Lillibridge

[jersey cubs fan]

Bruce Miles ‏@BruceMiles2112 5m

#Cubs will have roster moves today. Hoyer to discuss with media at 3:30 p.m.

[GammonsPocketTweets]

Kevin Gregg and Kameron Loe up to the bullpen. Lillbridge DFA.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Kevin Gregg

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/why.gif

[davell]

Cody Ransom picked up too.

[treebird]

Kevin Gregg

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/why.gif

 

well played

[Thed Hoyerstein]

Kevin Gregg

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/why.gif

 

i lol'd

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Cody Ransom picked up too.

 

38% K rate last season in 282 PAs.

 

ZIPS projection of 190/267/339 for a sub-replacement WAR.

 

He might out-Lillibridge Lillibridge.

[davell]

Cody Ransom picked up too.

 

38% K rate last season in 282 PAs.

 

ZIPS projection of 190/267/339 for a sub-replacement WAR.

 

He might out-Lillibridge Lillibridge.

You'll use whatever you have to, in order to bitch about stuff. Ransom is a 0.9 WAR guy for his career and will NOT stick on our 40 man for long. He never has anywhere. Why not just be happy we got rid of the guy you've wasted more angst over than anyone else on the squad this year?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You'll use whatever you have to, in order to bitch about stuff. Ransom is a 0.9 WAR guy for his career and will NOT stick on our 40 man for long. He never has anywhere. Why not just be happy we got rid of the guy you've wasted more angst over than anyone else on the squad this year?

 

Because we replaced him with a guy who is almost exactly as bad.

 

I don't understand what's so unreasonable about wanting reserve infielders who aren't obvious below-replacement candidates.

[davell]

You'll use whatever you have to, in order to bitch about stuff. Ransom is a 0.9 WAR guy for his career and will NOT stick on our 40 man for long. He never has anywhere. Why not just be happy we got rid of the guy you've wasted more angst over than anyone else on the squad this year?

 

Because we replaced him with a guy who is almost exactly as bad.

 

I don't understand what's so unreasonable about wanting reserve infielders who aren't obvious below-replacement candidates.

Because finding someone who isn't costs you a couple mill instead of a minor league deal. It's worth it if you've got a projected 85+ win team. Otherwise, these guys are too volatile production-wise. Sling a minor league deal guy out there and if he produces, then great. If not, go get the next one. If Ransom is on our 40 man at midseason, I'll be shocked. If he starts 5 games in this run with the Cubs, I'll be surprised.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because finding someone who isn't costs you a couple mill instead of a minor league deal. It's worth it if you've got a projected 85+ win team. Otherwise, these guys are too volatile production-wise. Sling a minor league deal guy out there and if he produces, then great. If not, go get the next one. If Ransom is on our 40 man at midseason, I'll be shocked. If he starts 5 games in this run with the Cubs, I'll be surprised.

 

By definition, you shouldn't have to pay a couple of million for a replacement-level player. That's the entire point of replacement level.

[Tracer Bullet]

By definition? What definition of replacement level includes salary?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

By definition? What definition of replacement level includes salary?

 

The actual one. A replacement player is one that costs the team the bare minimum a player can cost. They are available for the league minimum and/or cost negligible trade value.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/replacement-level/

 

Being available for practically nothing is the entire everloving point of "replacement level."

 

 

How do we deal with this? The MLB minimum salary gives us an important clue. $400,000 represents the zero level of marginal salary a team can commit to a player. Since they’re obliged to pay that money to someoneanyway, it doesn’t really matter to whom it’s actually going. Giving a player a job for the minimum means you’ve acquired him for as close to free as you’re ever going to get in baseball, especially as you haven’t expended other resources (other players, generally) to get him. Now, if a player’s willing to sign for free, that’s probably a clue that he’s not very good. In fact, he’s so bad that other teams don’t care if he gets picked up, because there are so many players of that calibre that acquiring one of them has virtually no effect on the size of the talent pool. If another team did care, there’d be some sort of competition to acquire his services, and as a result the team winning control over said player will have had to expend marginal resources to do it.

 

The above gives us a neat little definition for the league’s worst players. We can define a replacement level player as one who costs no marginal resources to acquire. This is the type of player who would fill in for the starter in case of injuries, slumps, alien abductions, etc. If we use replacement level as a baseline for our ‘runs above ’ statistics, we introduce durability into our statistic, and we’re therefore measuring marginal productivity, which is what we want.

 

[Guest]

Cody Ransom picked up too.

 

38% K rate last season in 282 PAs.

 

ZIPS projection of 190/267/339 for a sub-replacement WAR.

 

He might out-Lillibridge Lillibridge.

 

You've made 50 posts since Opening Day about a guy who the Cubs DFA'd before he could reach 25 plate appearances. Maybe now should be more a time of reflection on the level of commitment you want to make about arguing over a guy who at the moment does not have an MLB roster spot, and doesn't look to have one unless there's an injury in the middle infield.

 

EDIT: I missed Takahashi's demotion, so apparently Ransom is on the roster for a few days until Stewart is healthy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You've made 50 posts since Opening Day about a guy who the Cubs DFA'd before he could reach 25 plate appearances. Maybe now should be more a time of reflection on the level of commitment you want to make about arguing over a guy who at the moment does not have an MLB roster spot, and doesn't look to have one unless there's an injury in the middle infield.

 

EDIT: I missed Takahashi's demotion, so apparently Ransom is on the roster for a few days until Stewart is healthy.

 

Maybe now the front office should be reflecting on how terrible they are at finding adequate reserve infielders.

 

Although if we want to consider Alberto Gonzalez the terrible one over Ransom, that's fine too.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe now should be more a time of reflection on the level of commitment you want to make about arguing over a guy who at the moment does not have an MLB roster spot,

 

I'm pretty sure he's on the roster, although he's "not available tonight" so maybe he isn't technically on the roster yet.

[Tracer Bullet]

By definition? What definition of replacement level includes salary?

 

The actual one. A replacement player is one that costs the team the bare minimum a player can cost. They are available for the league minimum and/or cost negligible trade value.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/replacement-level/

 

Being available for practically nothing is the entire everloving point of "replacement level."

 

 

How do we deal with this? The MLB minimum salary gives us an important clue. $400,000 represents the zero level of marginal salary a team can commit to a player. Since they’re obliged to pay that money to someoneanyway, it doesn’t really matter to whom it’s actually going. Giving a player a job for the minimum means you’ve acquired him for as close to free as you’re ever going to get in baseball, especially as you haven’t expended other resources (other players, generally) to get him. Now, if a player’s willing to sign for free, that’s probably a clue that he’s not very good. In fact, he’s so bad that other teams don’t care if he gets picked up, because there are so many players of that calibre that acquiring one of them has virtually no effect on the size of the talent pool. If another team did care, there’d be some sort of competition to acquire his services, and as a result the team winning control over said player will have had to expend marginal resources to do it.

 

The above gives us a neat little definition for the league’s worst players. We can define a replacement level player as one who costs no marginal resources to acquire. This is the type of player who would fill in for the starter in case of injuries, slumps, alien abductions, etc. If we use replacement level as a baseline for our ‘runs above ’ statistics, we introduce durability into our statistic, and we’re therefore measuring marginal productivity, which is what we want.

 

Glad you linked to that particular one.

 

First of all, there’s obviously no way to guarantee that any given ‘replacement level’ player will actually perform at replacement level. This does not reflect a fundamental problem with the concept, but it’s something to bear in mind. Being a replacement level player doesn’t necessarily mean replacement level production. Claims that replacement level players are not actually freely available have some validity, but only very specific circumstances (and even if it applied globally, that would simply mean that our definition of ‘replacement level’ is too high).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

First of all, there’s obviously no way to guarantee that any given ‘replacement level’ player will actually perform at replacement level. This does not reflect a fundamental problem with the concept, but it’s something to bear in mind. Being a replacement level player doesn’t necessarily mean replacement level production. Claims that replacement level players are not actually freely available have some validity, but only very specific circumstances (and even if it applied globally, that would simply mean that our definition of ‘replacement level’ is too high).

 

Are you claiming that reserve infielders represent one of those "very specific circumstances"?

 

That's an interesting point, though it has little to do with what replacement level means and how salary plays into it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe now should be more a time of reflection on the level of commitment you want to make about arguing over a guy who at the moment does not have an MLB roster spot,

 

I'm pretty sure he's on the roster, although he's "not available tonight" so maybe he isn't technically on the roster yet.

 

 

Cubs.com roster has 24 names right now, not Ransom's. But the press release says what number he will wear, so I assume he will be on it when he shows up. Or if he shows up.

[Tracer Bullet]

Replacement level is a great concept for what it is. It doesn't mean that a team can, in reality, go to the replacement level player store and grab a guy to put in the lineup tomorrow for $400k that will put up 0+ WAR.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Replacement level is a great concept for what it is. It doesn't mean that a team can, in reality, go to the replacement level player store and grab a guy to put in the lineup tomorrow for $400k that will put up 0+ WAR.

 

It means that a team should almost always be able to go to the replacement level player store and find a guy for around $400k and/or negligible trade value that is projected to put up around 0.0 WAR. His actual performance will fluctuate, but there's not much defense for taking a guy whose most likely outcome is below it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Replacement level is a great concept for what it is. It doesn't mean that a team can, in reality, go to the replacement level player store and grab a guy to put in the lineup tomorrow for $400k that will put up 0+ WAR.

 

At least not on April 16.

[jersey cubs fan]

Replacement level is a great concept for what it is. It doesn't mean that a team can, in reality, go to the replacement level player store and grab a guy to put in the lineup tomorrow for $400k that will put up 0+ WAR.

 

It means that a team should almost always be able to go to the replacement level player store and find a guy for around $400k and/or negligible trade value that is projected to put up around 0.0 WAR. His actual performance will fluctuate, but there's not much defense for taking a guy whose most likely outcome is below it.

 

In November/December/January that is correct. But guys who can be counted on to do that are generally already on rosters. The ones that are available have been released early in the season, because they suck.

[Guest]

It means that a team should almost always be able to go to the replacement level player store and find a guy for around $400k and/or negligible trade value that is projected to put up around 0.0 WAR

 

ZiPS projections

Lillibridge: 0.5 WAR

Ransom: 0.3 WAR

Maysonet: -0.1 WAR

Gonzalez: -0.2 WAR

 

So depending on how liberally you want to use the word "around", the Cubs have anywhere from 2 to 4 of those players now.

[treebird]

zips has ransom as projected at -0.2 war. are we really having this conversation because they projected him there instead of 0.0? he is exactly a replacement level player and we got him for zero.

 

nothing to see here.