Tigers sign Prince - 9/214 - Heyman

[SouthSideRyan]

There's something to be said for not taking defensive metrics at face value, especially those for first basemen.

 

I had that thought, but it's not like they're cratering his value with bizarre outliers. BIS, Total Zone, UZR, DRS, the Fan's scouting report, and everything I've ever heard about Prince as a defender all agree, he's a poor defender in the neighborhood of -7 runs.

 

Nobody's disagreeing that Fielder is a below average defender, it's the matter of quantifying that I still consider suspect.

[mul21]

 

The things ALL matter. When it comes down to it, those years he was worth 2.1 and 2.7 wins above a replacement player (this, obviously, operating under the assumption that WAR and defensive WAR numbers are good at measuring what they're intended to measure). In other words, he was an average to barely above average player those two years.

 

And that goes back to what SSR said, I'm not sure I really buy defensive metrics for a 1B. Nor do I think they matter a ton, especially in comparison to pretty much every other defensive position on the field. And as long as he's not running into outs stupidly on the bases, is that really costing you that much?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Runs are runs. The fact that the rest of the Cubs' offense sucks doesn't mean Fielder's offense counts double.

[Guest]

 

The things ALL matter. When it comes down to it, those years he was worth 2.1 and 2.7 wins above a replacement player (this, obviously, operating under the assumption that WAR and defensive WAR numbers are good at measuring what they're intended to measure). In other words, he was an average to barely above average player those two years.

 

And that goes back to what SSR said, I'm not sure I really buy defensive metrics for a 1B. Nor do I think they matter a ton, especially in comparison to pretty much every other defensive position on the field. And as long as he's not running into outs stupidly on the bases, is that really costing you that much?

 

A lost run is a lost run, doesn't matter what position it's at.

 

At least, as I understand the metric.

[Guest]

There's something to be said for not taking defensive metrics at face value, especially those for first basemen.

 

I had that thought, but it's not like they're cratering his value with bizarre outliers. BIS, Total Zone, UZR, DRS, the Fan's scouting report, and everything I've ever heard about Prince as a defender all agree, he's a poor defender in the neighborhood of -7 runs.

 

Nobody's disagreeing that Fielder is a below average defender, it's the matter of quantifying that I still consider suspect.

 

And what I'm saying is that not only do all the quantitative measures agree to an almost uncanny degree, but even without their presence our best estimate of his defensive value doesn't really move the needle on his value at all. The Fan's Scouting report rated him a 19 out of 100, when the vast majority of 1B rate between 30 and 60. I have a hard time believing he's any better than a -5 defender; there's just no evidence, objective or subjective, to suggest that WAR is overstating his defensive shortcomings.

[mul21]

 

The things ALL matter. When it comes down to it, those years he was worth 2.1 and 2.7 wins above a replacement player (this, obviously, operating under the assumption that WAR and defensive WAR numbers are good at measuring what they're intended to measure). In other words, he was an average to barely above average player those two years.

 

And that goes back to what SSR said, I'm not sure I really buy defensive metrics for a 1B. Nor do I think they matter a ton, especially in comparison to pretty much every other defensive position on the field. And as long as he's not running into outs stupidly on the bases, is that really costing you that much?

 

A lost run is a lost run, doesn't matter what position it's at.

 

At least, as I understand the metric.

 

Right, but in a situation where that one run really matters (at least late in games), you pinch run for him and mitigate some of that problem. Admittedly, him not scoring from 2nd on a single in the 4th inning could cost you a game, but again, he fills such a huge hole that I'm willing to deal with the downside to get the big bat in the lineup. He's certainly a flawed player, but when a guy has an OPS/OPS+ like he does every year, that's just kind of a risk you're either willing or not willing to take.

[bukie]

So, to sum up:

 

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

The primary question becomes do you accept the positives over the negatives, and for how long?

 

For me, offensive ability like Fielder's comes at a premium, and as long as he can keep that up and stay healthy, he should be paid a premium to produce it. I'd love to get away with a 5 year deal, and 6 would be satisfactory. The problem with the Cubs right now, in my opinion, is they have a complete dearth of options at 1B internally for the next several years (I mean, it's what, Vogelbach possibly, Vitters maybe, or else they'd better start drafting players that have a bat that can stick at first).

 

The options they're left with is to see if they can get value in a trade for somebody like Logan Morrison and hope he pans out, or pick up Daric Barton if the A's drop him and see if his last year was a fluke (and is also just one year younger than Fielder). Both of those options have more questions than Fielder does, and it's not always about getting the most value efficient team, it's about getting the best team, and Fielder is easily the best option available for at least the next four years.

Edited December 13, 2011 by bukie

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The most important late-inning situations are tie games. How do you decide to pull him from the game then?

[SouthSideRyan]

There's something to be said for not taking defensive metrics at face value, especially those for first basemen.

 

I had that thought, but it's not like they're cratering his value with bizarre outliers. BIS, Total Zone, UZR, DRS, the Fan's scouting report, and everything I've ever heard about Prince as a defender all agree, he's a poor defender in the neighborhood of -7 runs.

 

Nobody's disagreeing that Fielder is a below average defender, it's the matter of quantifying that I still consider suspect.

 

And what I'm saying is that not only do all the quantitative measures agree to an almost uncanny degree, but even without their presence our best estimate of his defensive value doesn't really move the needle on his value at all. The Fan's Scouting report rated him a 19 out of 100, when the vast majority of 1B rate between 30 and 60. I have a hard time believing he's any better than a -5 defender; there's just no evidence, objective or subjective, to suggest that WAR is overstating his defensive shortcomings.

 

I'm saying I have a hard time quantifying any 1B on a runs or wins level when it comes to defense. It's such an unimportant defensive position, that I really have a hard time caring.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

The primary question becomes do you accept the positives over the negatives, and for how long?

 

Depends on the tiebreaker: Cost.

[Exile on Waveland]

I am sure everyone knows this, but I think we should be clear. Fielder's performance has "fluctuated" but these are his two "down" years:

 

2008: 276/372/507, 130 OPS+, 34 home runs

2010: 261/401/471, 135 OPS+, 32 home runs (lead the league in walks)

 

I repeat: those are his "bad" years. That is still some very good offensive production. The Cubs really, really need offense -- specifically power -- and we're haggling about base-running and defense. Not that those things don't detract value from Fielder . . . but I feel like Allen Iverson: "base running, man, we're talking about base running." The Cubs better sign some damn good base runners to make up for those 32-50 home runs.

 

Stop boiling it down to just his offensive numbers as if his major negatives as a baserunner and fielder don't matter.

 

He's so bad at the latter two that they significantly bring down his value. It's as silly as turning a blind eye to anything else. Like saying a pitcher just wins or something. Yea, he can hit, but it's not like those other negative things he's doing aren't happening.

 

His value is a combined product of all these things.

 

He was worth 2.1 and 2.7 WAR those years, regardless of how good a hitter he still managed to be.

 

First, I'll echo what others have said: I'm very dubious the defensive metrics accurately reflect value, especially relative to offensive metrics which are both more reliable and more tested/analyzed. Fielder is a bad defender, sure. I'm not turning a blind eye to that -- considering it's right there in my post -- I just think it pales in comparison to his offensive value. We're picking nits and that will basically always lead to eschewing overpaying.

 

Second, saying the statistics I posted are similar to wins for pitchers is both disingeniuous and insulting. I didn't boil anything down to one statistic (I listed five, three of which are sabermetrically-inclined). I certainly didn't boil anything down to one inane statistic like pitcher's wins. I noted his poor defense and base-running detracted value, so I don't see how you can argue I "boiled" those away; regardless, even if I did, at most, I boiled Fielder down to his offense. Which is, by far, the most important factor for any position player.

[Guest]

I don't understand the notion that we need offense and he'll provide it as though this is the bottom line.

 

The bottom line is that his contribution on that end is mitigated (to what degree is certainly debatable, but it's unquestionably significant) by his other shortcomings. Runs are runs, however we get them/prevent them. The ones he's costing us matter, too.

[bukie]

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

The primary question becomes do you accept the positives over the negatives, and for how long?

 

Depends on the tiebreaker: Cost.

As any player does, yes. But what I'm saying is that I tend to value offensive production over defense at a position like 1B more than, say, any other position. It's a position where you simply need a high end offensive player. If Fielder was producing a similarly comparative offensive and defensive value at a more crucial defensive position, then I'd be less inclined to value him as highly.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand the notion that we need offense and he'll provide it as though this is the bottom line.

 

The bottom line is that his contribution on that end is mitigated (to what degree is certainly debatable, but it's unquestionably significant) by his other shortcomings. Runs are runs, however we get them/prevent them. The ones he's costing us matter, too.

 

Because the runs he actually produces are real, while the theoretical ones he costs us are not nearly as quantifiable in real life.

[C.C.]

I don't understand the notion that we need offense and he'll provide it as though this is the bottom line.

 

The bottom line is that his contribution on that end is mitigated (to what degree is certainly debatable, but it's unquestionably significant) by his other shortcomings. Runs are runs, however we get them/prevent them. The ones he's costing us matter, too.

 

Because the runs he actually produces are real, while the theoretical ones he costs us are not nearly as quantifiable in real life.

 

Right! He plays 1B, who gives a [expletive]!

Edited December 13, 2011 by C.C.

[Exile on Waveland]

So, to sum up:

 

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

If one looks at that list, and favors not signing Fielder, it seems to me one resigns the Cubs to small-marketdom.

[Guest]

 

First, I'll echo what others have said: I'm very dubious the defensive metrics accurately reflect value, especially relative to offensive metrics which are both more reliable and more tested/analyzed. Fielder is a bad defender, sure. I'm not turning a blind eye to that -- considering it's right there in my post -- I just think it pales in comparison to his offensive value. We're picking nits and that will basically always lead to eschewing overpaying.

 

Second, saying the statistics I posted are similar to wins for pitchers is both disingeniuous and insulting. I didn't boil anything down to one statistic (I listed five, three of which are sabermetrically-inclined). I certainly didn't boil anything down to one inane statistic like pitcher's wins. I noted his poor defense and base-running detracted value, so I don't see how you can argue I "boiled" those away; regardless, even if I did, at most, I boiled Fielder down to his offense. Which is, by far, the most important factor for any position player.

 

The point is that his overall value as a player is mitigated by other factors that you admit are there but are almost attempting to sweep under the rug.

 

Yes, offense is obviously the most important factor. The others matter too, and these metrics that attempt to measure those contributions say he's costing his team in significant ways.

 

Yes, defense at 1B isn't as important as at other spots... and yet, somehow, Prince is still costing his team a bunch of runs by being bad at it.

 

You want to argue that those metrics are questionable, that's fine. That's a totally different argument. But plenty of smart people think they're at least fairly legitimate. And just about every metric out there suggest that Prince is going to cost you a lot of runs with his poor defense.

[bukie]

So, to sum up:

 

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

If one looks at that list, and favors not signing Fielder, it seems to me one resigns the Cubs to small-marketdom.

At the same time, he's even more valuable to an AL team because his negatives can be hidden so much more easily. So if Seattle/Texas/whoever values him highly enough to offer him an 8-year deal upwards of $200 million, I wouldn't want the Cubs to match.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

*tries to figure out why hitting a single produces real runs, but allowing a single with your bad defense is theoretical, but only if you play a less important defensive position*

[Exile on Waveland]

There's something to be said for not taking defensive metrics at face value, especially those for first basemen.

 

I had that thought, but it's not like they're cratering his value with bizarre outliers. BIS, Total Zone, UZR, DRS, the Fan's scouting report, and everything I've ever heard about Prince as a defender all agree, he's a poor defender in the neighborhood of -7 runs.

 

Nobody's disagreeing that Fielder is a below average defender, it's the matter of quantifying that I still consider suspect.

 

And what I'm saying is that not only do all the quantitative measures agree to an almost uncanny degree, but even without their presence our best estimate of his defensive value doesn't really move the needle on his value at all. The Fan's Scouting report rated him a 19 out of 100, when the vast majority of 1B rate between 30 and 60. I have a hard time believing he's any better than a -5 defender; there's just no evidence, objective or subjective, to suggest that WAR is overstating his defensive shortcomings.

 

I'm saying I have a hard time quantifying any 1B on a runs or wins level when it comes to defense. It's such an unimportant defensive position, that I really have a hard time caring.

 

Yes. (From what I've read) No one is taking the indefensible position that Fielder doesn't suck on defense. We all know he does. We are just highly dubious that one can say his defense is "worth -5 runs." We know he produces a ton with his bat; his defensive value/worth, while not good, is theoretical.

[CubColtPacer]

There's something to be said for not taking defensive metrics at face value, especially those for first basemen.

 

I had that thought, but it's not like they're cratering his value with bizarre outliers. BIS, Total Zone, UZR, DRS, the Fan's scouting report, and everything I've ever heard about Prince as a defender all agree, he's a poor defender in the neighborhood of -7 runs.

 

Nobody's disagreeing that Fielder is a below average defender, it's the matter of quantifying that I still consider suspect.

 

And what I'm saying is that not only do all the quantitative measures agree to an almost uncanny degree, but even without their presence our best estimate of his defensive value doesn't really move the needle on his value at all. The Fan's Scouting report rated him a 19 out of 100, when the vast majority of 1B rate between 30 and 60. I have a hard time believing he's any better than a -5 defender; there's just no evidence, objective or subjective, to suggest that WAR is overstating his defensive shortcomings.

 

I'm saying I have a hard time quantifying any 1B on a runs or wins level when it comes to defense. It's such an unimportant defensive position, that I really have a hard time caring.

 

What makes 1st base an unimportant defensive position? I would be wary of equating easy for most people to play adequately with unimportant.

[Bull]

I don't understand the notion that we need offense and he'll provide it as though this is the bottom line.

 

The bottom line is that his contribution on that end is mitigated (to what degree is certainly debatable, but it's unquestionably significant) by his other shortcomings. Runs are runs, however we get them/prevent them. The ones he's costing us matter, too.

 

Because the runs he actually produces are real, while the theoretical ones he costs us are not nearly as quantifiable in real life.

 

Right! He plays 1B, who gives a [expletive]!

 

Anyone who wants Castro to have less than 500 errors next year. 1b defense is underrated, imo. A great defender at 1b changes the whole infield.

 

I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this case, but to completely dismiss them is ill advised.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Bull

[Exile on Waveland]

So, to sum up:

 

Positives: Age, Injury History, Plate Discipline, Power, Covers a position of need, Left-handed

Negatives: Baserunning, Fielding, Body Type

 

If one looks at that list, and favors not signing Fielder, it seems to me one resigns the Cubs to small-marketdom.

At the same time, he's even more valuable to an AL team because his negatives can be hidden so much more easily. So if Seattle/Texas/whoever values him highly enough to offer him an 8-year deal upwards of $200 million, I wouldn't want the Cubs to match.

 

I would agree with that. He has more long-term value to an AL team than the Cubs.

[bukie]

*tries to figure out why hitting a single produces real runs, but allowing a single with your bad defense is theoretical, but only if you play a less important defensive position*

Because offensively the player is far more individually responsible for being out/not out, while defensively the player is a lot less individually responsible for preventing runs.

[Exile on Waveland]

 

First, I'll echo what others have said: I'm very dubious the defensive metrics accurately reflect value, especially relative to offensive metrics which are both more reliable and more tested/analyzed. Fielder is a bad defender, sure. I'm not turning a blind eye to that -- considering it's right there in my post -- I just think it pales in comparison to his offensive value. We're picking nits and that will basically always lead to eschewing overpaying.

 

Second, saying the statistics I posted are similar to wins for pitchers is both disingeniuous and insulting. I didn't boil anything down to one statistic (I listed five, three of which are sabermetrically-inclined). I certainly didn't boil anything down to one inane statistic like pitcher's wins. I noted his poor defense and base-running detracted value, so I don't see how you can argue I "boiled" those away; regardless, even if I did, at most, I boiled Fielder down to his offense. Which is, by far, the most important factor for any position player.

 

The point is that his overall value as a player is mitigated by other factors that you admit are there but are almost attempting to sweep under the rug.

 

Yes, offense is obviously the most important factor. The others matter too, and these metrics that attempt to measure those contributions say he's costing his team in significant ways.

 

Yes, defense at 1B isn't as important as at other spots... and yet, somehow, Prince is still costing his team a bunch of runs by being bad at it.

 

You want to argue that those metrics are questionable, that's fine. That's a totally different argument. But plenty of smart people think they're at least fairly legitimate. And just about every metric out there suggest that Prince is going to cost you a lot of runs with his poor defense.

 

I think I'll rest my case there. Defensive value is "at least fairly legitimate." Offensive value is entirely legitimate. Until the former reaches the latter, I'll remain dubious and continue to value the latter more.