Rumor: Cubs interested in Pirates Closer Bednar

[Hairyducked Idiot]

18 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

This ranks real high on the most unenjoyable nsbb threads

Whoever forced you to click on it and read it all should be ashamed of themselves.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

27 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

That is a good thing in theory.  However, per Fangraphs, "it's not predictive" and "should not be used for player evaluation".  

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/

It's not predictive for most players because most players don't control when their turn in the lineup comes up or when their turn in the rotation comes up.

Relievers, however, can be deployed specifically in high-leverage situations and thus your best few will consistently have a larger impact than naked WAR implies.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

No, you don't. If you know enough about baseball to know what WAR is, then you know what leverage is. At *best* you're pretending to not understand the concept because it doesn't benefit your argument at this moment.  I hope that's what it is anyway...

I'm pretty good at things like WAR; I'd be able to describe the difference in fWAR, bWAR and eWAR (as well as why fWAR is the superior).  I'm also very understanding of what "leverage: ist.  My question to you was to prove that WAR (I'd prefer fWAR, as again, I find it superior) undervalues leverage,  It's really very simple; If you have real data to prove that, I'd be glad to see it.  It'd interest me, and I'd love to see it.  I'm much less interested in some random quote.  Do you have an article written by a respected author to show why WAR devalues leverage?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I'm pretty good at things like WAR; I'd be able to describe the difference in fWAR, bWAR and eWAR (as well as why fWAR is the superior).  I'm also very understanding of what "leverage: ist.  My question to you was to prove that WAR (I'd prefer fWAR, as again, I find it superior) undervalues leverage,  It's really very simple; If you have real data to prove that, I'd be glad to see it.  It'd interest me, and I'd love to see it.  I'm much less interested in some random quote.  Do you have an article written by a respected author to show why WAR devalues leverage?

I did prove it. You not understanding the proof is not the proof not existing.

I don't need an article to prove it. I did it in a compound sentence. It wasn't a quote, it was simply the proof.

Heck, I can do it in two words. "Leverage exists."

Edited July 31, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I did prove it. You not understanding the proof is not the proof not existing.

I don't need an article to prove it. I did it in a compound sentence. It wasn't a quote, it was simply the proof.

Heck, I can do it in two words. "Leverage exists."

Well, you may believe that a simple statement is proof, but sadly, I would have to disagree with you.  If you can provide data to prove your statement of "WAR devalues leverage", I'd be more than glad to dig into it and read it.  However, until you can show that kind of proof, I'll simply have to respectfully disagree with you as I have yet to see anything to provide evidence to the statement.  Your simple quote of "leverage exists" is sadly not enough for me,

Edited July 31, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Hairyducked Idiot]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Well, you may belief that a simple statement is proof, but sadly, I would have to disagree with you.  If you can provide data to prove your statement of "WAR devalues leverage", I'd be more than glad to dig into it and read it.  However, until you can show that kind of proof, I'll simply have to respectfully disagree with you as I have yet to see anything to provide evidence to the statement.  Your simple quote of "leverage exists" is sadly not enough for me,

Literally typing the words "WAR undervalues relievers" into google would have given you quite a few such articles, if this were a good faith request. But it wasn't. It was the old internet trope of "argument by homework."  Sealioning.

If you *actually* wanted them. But you don't. What you wanted was to assign homework to me in the hopes that I would say no and you could make a post exactly like this.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

(it's worth noting that fWAR *does* include a reliever leverage component, it's just discounted heavily from their actual game-experienced leverage because they want to be predictive rather than descriptive of value)

((It's less worth noting but still funny that Fangraphs' midseason top prospects update had Horton as the 4th-best pitcher in the Cubs system rather than all of baseball, with a 45+ FV)

Edited July 31, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Literally typing the words "WAR undervalues relievers" into google would have given you quite a few such articles, if this were a good faith request. But it wasn't. It was the old internet trope of "argument by homework."  Sealioning.

If you *actually* wanted them. But you don't. What you wanted was to assign homework to me in the hopes that I would say no and you could make a post exactly like this.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the other way around.  If you'd like to make a point, than it's upon you to provide evidence, not demand people find the obscure evidence.  Secondly, your goal posts have changed, your initial point was not that WAR devaluates relievers but that it devalues high-leverage relievers.  I really do want these articles.  If they're as easily found as you claim they are, simply posting a link to them would be quite easy.  

 

What I can say is I did what you suggested and googled, exactly "War Undervalues Relievers".  The top result was from fangraphs, so I guess we're using fWAR (awesome, that's my favorite!). The article states this: 

Quote

While the quality of their work is very high, the quantity is low, which limits their total value. It’s nearly impossible to rack up huge win values while facing less than 300 batters per season. Yes, each of those batters faced are more critical to a win than a regular batter faced, but this is accounted for in WAR.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/war-and-relievers/

The article can be found at the link.  It does not seem to support your premise, however.  As stated, each batter is more critical, but this is actually accounted for in fWAR.  This means that fWAR does not misinterpret high leverage relievers.  

Now, there is this article: 

http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-war-based-systems-underestimate.html

But the issue is this; it's written after the Fangraphs article and quotes a 2010 article.  We can see that in this quote, here

Quote

Way back in 2010, an article printed on Fangraphs made the following claim:

So while I think the article is getting at what you want, it is using pretty outdated information.  Fangraphs itself, in 2018, claims that leverage is handled in fWAR, while this article, using data 8 years previous claims it's not.  

 

Should there be an article I should be looking at more in depth?  I'd be glad to read it.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

(it's worth noting that fWAR *does* include a reliever leverage component, it's just discounted heavily from their actual game-experienced leverage because they want to be predictive rather than descriptive of value)

((It's less worth noting but still funny that Fangraphs' midseason top prospects update had Horton as the 4th-best pitcher in the Cubs system rather than all of baseball, with a 45+ FV)

Fangraph's article was written sometime in late May.  We can see this as we read the data on PCA and his walk rate (which has greatly increased over the time of mid-late-May to July).  While I appreciate what Fangraphs pospects used to be, and I still find fangraphs to be a leading source of MLB data, their MiLB section has been lacking so to say.  It's clearly parceled out to fill content (they post teams top-prospects infrequently instead of all together, for example) and do not recycle and update prospects until they re-examine another team.  They also run on some pretty outdated information; we can see this the last few trade deadlines as Eric Logenhagen was working with pretty old data for Wesneski and Killian on pitch data and velocity.  That doesn't absolve either prospect of defaults, only that Logenhagen was clearly behind.  I actually don't blame Logenhagen; he's one man and there are 30 teams with 150 prospects each; FG has also seemingly scaled back prospect coverage.  

 

I would not mark Cade Horton as a 45 FV+ today.  Personally, I think he's a pretty high end prosect...probably deserving of sitting comfortably in the top-50 in baseball as of today.  He's leading the Midwest league in swings and misses regardless of being promoted there in May (and the Cubs famously limit innings and pitches).  He's working with a 2.53 xFIP in A+ as of today, an impressively high 45% GB%, and a really impressive K% over 12 and a walk rate around the low 2's.  There's clearly polish to occur; he still has a habit of getting lazy with the baseball and just throwing it by guys in bad spots (his "bad" games generally happen when people hit those fastballs) and the changeup is a work in progress.  He's not MLB ready today.  With that said, he's progressing down a road in which next season at this time, he very well may be among the best RHP SP prospects in baseball...he's honestly not far away today IMO.  

[Javy Is Still A Cub]

Slugging 1b, Closer, #2ish Strikeouting SP - that's what we need so absolutely yes to Bedard.

Hader got: LHP Trevor Rogers, RHP Dinelson Lamet, LHP Robert Gasser, OF Esteury Ruiz.

Hader's better but Bedard has more control.

What's a comparable trade for us?  Seems like it'd be far from cheap, but - see above. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

40 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the other way around. 

That's just something sealions say.  You've made many, many claims in this thread. Some of them I found pretty hilarious. Never once did I demand you dig up links and prove them.  Because I either agreed or disagreed, I didn't need to be a Reddit Bro spamming "debate me" terms.

[Tryptamine]

42 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

(it's worth noting that fWAR *does* include a reliever leverage component, it's just discounted heavily from their actual game-experienced leverage because they want to be predictive rather than descriptive of value)

((It's less worth noting but still funny that Fangraphs' midseason top prospects update had Horton as the 4th-best pitcher in the Cubs system rather than all of baseball, with a 45+ FV)

Fangraphs prospect work has become absolutely terrible.  This is the same publication that has James Triantos as the #2 prospect in the system. 

[NorthsideAvenger]

Is it crazy to prefer Paul Sewald (if he is indeed available) to David Bednar?

[CubinNY]

All the prospect rankings should be taken as a rough measurement and not how people typically use them in these debates. I especially hate the FV horsefeathers. People tend to use it like it's a real number with objective anchors when it's just a wild ass guess.

Having written that, the numbers and rankings aren't meaningless either. They are a useful way to order players, but the actual numbers shouldn't be taken seriously. 

Anyone who has watched PCA (mostly in the field) or Horton play a few games can see that they are a cut above most of the other players in their games. I'd put Alcantara in there too. I suppose that's how I would say who was elite. 

Kyle's argument basically boils down to known value vs. potential value. He's for the safer bet. The rest is mental masturbation. 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by CubinNY

[We Got The Whole 9]

I don't think there's any chance Hoyer has put Horton or PCA on the table for Bednar. But the Cubs system is not such that we can call a handful untouchables IMO. If the Cubs are serious about wanting Bednar I am sure they have found a mutual ground for a deal and it's gonna headline something better than a control-over-stuff LHP who had questions about getting advanced hitters out and is so far seeing a 30% decrease in K rate in his initial exposure to AAA. Wicks has allowed 11 HR in 75 IP this year. Over his 86 AA IP he allowed 14 HR.

 

I'd be over the moon if we could headline a Bednar package with him but I don't see it.

 

I do wonder if they would put Wiggins on the table as a PBTNL that becomes official once he's trade-eligible. 

[Hrubes20]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I don't think there's any chance Hoyer has put Horton or PCA on the table for Bednar. But the Cubs system is not such that we can call a handful untouchables IMO. If the Cubs are serious about wanting Bednar I am sure they have found a mutual ground for a deal and it's gonna headline something better than a control-over-stuff LHP who had questions about getting advanced hitters out and is so far seeing a 30% decrease in K rate in his initial exposure to AAA. Wicks has allowed 11 HR in 75 IP this year. Over his 86 AA IP he allowed 14 HR.

 

I'd be over the moon if we could headline a Bednar package with him but I don't see it.

 

I do wonder if they would put Wiggins on the table as a PBTNL that becomes official once he's trade-eligible. 

As much as I want to will this into existence, I agree that Wicks almost certainly isn't enough for Bednar.  

[Tryptamine]

11 minutes ago, Hrubes20 said:

As much as I want to will this into existence, I agree that Wicks almost certainly isn't enough for Bednar.  

He'd be a secondary piece. If I'm guessing, the Pirates are probably asking for something like Alcantara, Wicks and Ferris which isn't unreasonable, but I'd much rather use that elsewhere. 

[Andy]

10 hours ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

Is it crazy to prefer Paul Sewald (if he is indeed available) to David Bednar?

Speaking as someone who had never heard of Bednar until this thread was posted, it's not crazy to prefer paying less in prospect cost for Sewald than paying the likely much higher cost for Bednar.

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, Andy said:

Speaking as someone who had never heard of Bednar until this thread was posted, it's not crazy to prefer paying less in prospect cost for Sewald than paying the likely much higher cost for Bednar.

I think he provides better bang for your return as well. He's not quite as good as Bednar, though xFIP and xERA like him more, He only comes with one year of additional control so he's a FA in 2025, but the price is likely significantly less. Seattle wants bats so I wonder if you could get him for  Caissie and another like Roederer.