Jay[ton] Mohr Weighs In

In case you missed it in the Twitter explosion last night, Jay Mohr, actor and comedian (whose name is eerily similar to that of Kansas City Royals GM Dayton Moore), weighed in on the Royals-Rays trade that sent James Shields to KC.

He followed it up with several other tweets, all of which point to a non-idiotic (IMHO) opinion — but one that is very, very incomplete.

Consider this Tweet:


There’s something to be said, maybe, for the idea that not all prospects pan out, and that it’s better to have someone like James Shields, in that he represents a [more] known value, than taking a long-term risk on someone like Wil Myers. Of course, most pitching prospects are much more volatile than someone like Myers, who has dominated the upper levels of the minors at a very young age.

And Jay Mohr thinks that the Royals got two very good starting pitchers in this deal, as opposed to one very good starting pitcher and one very good relief pitcher that will be used as a starter. The velocity on all of Davis’s pitches jumped significantly as a reliever last year, something that he can’t hope to sustain as a starter. Unsurprisingly, his numbers as a starter are underwhelming. Jay Mohr says that numbers don’t lie, but he doesn’t seem to understand how to interpret the numbers; or, he’s not considering enough kinds of numbers.

Things like Jay Mohr’s tweets from last night are interesting to me because they seem to represent a hybrid kind of baseball fan/analyst — those who are beginning to absorb something from the detailed context that advanced stats afford to every person who’s willing to seek them out, but still react to them as the attempt of nerds to sabotage the game of baseball instead of as an attempt to think about the game logically and more comprehensively.

In support of his opinion, Mr. MooreMohr linked to an article by CBS Sports “baseball insider” Danny Knobler wherein he (Knobler) notes that the rest of Twitter disagrees with Mohr’s assessment. As to why many Twitter users might disagree, Knobler writes that “the Royals are trying to win now. Keeping Butler gave them a better chance at it. Getting Shields gave them a much better chance at it. The Twitter world may not get that.”

The “Twitter world” most likey does get that, Mr. Knob. That, to me, is in fact all too clear. I don’t think anyone in the “Twitter world” said that the addition of Shields and Wade Davis makes the Royals pitching staff worse for 2013. I think we’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in the “Twitter world” or any other “world” who would argue that this trade — at least on its own merit — makes the Royals worse overall for 2013, or even in 2014. (Giving 30 starts to Jeremy Guthrie instead of Luis Mendoza/Felipe Paulino will probably make them worse, though.)

Instead, the “Twitter world” is mostly arguing that this trade doesn’t make the Royals better by nearly enough to get them where they need to be: at the top of the AL Central. Because this trade is likely to fall short of securing that ultimate goal, and because it significantly increases payroll for a cash-strapped team, and because it weakens the Royals in the long term, it wasn’t the right move for the Royals at this time.

Like Mohr, Knobler misuses stats, too — whether out of willfulness, laziness, or ignorance, I don’t know. For example, he cites Baseball-Reference’s similarity scores — to the end of saying that Shields’s number-one most similar player is none other than Zack Greinke. The comparable players listed by sites like B-R and Baseball Prospectus are not a number derived from off-the-cuff opinions of pro scouts; in either case (and moreso in the case of PECOTA than in the Bill Jamesian scores at B-R) they’re an advanced stat with a methodology that is both complex and imperfect, meant to be used as a guideline, not a nail-in-the-coffin point in an argument — a la “James Shields is Zack Greinke so BOOM.”

Yes, Shields’s most similar player might be Greinke — the implication by Knobler seems to be that Shields as good as the guy who just signed the second richest contract ever for a pitcher — but his second most comparable player is Larry Christenson, a player with an average-ish career who was out of the Majors by age 29. Ben McDonald is also on that list.

I don’t know where I’m going with this. The Jay Mohr tweets are those of a fan who is excited that his team added guys that will make the team a bit more exciting in the short term. They might be misguided, but I’m fine with them: at least Mohr resisted snark and engaged people. Danny Knobler, on the other hand, is a national columnist that snarkily dismissed all Twitter users as ignorant, then proceded to cherrypick and misuse some of the very stats that shits on at other times. So I’m riled up.




Print This Post

Hire Robert J. Baumann to live-blog your next birthday party, family reunion, or corporate event. You will not want to forget it soon.


5 Responses to “Jay[ton] Mohr Weighs In”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Oni says:

    There were just so many different ways this could have been done, for so much less in cost. As it stands now the Royals are going to pay Shields/Guthrie/Santana/Davis right about $33 million in ’13. Why not do something like…

    1) trade from a very deep bullpen to acquire Tommy Hanson. $4 million.
    2) sign Brandon McCarthy. $8 million
    3) sign Anibal Sanchez. $14 million. Or Dan Haren if you want the one year contract. $13 million.
    4) Odorizzi is ready to contribute this year or next
    5) put Myers in right field instead of Jeff effin’ Francouer.

    That puts the Royals at $26 million a year for those players.

    Wade Davis is cheap but he’s not a starter, so that’s the same number of starters for $7 million less, which is plenty enough to sign Scott Feldman or whoever. Or invest the money somewhere else! Myers + the other 3 would still in the system, and the Royals wouldn’t even have to give up a 1st round draft pick for all those starters. They could even trade the prospects they’d save for…more (higher quality) pitching!

    I just feel bad for Royals fans, truly.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. stats are agnostic says:

    “Instead, the “Twitter world” is mostly arguing that this trade doesn’t make the Royals better by nearly enough to get them where they need to be: at the top of the AL Central.”

    Shouldn’t we, as statheads, be a touch less hubristic in projecting the AL central? Fangraphs staff were surely not alone in projecting the Orioles were the 31st ranked organization in baseball. While you can make the “if you squint really hard and everything breaks right” case for every team, I’m not sure you could find anyone to even make the farfetched case for the Os as late as March. Or April. Ok, maybe May.

    And the thing is–we constantly do this with teams year in and year out. There are, as The Dude would say, a lot of ins, outs, whathaveyous involved in a season and it’s possible that the Royals W/L record does not reflect their true talent or that the public, like Mssrs Mohr and, and you say, Knob recognize this as a fatal flaw in our process. I mean, even still….I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the division, from a talent standpoint, isn’t “winnable”, right?

    Thus, the real criticism, IMO, is that Moore did this to save his job by demonstrating improved W/L results. For someone who has emphasized “the process” for so long…isn’t *that* the curious thing in all of this?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Robert J. Baumann says:

      I think these are all very good points, and when I read your comments earlier this evening I felt sorta embarrassed that I even posted this. No matter what we project, the games have to be played, and in the games anything can happen, and then that anything can keep happening.

      My criticism of Knobler (and many writers like him) is this: If he does indeed believe something like what you said — i.e. that “the Royals W/L record does not reflect their true talent” — and that, in addition to adding Shields to the rotation, their W/L record has a good chance to regress toward their true talent level, then he needs to say that, and, more importantly, he needs to explain his reasons for believing so. Without such an explicit statement and accompanying explanation, I don’t think we can give him credit for it.

      He said that a big chunk of baseball fans on the internet “didn’t get” a simple and apparent fact — that the Royals just made themselves a better team in the short term — without (a) offering in-depth, insightful reasons why the Royals would be better, and (b) addressing the actual criticisms that most of those fans and analysts (aka “the Twitter world”) were making.

      Also, as I said, he tried to use stats that he normally shits on, and he used them irresponsibly.

      I was guilty of hubris in dismissing the Royals’ chances of winning a postseason berth in 2013. I’m guilty of stating a fact when I say Danny Knobler is a turd of a writer.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>