Cubs Sign John Lackey - 2 years $32M per Rosenthal

[Guest]

From a baseball move perspective, I kinda like it. From a fan perspective, I can't stand the guy.

[Guest]

 

 

i only included gammons team bonding crap to provide the context re: what rogers was replying to

Edited December 4, 2015 by David

[Gilby]

Meh, I hate Lackey, but he's still a good pitcher I guess. Though I am expecting something boring in CF now. Hard to backload too much on a 2 year deal, unless they're going to defer payments. Wood and Lackey alone will probably make over $20 million next season and considering what all of the writers have been saying recently, I am going to assume we're about done spending. That's what's disappointing about this.

[ctcf]

From a baseball move perspective, I kinda like it. From a fan perspective, I can't stand the guy.

 

I more than kinda like it from a baseball perspective. It's a very shrewd, safe move that improves the team. He is still a giant douche, though.

[ctcf]

Also, because it must be done:

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l8HHPrQuj08/UFHoFiGMxWI/AAAAAAAAC4U/CZP4l20VFx0/s1600/john-lackey.gif

[Cubswin11]

Does this mean more Ross starts so the super friends can catch/pitch to each other?

[Guest]

Does this mean more Ross starts so the super friends can catch/pitch to each other?

 

oh god don't even...if that happens i take back all the positive things i said.

[nolanwood]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

i'm thinking you're looking at the wrong WAR (especially for a guy savvy enough to be concerned with his peripherals)

 

also, that wouldn't be what translates into "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season." what translates into that is the fact that he's making $16M a year and that means he needs to meet or exceed around 2-2.3 WAR per season.

 

A "wrong" WAR? Straight from Fangraphs: "As a result of the differences listed above, rWAR values typically come in lower than fWAR values, meaning a 6 rWAR is more impressive than 6 fWAR. But it’s worth noting that the two systems are more alike than they are different, and that their different calculations should be viewed as a feature, not a bug."

 

Back to my original statement, it translates into the fact that he has performed at 2 wins above replacement level in two of his previous 6 seasons. Right? Which is AVERAGE.

Edited December 4, 2015 by nolanwood

[Guest]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

i'm thinking you're looking at the wrong WAR (especially for a guy savvy enough to be concerned with his peripherals)

 

also, that wouldn't be what translates into "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season." what translates into that is the fact that he's making $16M a year and that means he needs to meet or exceed around 2-2.3 WAR per season.

 

A "wrong" WAR? Ha! "As a result of the differences listed above, rWAR values typically come in lower than fWAR values, meaning a 6 rWAR is more impressive than 6 fWAR. But it’s worth noting that the two systems are more alike than they are different, and that their different calculations should be viewed as a feature, not a bug."

 

Back to my original statement, it translates into the fact that he has performed at 2 wins above replacement level in two of his previous 6 seasons. Right?

 

fWAR is more peripheral (FIP) based. rWAR/bWAR is more outcome based (so a rWAR/bWAR total would be inflated by a good ERA even if it was achieved by outperforming peripherals). it's a matter of taste, i guess, but for me i'll take the peripherals every time and live with the outliers.

 

the wins i was referring to were fWAR...so even going by what you posted (the part in bold), that would make the rWAR threshold lower.

[nolanwood]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

i'm thinking you're looking at the wrong WAR (especially for a guy savvy enough to be concerned with his peripherals)

 

also, that wouldn't be what translates into "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season." what translates into that is the fact that he's making $16M a year and that means he needs to meet or exceed around 2-2.3 WAR per season.

 

A "wrong" WAR? Ha! "As a result of the differences listed above, rWAR values typically come in lower than fWAR values, meaning a 6 rWAR is more impressive than 6 fWAR. But it’s worth noting that the two systems are more alike than they are different, and that their different calculations should be viewed as a feature, not a bug."

 

Back to my original statement, it translates into the fact that he has performed at 2 wins above replacement level in two of his previous 6 seasons. Right?

 

fWAR is more peripheral (FIP) based. rWAR/bWAR is more outcome based (so a rWAR/bWAR total would be inflated by a good ERA even if it was achieved by outperforming peripherals).

 

the wins i was referring to were fWAR...so even going by what you posted (the part in bold), that would make the rWAR threshold lower.

 

I know exactly what the difference between them is. I stated rWAR, and now I'll spell it out. 2 of his last 6 seasons, according to his rWAR, were above average. He's by no means a lock to be average...not even taking into consideration his age.

[Guest]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

i'm thinking you're looking at the wrong WAR (especially for a guy savvy enough to be concerned with his peripherals)

 

also, that wouldn't be what translates into "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season." what translates into that is the fact that he's making $16M a year and that means he needs to meet or exceed around 2-2.3 WAR per season.

 

A "wrong" WAR? Ha! "As a result of the differences listed above, rWAR values typically come in lower than fWAR values, meaning a 6 rWAR is more impressive than 6 fWAR. But it’s worth noting that the two systems are more alike than they are different, and that their different calculations should be viewed as a feature, not a bug."

 

Back to my original statement, it translates into the fact that he has performed at 2 wins above replacement level in two of his previous 6 seasons. Right?

 

fWAR is more peripheral (FIP) based. rWAR/bWAR is more outcome based (so a rWAR/bWAR total would be inflated by a good ERA even if it was achieved by outperforming peripherals).

 

the wins i was referring to were fWAR...so even going by what you posted (the part in bold), that would make the rWAR threshold lower.

 

I know exactly what the difference between them is. I stated rWAR, and now I'll spell it out. 2 of his last 6 seasons, according to his rWAR, were above average. He's by no means a lock to be average...not even considering his age.

 

the scale i was referencing in saying that he needed to be worth 2 to a shade over 2 wins per season was a scale that is based on fWAR, not rWAR. if they are not scaled the same (as you pointed out) then they cannot be used interchangeably in this conversation. if a baseball reference win is harder to come by, as stated in the snippet you posted, it is even MORE valuable (monetarily) than an fWAR win, meaning he needs fewer of them to have neutral value.

 

on top of that, fWAR is typically a better predictor than rWAR.

Edited December 4, 2015 by David

[Guest]

Holding my nose.

[Guest]

since we're giving up the pick for lackey now, what might that say about other moves?

[Cubswin11]

since we're giving up the pick for lackey now, what might that say about other moves?

Probably not bringing back Fowler? What, if anything more, would the cardinals get if we signed Heyward?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I hope he pitches well.

[Guest]

Lackey has had an ERA+ over 100 3 straight years and 4 of the last 6 years. If the implication is that he might consistently underperform his peripherals and those peripherals are the basis for him being above average, I don't see much support for it. He had a 1.8 rWAR in 2 of those 6 years as well, so he's basically a rounding error from that 2 win threshold(which is a threshold that's fWAR based) anyway.

[BigSlick]

Functional and kinda trolly toward cubs fans. I like it.

*tries to compute the most contrarian response possible*

 

Ugh. I guess I like it then.

[davell]

since we're giving up the pick for lackey now, what might that say about other moves?

 

Well, we'll get a pick for Fowler that'll be 5-8ish picks behind the one we just lost. Will we sign another guy that costs us our 2nd rounder? Very possible. We'll sign enough IFA's to make up for the lost value of the pick(s).

[nolanwood]

the scale i was referencing in saying that he needed to be worth 2 to a shade over 2 wins per season was a scale that is based on fWAR, not rWAR. if they are not scaled the same (as you pointed out) then they cannot be used interchangeably in this conversation. if a baseball reference win is harder to come by, as stated in the snippet you posted, it is even MORE valuable (monetarily) than an fWAR win, meaning he needs fewer of them to have neutral value.

 

on top of that, fWAR is typically a better predictor than rWAR.

 

My apologies for not referencing his fWAR initially - I apparently made this more complicated than it needs to be. I'm not asking you to view them interchangeably, I'm merely making a statement of his value using his rWAR...so put on that hat.

 

Take a gander through this list, and let me know where Lackey's value ranks (vs his peers) among his previous 6 complete seasons: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2013&month=0&season1=2013&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&page=2_30

Edited December 4, 2015 by nolanwood

[Guest]

since we're giving up the pick for lackey now, what might that say about other moves?

Probably not bringing back Fowler? What, if anything more, would the cardinals get if we signed Heyward?

 

[Guest]

FWIW, I saw chatter on Twitter that indicates that they lose the Fowler pick if they sign another QO'd FA, and not the 2nd rounder. It doesn't make a big difference to me personally, but FYI.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

*On the first day of Spring Training*

 

"OK, John, here we have Kris, our star young third baseman. Over there are Jon and David, who you already know, of course. Here's Javier, our young, slugging "hacker," as you so eloquently put it. Oh, and here is our All-Star first baseman, Anthony, who is a cancer survivor and spends a large amount of his spare time visiting sick kids in the hospital."

[Guest]

*On the first day of Spring Training*

 

"OK, John, here we have Kris, our star young third baseman. Over there are Jon and David, who you already know, of course. Here's Javier, our young, slugging "hacker," as you so eloquently put it. Oh, and here is our All-Star first baseman, Anthony, who is a cancer survivor and spends a large amount of his spare time visiting sick kids in the hospital."

 

his good buddy jon is also a cancer surviver, just saying

[badger1679666666]

*On the first day of Spring Training*

 

"OK, John, here we have Kris, our star young third baseman. Over there are Jon and David, who you already know, of course. Here's Javier, our young, slugging "hacker," as you so eloquently put it. Oh, and here is our All-Star first baseman, Anthony, who is a cancer survivor and spends a large amount of his spare time visiting sick kids in the hospital."

 

I chuckled.

[Guest]

I like the signing, even if he is a douchenozzle.