was WS MVP. Yet, is he a better pitcher than before Moyer? Maybe not. On the other hand, maybe he stayed healthy because of Moyer’s counsel. And, yet, maybe the relationship had very little to do with anything. Perhaps Ruiz’s hitting in the WS was the difference. One of the points is, that, if WAR is the only thing that matters, then why did the Red Sox not win the World Series last year? If WAR always predicts the winner, then why is there ever an upset? Perhaps, the main point is that other factors come into play once a certain level of achievement is reached. Luck. Health. Personal life issues. Ability to play small ball. Ability to hit LHP. Leadership. Chemistry. Character. Diversity. Depth. There is no exact answer on how to build a champion. So the argument as to “why this so-called balance is preferable to/more valuable than imbalance that produces the same results” is that the balance created by adding more diversity in the lineup between strikeout and contact hitters will lend itself to another championship. Of course, there are a host of possible reasons why the Phils signed Ibanez over Burrell that have nothing to do with this idea. Perhaps the Phils didn’t like his attitude, didn’t think he was coachable, or maybe even felt that he didn’t try hard enough after his last contract was signed. And, yes, perhaps the Phils should have waited and signed a younger Burrell for less money and less years. They didn’t though. Given the context of their team, perhaps they signed the hitter that fit their ideals more closely i.e. more contact, less strikeouts, while still producing similar, yet arguably less production from a WAR standpoint. As to “overpaying,” maybe they could afford to overpay. For instance, the Phils, according to WAR value, received $207.3 million in production in 2008, yet only paid $98.27 million in actual salary. So, if it can be assumed that they will get $200 mill production in 2009, then they can afford a $135 mill salary with Ibanez’s salary included. Thus, their “overachieving” players in terms of WAR Value to Actual Salary (i.e. Utley, Victorino, Werth, etc.) allow for some flexibility for them to “overpay” for a player such as Ibanez who brings skills that either do not show up on the stat sheet (leadership, character, chemistry) or are different skills (contact) than they already have (strikeout power hitters) and, thus, enable them to achieve a more balanced and diversified lineup. I’d like to review a study that observed playoff teams in short series as well as world championship teams to see if a diversified team with contact and strikeout hitters had any advantage over a team that only had strikeout hitters. It might not. At the same token, other factors, such as leadership and character, which are not as measurable may have an impact as well. As to this thought, it really goes back to whether or not anyone can exactly explain how to build a champion. Until there is one exact answer based solely on stats, then it is unreasonable to entirely discount other factors outside of the stats realm, such as leadership and character. As a final matter, discussions like this do serve a purpose because they fill the gap in the offseason and may create another theory to prove/disprove. Feel free to work through the playoff diversity theory. For now, pitchers and catchers are reporting and, fortunately, the Phils are defending champions. Regardless of whether or not Ibanez was the right decision, I’m just happy that they can defend their title.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:42:58 +0000

The 2 year/22M offer was only a rumor. The Phillies never claimed to have proposed it, and Burrell said no such offer was ever made.

By: buttsecks?

buttsecks? — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:25:41 +0000

I'm not sure that there is a valid enough stat to prove what he's trying to prove. Doesn't mean it's not true, just that there is a considerable burden of proof on him. He first has to prove that Ibáñez's daily or yearly performance can be reasonably expected to be more consistent than Burrell's and then that Ibáñez's superior consistency has a significant impact on winning ballgames, his teammates' performance, gameday revenue or anything else I may be overlooking—a daunting task to be sure. He's yet to address why Ibáñez's contact rate and BABIP make for better balance/consistency and why this balance/consistency makes for a more valuable ballplayer. If he can demonstrate one and then the other beyond a somewhat reasonable doubt using numbers and not anecdotal evidence, only then might I be swayed. This isn't about me having unreasonable standards, this is about the standard of proof being so high. "Ibáñez puts the ball in play, and these balls in play tend to fall for more hits, more often, than Burrell." I can't deny that, but what of Burrell's walk rate? He walks nearly twice as much as Ibáñez which decreases his reliance on the chaotic nature of BABIP. He need not worry about hitting into bad luck when he's jogging to first base every six times to the plate. The problem I see is the compartmentalization of stats, focusing on one or two numbers at the expense of the rest. It reminds me of this satirical piece at Baseball Evolution. When you're overly focused on the details instead of looking at the big picture, it can lead to dangerous conclusions.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:40:29 +0000

Don’t waste your time MAS. Whatever stat you provide won’t be valid enough. Let’s watch Raul this year and regroup on the Sunday when the regular season ends….

By: buttsecks?

buttsecks? — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:12:43 +0000

Unless you can tell me why this so-called balance is preferable to/more valuable than imbalance that produces the same results, this discussion serves no purpose to anyone (and yet I persist…). I’m not saying it is and I’m not saying it isn’t, but I’ve seen you offer nothing in the way of evidence or even the rationale for this belief. I could very well be wrong but you’ve given me nothing to go on. You’ve made two rebuttals without actually saying anything.

If I’m 3 WAR one year, 1 the next, and 5 the next and you’re 3 WAR each year, what difference does it make? A tiny fraction of a “playoff share”, but in which direction?

If my monthly breakdown is +1.0, +0.5, -1, +2, -1.5 and +2 and you’re 0.5 every month, what impact does it have? If you can prove to me that one is more desirable than the other from the standpoint of winning ballgames, I’ll back off. I suppose there’s some value in not frustrating fans and management to no end with your streaky production, but I’ll reiterate that for whatever reason(s), Ibáñez’s performance the last two seasons was as streaky as almost anyone’s.

Another thing, where did this notion that Ibáñez is so much more consistent than Burrell come from in the first place? Ibáñez’s Batting Wins per 650 plate appearances the last four years are 1.3, 2.0, 1.6 and 1.9. Burrell’s are 2.3, 1.9, 2.5 and 2.0. Sure looks every bit as consistent as Ibáñez to me.