Cashner and Na traded for Rizzo and Cates

[Tracer Bullet]

The age difference between Cashner and Rizzo is less important to me in evaluating the trade. 25 isn't old for pitchers.** And it seems much more common for pitchers to turn into solid-to-better players in their late 20s and well into their 30s. So Rizzo being 3 years younger than Cashner isn't really apples to apples. Of course, Rizzo's age is important.

 

The bigger factors are Cashner's health and he's not a SP yet. By the time he's pitching 200+ innings, he'll be 27-28. If he's a top of the rotation pitcher in 3 years, he'll already be in his arby years.

 

**I don't remember who posted the evidence of hitters entering their prime around 22/23, but was there a corresponding post re pitchers?

[Guest]

Okay, "unnerving" was a poor choice of wording, as I do think the guy will be fine. Sometimes it's just hard to ignore when numbers drastically improve with a move to the PCL, in this case with his OPS jumping almost 250 points from the year before. I too hope that most of it is a product of his development and I do suspect this. I also realize that putting up those numbers at age 21 is quite an accomplishment and that's why he's a highly-touted prospect. He'll make it in the bigs and be our everyday 1B, that's not what I'm bringing into question. I just hope he becomes the star that we all, including myself, think he will become.

 

I'm not sure why this was all seen as such a heretical statement to some, as I've seen many "regulars" on here say the exact same thing about the PCL.

Keep in mind that he also suffered from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in 2008. Part of the increase in stats is moving to the PCL. Part of it is maturing as a player. Part of it is also getting further away from his disease.

[TruffleShuffle]

The age difference between Cashner and Rizzo is less important to me in evaluating the trade. 25 isn't old for pitchers.** And it seems much more common for pitchers to turn into solid-to-better players in their late 20s and well into their 30s. So Rizzo being 3 years younger than Cashner isn't really apples to apples. Of course, Rizzo's age is important.

 

The bigger factors are Cashner's health and he's not a SP yet. By the time he's pitching 200+ innings, he'll be 27-28. If he's a top of the rotation pitcher in 3 years, he'll already be in his arby years.

 

**I don't remember who posted the evidence of hitters entering their prime around 22/23, but was there a corresponding post re pitchers?

 

this cannot possibly be true, unless you're considering their prime to be like 8 years long.

[rocket]

Okay, "unnerving" was a poor choice of wording, as I do think the guy will be fine. Sometimes it's just hard to ignore when numbers drastically improve with a move to the PCL, in this case with his OPS jumping almost 250 points from the year before. I too hope that most of it is a product of his development and I do suspect this. I also realize that putting up those numbers at age 21 is quite an accomplishment and that's why he's a highly-touted prospect. He'll make it in the bigs and be our everyday 1B, that's not what I'm bringing into question. I just hope he becomes the star that we all, including myself, think he will become.

 

I'm not sure why this was all seen as such a heretical statement to some, as I've seen many "regulars" on here say the exact same thing about the PCL.

Keep in mind that he also suffered from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in 2008. Part of the increase in stats is moving to the PCL. Part of it is maturing as a player. Part of it is also getting further away from his disease.

 

but that's the good hodgkins, right?

[Magnetic Curses]

Okay, "unnerving" was a poor choice of wording, as I do think the guy will be fine. Sometimes it's just hard to ignore when numbers drastically improve with a move to the PCL, in this case with his OPS jumping almost 250 points from the year before. I too hope that most of it is a product of his development and I do suspect this. I also realize that putting up those numbers at age 21 is quite an accomplishment and that's why he's a highly-touted prospect. He'll make it in the bigs and be our everyday 1B, that's not what I'm bringing into question. I just hope he becomes the star that we all, including myself, think he will become.

 

I'm not sure why this was all seen as such a heretical statement to some, as I've seen many "regulars" on here say the exact same thing about the PCL.

Keep in mind that he also suffered from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in 2008. Part of the increase in stats is moving to the PCL. Part of it is maturing as a player. Part of it is also getting further away from his disease.

 

but that's the good hodgkins, right?

 

no, non-hodgkins is the bad kind of lymphoma. hodgkins is much more treatable. for example, the guy who played spartacus died of non-hodgkins and mario lemieux had hodgkins.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Okay, "unnerving" was a poor choice of wording, as I do think the guy will be fine. Sometimes it's just hard to ignore when numbers drastically improve with a move to the PCL, in this case with his OPS jumping almost 250 points from the year before. I too hope that most of it is a product of his development and I do suspect this. I also realize that putting up those numbers at age 21 is quite an accomplishment and that's why he's a highly-touted prospect. He'll make it in the bigs and be our everyday 1B, that's not what I'm bringing into question. I just hope he becomes the star that we all, including myself, think he will become.

 

I'm not sure why this was all seen as such a heretical statement to some, as I've seen many "regulars" on here say the exact same thing about the PCL.

Keep in mind that he also suffered from non-Hodgkins Lymphoma in 2008. Part of the increase in stats is moving to the PCL. Part of it is maturing as a player. Part of it is also getting further away from his disease.

 

but that's the good hodgkins, right?

 

I wasn't aware that there were good forms of cancer.

[Guest]

Wow, I love this trade. I was just commenting the other day that it would be weird for this front office to just hand LaHair the starting job at 1b without any competition. This trade just made LaHair the front runner to actually win the job, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a cheap veteran brought in to compete with him while Rizzo continues to develop until the rosters expand in September.

 

LaHair gets a chance to show he's got enough talent to be half of a platoon in the outfield and a potential bat off the bench once Rizzo gets back to the bigs. I like that he's getting that opportunity, actually.

 

I would have loved it even more if they found a way to include Headley in the deal, but I do like Rizzo. I also like the 20-25+ HR potential from the left side of the plate guys Jackson, Stewart, Rizzo and LaHair.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Sickels projects Rizzo to fall somewhere between Ryan Howard(absolute ceiling) and Chris Davis(WCS). I always viewed Rizzo as more of a .mid average(.280s) mid power (25 HR/low .500s slg).

[rocket]

Wow, I love this trade. I was just commenting the other day that it would be weird for this front office to just hand LaHair the starting job at 1b without any competition. This trade just made LaHair the front runner to actually win the job, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a cheap veteran brought in to compete with him while Rizzo continues to develop until the rosters expand in September.

 

LaHair gets a chance to show he's got enough talent to be half of a platoon in the outfield and a potential bat off the bench once Rizzo gets back to the bigs. I like that he's getting that opportunity, actually.

 

I would have loved it even more if they found a way to include Headley in the deal, but I do like Rizzo. I also like the 20-25+ HR potential from the left side of the plate guys Jackson, Stewart, Rizzo and LaHair.

 

based on hoyer's comments on spring training, i think the job is pretty much lahair's.

[Guest]

Wow, I love this trade. I was just commenting the other day that it would be weird for this front office to just hand LaHair the starting job at 1b without any competition. This trade just made LaHair the front runner to actually win the job, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a cheap veteran brought in to compete with him while Rizzo continues to develop until the rosters expand in September.

 

LaHair gets a chance to show he's got enough talent to be half of a platoon in the outfield and a potential bat off the bench once Rizzo gets back to the bigs. I like that he's getting that opportunity, actually.

 

I would have loved it even more if they found a way to include Headley in the deal, but I do like Rizzo. I also like the 20-25+ HR potential from the left side of the plate guys Jackson, Stewart, Rizzo and LaHair.

 

based on hoyer's comments on spring training, i think the job is pretty much lahair's.

 

I'm not doubting that. If they don't want to rush Rizzo, I would still expect one or two NRI's to compete with LaHair. If he completely bombs, you want some warm body to bridge the gap to avoid starting that service clock back up too soon. Maybe that guy ends up being Baker since the bench and 40 man are already a bit on the full side.

[Magnetic Curses]

yikes, i'm having nightmares thinking what baker's WAR would be at first base if there for an extended time.

[Guest]

A number higher than LaHair's, I imagine.

[Tracer Bullet]

**I don't remember who posted the evidence of hitters entering their prime around 22/23, but was there a corresponding post re pitchers?

 

this cannot possibly be true, unless you're considering their prime to be like 8 years long.

 

I wish I could remember who posted it. But I thought hitters primes were shown to be closer to 23-27. No one else remembers this within the last month or 2?

[Guest]

I hope he does well enough to earn the job and keep it warm until Rizzo is ready. Maybe they shift Stewart to first and give Vitters a look at 3b if he starts off hot. Maybe they swing a trade with Soriano that brings in someone who can play a corner OF spot and 1b well enough in case LaHair bombs. It's probably somewhat of a lost season, so there should be plenty of guys to get decent looks this year if someone else isn't getting it done.

 

Whoever ends up filling the 1b position in the interim is someone I hope can provide value at the deadline when the team is clearly out of the race and looking to build for 2013 and beyond.

[Guest]

**I don't remember who posted the evidence of hitters entering their prime around 22/23, but was there a corresponding post re pitchers?

 

this cannot possibly be true, unless you're considering their prime to be like 8 years long.

 

I wish I could remember who posted it. But I thought hitters primes were shown to be closer to 23-27. No one else remembers this within the last month or 2?

 

I seem to recall reading that primes sometimes vary depending on high school and college draftees. A guy getting drafted at 18 and working through the minor leagues can have an earlier prime than the 4 year college player that doesn't enter the minor league system until 22-23. But, maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.

[Magnetic Curses]

A number higher than LaHair's, I imagine.

 

you're hatred for lahair is approaching tisdale-ian proportions.

[Rob]

**I don't remember who posted the evidence of hitters entering their prime around 22/23, but was there a corresponding post re pitchers?

 

this cannot possibly be true, unless you're considering their prime to be like 8 years long.

 

I wish I could remember who posted it. But I thought hitters primes were shown to be closer to 23-27. No one else remembers this within the last month or 2?

 

That was me. It was in the middle of (yet another) debate on how Fielder's size might impact his decline.

 

 

Rob,

 

I want you to give me a list that represents any sort of decent sample size to say guys shaped like Fielder are likely to collapse before age 33.

 

I can do ya one better. There was an article on fangraphs a month or so back that had a nice little graph. I'll just copy and paste the relevant stuff.

 

In order to attempt to predict what Fielder will do over the life of his next contract, we should compare him to players with similar body types. Jeff Zimmerman has put together a list of 205 players who weigh more than 3.25 lbs per inch of height in order to construct an aging curve. To put that in perspective, a 6’0″ tall player would have to weigh a minimum of 234 lbs in order to be included in the sample.

 

Below is a graph that shows the aging curve of the heavy players we identified, and the curve for average sized players. Across the x-axis is age, and the y-axis runs (batting, positional, UZR), with 0 being the peak year. The y-axis shows how many runs below the peak year they are at a given age.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Curve2.jpg

 

Two things immediately jump out from this graph:

 

1) Heavy players peak a few years earlier than average players

 

2) Heavy players fall off the map once they are on the wrong side of 30

 

The rest of the article actually talks about Prince specifically and how much value the author expects him to have over his upcoming contract. It's definitely worth a read.

 

At any rate... the premise that bad-bodied, one-dimensional sluggers age poorly has long been a sabermetric tenet and it would seem that premise still holds up. Is it a certainty? No. Nothing is. But if we're gonna bet against the odds, I'd much rather do it for 5 years than 7.

[SouthSideRyan]

I still find it interesting that Wood is considered the most legitimate of the three and Volstad is considered the biggest risk (or a bigger risk). But that horse has been beat to death.

 

That's probably because Volstad has been terrible in the majors and Wood hasn't.

[SouthSideRyan]

hmm ... and i just posted about ridling being underappreciated the other day. all that said, oneri is a bit too gushy on rebel.

 

Fleita gushes over everyone

[Backtobanks]

LaHair is going to have to really stink on a 65-70 win team not to be able to hold the job until Rizzo is ready.

[mookie]

LaHair is going to have to really stink on a 65-70 win team not to be able to hold the job until Rizzo is ready.

 

Naw, Rizzo just has to work on some things and show he is still a stud. Worst case scenario is moving LaHair to LF if the guy is actually putting up a passable line.

[toonsterwu]

I still find it interesting that Wood is considered the most legitimate of the three and Volstad is considered the biggest risk (or a bigger risk). But that horse has been beat to death.

 

That's probably because Volstad has been terrible in the majors and Wood hasn't.

 

Eh, I'll bite one more time. First let me say I think both are lottery tickets (although if I'm gambling on someone to be close to a "3" next year, it is, without a question, Volstad).

 

My point isn't who I personally think is better, though. My point is that there's very little differentiation b/w the two in terms of performance record (not stuff) to believe one is definitely better than the other.

 

Volstad SIERA 2009-2011 - 4.49/4.59/3.84

Wood SIERA 2010-2011 - 3.88/4.55

 

Volstad FIP (09-11) - 5.39/4.34/4.32

Wood FIP (10-11) -3.42/4.06

 

Volstad xFIP (09-11) - 4.29/4.43/3.64

Wood xFIP (10-11) - 3.97/4.61

 

Volstad ERA- (just using fangraphs, 09-11) - 122/112/126

Wood ERA- (10-11) - 85/124

 

Volstad FIP- (09-11) - 123/101/111

Wood FIP- (10-11) - 84/104

 

We can delve further into the stats. Wood is awfully tough to use any of these statistics to judge him by, so the positive attitude by folks as a result of the stats has me scratching my head. First and foremost, it's two data points. I'm sure many of you did much more statistics than I did back in college (or do these days in real life). But when you couple two data points on with partial seasons (I think it's always flawed to say X player has accumulated a full season's worth of data ... over two separate seasons and assume that anything judged from combining the stats into one season holds, there was a Cubs player a few years back people gushed over in a similar way on another site) and some bothersome numbers last year, it's hard for me to see Wood as the lock that people seem to be claiming above (okay not really, but someone wrote that he is far safer).

 

With Volstad, there's three data points (I left out his 08, since it was less than 100 innings and I wanted to try and look at the same window). Volstad's peak potential and performance could be argued to be better than Wood's usiing SIERA/xFIP (can certainly take the argument that FIP- and ERA- suggests that Wood's peak was better, but that would open it up to discussions on two point validity and trending in the wrong direction, which is certainly flawed as an argument because it's only two points, but from a baseball perspective, I can ask the question whether or not opponents simply got a better read on him). Volstad's scouting profile has always been a touch better than Wood's (before anyone jumps into this, the concern with Volstad as a prospect was that he didn't have the elite stuff to dominate like the ace he looks to be, but for a pitcher, he was always viewed as a relatively "safe" middle of the rotation projection, as safe as prospects can get). With three data points, I can make the argument that Volstad is trending in the right direction, and throw in side notes like his K rate increasing and his BB rate decreasing over the last three years.

 

Yes, I think Volstad is a safer bet for 2012 than Wood and has a better chance to be a "3". I think the chances are high both are more 4/5 guys than 3 guys. My point isn't that. I just find it odd that people are using metrics to claim that Wood is clearly a better bet than Volstad, when I simply think both are 4/5 guys with the potential to be a touch better.

 

But this topic's been beat to death and I'll probably avoid delving back into it in all honesty.

 

Edit: Actually, one last point I'll make. A long time ago, someone, a touch more old school, told me that most players have the ability to adapt to a new environment. Not all, and it takes time. Two examples -

 

Alfonso Soriano - I doubt many remember this now, but there was a lot of people that doubted his ability to adapt from the Rangers home park to the Nationals old park. I believe Brad Wilkerson was in that deal, and there were folks upset that wilkerson was swapped for Soriano (keep in mind Wilkerson had some decent slugging years with the Expos). He adjusted (and that adjustment put us in our predicament in some respects).

 

Chase Headley - Easy to forget, this was a slugger coming up in the minors. There was even some question on his hit "tool". You look at the numbers now, and most would be like, dude has no power. But he, as noted in interviews, had to adjust for his park.

 

This isn't to diminish the importance of park factor in assessing players. That's important (and it's arguably easier for hitters to adjust than pitchers, in some respects). It is to say, though, that we shouldn't take those statistics as some definitive sign of a player's troubles, or some sign that a player can do better because of a park switch.

Edited January 7, 2012 by toonsterwu

[Rob]

I think between Wood/Volstad/Wells we're likely to have one guy perform like a #3, one guy like a #4, and one guy like a #5.

 

I'm not going to try to predict which is which.

[toonsterwu]

If I had to take a guess, I'd guess that we'll have two guys end up more as "4" types with one "5". Although my guess is that one of "4's" would be traded (Wells probably, though I don't discount them moving Volstad mid-season if he pitches well enough. As I noted elsewhere, Fister got a decent return, and teams will probably overpay (not suggesting elite talent in return) for a guy like Volstad if he pitches well (since he has two team-controlled years left).

[RynoRules]

I know few if any believe that LaHair has it in him, but if he plays well he becomes a very tradeable commodity at the deadline. AL teams needeing a DH would love him.

 

And if not nothing is lost.