Rob

Good or bad doesn't matter all that much when the only thing you're being compared against is your own production. You have a valid point about whether a heavy player is in shape or not could affect the results, but that only undercuts the argument that Fielder isn't likely to age poorly... unless your contention is that all the heavy guys who are actually in shape are the ones who drag down the overall aging curve for the unabashed fatties like Fielder. And that one doesn't pass the sniff test. If anything it would make sense to expect Fielder to age worse than even the standard heavy player, given he over-qualifies for that designation by a good 40 pounds. I'm not saying anything is written in stone. But make no mistake about it... Fielder carries more risk than most are willing to admit. It needs to be a serious consideration before offering him that 6th or 7th year.

The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis. Of course, the writer who wrote the bulk of the article was not the same as the one who did the research on how heavier players age. True, he did not do the research for the chart; he did the graphs and all the writing you quoted. Regardless, the link between the charted players and Fielder seems so thinly related to warrant little persuasive merit. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say... because it sounds like you're saying Prince Fielder isn't heavy.

I'd guess either offseason between 2013-14 or by the deadline in 14. I think it will be a very challenging trade market for a 30-something middle infielder with that much guaranteed money left and likely even more injuries on his resume. They'll have to eat money to move him, but I'm sure they'd rather eat money late in a contract than pony it up at the beginning. Time value of money and all...

Bedard to the Pirates.

I actually pronounce it as "a player to be named later". Not anymore you don't.

Oh, and didn't see this anywhere else: Huston Street to Padres for PTBNL. As an aside, everybody pronounces PTBNL as "put-bunnell" in their heads, right?

Levine says we're still in discussions for Stewart as well as Headley.

I love Kuroda. He probably wont require more than a 1-2 year deal and we should be able to net a decent haul of prospects if we decide to trade him at some point. He's a great example of a worthwhile short term signing.

and he won't be wrong to do so. fukudome at -11 and dejesus at +14 per 150 games in right field is a joke. prior to last year, DeJesus averaged +10 the previous six seasons per TZ yeah, there's a weird, odd, gaping disparity between UZR and TZ for Fukudome, but DeJesus should legitimately be regarded as a very strong fielder i'm not saying dejesus isn't a strong fielder, just that the only reason he looks like a big upgrade in war is because uzr thinks fukudome is cliff floyd Watching Fukudome from his first year in Chicago to his last, I'm not entirely sure UZR is that far off. There was a pretty big decline defensively.

The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis. Of course, the writer who wrote the bulk of the article was not the same as the one who did the research on how heavier players age.

That's the way I read it.

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. 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.

Good deal for the Giants.

I don't get why people keep talking about Prince, then looking at Mo Vaughn and thinking that's a terrible thing. During his age 30 season, Vaughn hit 40 homers with 117 RBIs and a .402 OPB. During his age 31 season, he hit 33 with 108 RBIs and a .358 OPB. During his age 32 season, he hit 36 homers with 117 RBIs and a .365 OPB. Then he got hurt. When he came back, during his age 34 season, he hit 26 homers with 72 RBIs and a .349 OBP. That last season is not great, of course, but that would be Fielder's seventh season of a seven-year contract. So, if Fielder produced like Vaughn did from his age 28 season to his age 34 season, why would that be bad again? Somewhere around ~2.0 WAR is average for a position player in a full season. He went from 6.6 WAR (slightly better than Fielder's peak) in his last year in Boston to totals of 1.9 and 2.0 the next two seasons, missed a year entirely, then came back out with a 0.8 season and a sub-replacement level -0.6 WAR before leaving baseball entirely. He was never an above average regular after signing his big contract. I've said it before and I'll say it again... players with the body type and skill set that Prince Fielder has peak very early and do not age well. There is no gradual decline. It's a nosedive off a cliff. Now I'm not saying I don't like Prince Fielder at all. But he's the kind of piece you add to put yourself over the top in the next few years... not the type to build around for the long term. Give him 5 years and I'm happy. Give him 6 years and show me a blueprint that has us competing sooner rather than later and I can probably live with it. If we have to pony up that 7th year, I'd rather we be shopping in the bargain bin.

Zambrano? I think it's for another reliever. Described as a change of scenery deal, I'm doubting we're involved, because Marmol doesn't seem to be a guy that's considered a bad contract, as is kind of implied by "change of scenery". What guy on the Mets even qualifies as a "change of scenery" type? Wright still has too much value to just swap bad contracts... Jason Bay maybe? I don't see the fit with the Cubs.

There's also defense and baserunning to take into account. And they matter a lot in this case.

Of course, players with Fielder's skillset age quite poorly compared players with multi-faceted skillsets like Soriano and Werth (though that hasn't exactly been a saving grace with Soriano like it was supposed to be)... and Fielder can't exactly move any further down the defensive spectrum. That 3-4 years doesn't really mean jack diddly.

No one is disputing what Albert has done, but what he will do. He's a player in decline and this is precisely the sort of thing Theo was talking about when he referenced not paying for past performance. No, I get that. Pujols is certainly not without risk either. He's older to begin with and not everybody buys his real age. He's always fought through injury issues but might not be able to quite as well as time goes on, and he just came off the worst season of his career. (5.5 WAR, the horror) I understand if the Cubs decide to pass on Pujols or if they indeed decide to go higher AAV over fewer years. I trust the Cubs will make the right decision on that one. What I'm saying is that at the pricetag he's likely to garner, I do not want Prince Fielder to be the Cubs consolation prize.

Here's a fun game. I'm going to list the five best pre free agency seasons by fWAR of three different players (in descending order). One is Prince Fielder. The other two are Alfonso Soriano and Jayson Werth. Player A: 5.7, 5.3, 5.0, 2.3, 2.1 Player B: 5.3, 5.2, 5.0, 3.3, 2.4 Player C: 6.4, 5.5, 5.1, 3.4, 1.7 Oh, and for the record... Pujols: 10.1, 8.5, 8.4, 8.2, 7.7 (that's just his first six seasons. If we included the time covered by his extension he'd be 10.1, 9.1, 9.0, 8.5, 8.4) Pujols is a true, honest to goodness superstar of the highest caliber. Fielder is Mo Vaughn or Travis Hafner. If we do not manage to bring in Pujols (and it's increasingly likely we wont), I'm honestly split as to whether the Cubs should be looking at Fielder at all. The cost is astronomical, the risk is pretty high and it's not like his production is MVP caliber to begin with.

Why don't we wait until, say... Februrary at the earliest before anyone makes the conscious decision to consider writing off the season, yeah? I agree with that. I will let the winter meetings play out and see who signs where. If Pujols and Prince are still on the board, I will feel better. I actually want Fielder more than Pujols. Well that's not very smart. Fielder in his best years is about as good as Pujols in a down year. In all likelihood Fielder's decline will be early, abrupt and severe... whereas Pujols has secondary skills that suggest he'll age more gracefully. Unless Fielder comes well north of 100 million dollars cheaper, there's no reason to prefer him.

Most likely to go from a .260 AVG with 40 homer power to a guy who hits 128 points less than his weight with less than 15 homers in a hitter friendly park though? Like I said, gradual collapse, sure. But from a 3.5 win guy to a -2.9 win guy? Maybe if it went 3.5, 1.9, 0.6, etc... I can see that happening. But dropping 6.4 wins in one offseason? That doesn't add up to me It's not like he's i his golden years, he was 31 and was coming off a 38 home run season. Can one man's bat speed and strength really dissipate THAT badly over the course of 7-8 months? The collapse from guys like Dunn is almost never gradual. Most of these sluggers end up hurting their back or knees which slows down the bat speed enough they just can't catch up to a decent fastball. It's much more "fell off a cliff" than "slow and gentle decline into mediocrity." That said, Dunn almost has to experience a dead cat bounce. Unless the White Sox are picking up the whole contract though, I don't want him anywhere near the Cubs.

Not giving Albert 10 years is a sign of being prudent, imo. Fielder can be had for less years. As I said, one of the two is what I am looking for. Now if Pujols and Fielder come out and say: "I never had any interest in going to the Cubs", then I can live with that. But if its because we refused to make a serious run at them, then, well. Less years doesn't mean the same as "a sane number of years." Any team that goes past five years deserves the disaster that awaits them.

The math itself is easy enough to do to adjust BABIP and spit out the standard slash stats. I'm sure Dave is probably smart enough he hasn't messed that up. However, the whole exercise is pointless if you aren't inputting a correct xBABIP. There are a couple standard calculators available, some of which may or may not require an additional park adjustment. For best results I'd probably use a combination of them regressed against his own career BABIP. LD% + .140 doesn't cut it. Besides which, the rule was always .110 or .120.

Just like that, the first big name signs on the eve of the winter meetings. Let those dominoes fall. A lack of a NTC is about the least surprising thing ever. Loria's firesales are tough to manage when you start throwing those things around.

What? I don't even... That's the cape from the Super Sam Fuld giveaway the Rays had last season. TT left him out of his assessment of the packages so I thought I'd poke him a bit.