metsmarathon

douchebag couple drives sporty sedan onto race course

jeez, that team needs to see a psychiatrist!

Santana 4.6 Hampson 1.5 Davis 1.4 Torres 0.5 Nickeas 0.5

Torres 4.5 Wright 2.1 Parnell 1.4 Tejada 1.0 Cedeno 0.5 Rottino 0.5

Young 4.9 Nieuwenhuis 1.6 Hefner 1.5 Thole 1.0 Byrdak 0.8 Murphy 0.2

Niese 2.8 Turner 2.0 Davis 2.0 Parnell 1.2 Francisco 1.1 Cedeno 0.9

And while the actual win-loss columns may not represent it, we at least know Yankee fans are bad at something well, we already knew they were bad at life. but this is nice to know also. google is giving you driving distance, not actual distance.

Gee 5.9 Wright 1.2 Parnell 1.1 Hairston 0.9 Nickeas 0.8 Torres 0.1

Edgy DC wrote: The greater question is: How many beers is marathon gonna down tonight? it's a good thing i have softball tonight!

metsmarathon wrote: so teh bet is, the marlins make the playoffs in the 6th year, ceetar wins. because if not, then they needed to spend more, and couldn't because of jose reyes salary. if they do make it, then it doesn't matter how much they paid him, or how well he does, they paid enough to get them there. i take it back. the bet is, if the marlins make the playoffs in year six, ceetar wins. because if they make it, then it doesn't matter how much they paid him, or how well he does, they paid enough to get them there. and if they don't, ceetar also wins, because, well, you never know how things would turn out, and if reyes is even so much as playing baseball, tehn the marlins are happy to have had him, and happy to have paid him, and balls bounce where they will, and they should have just spend more of their infinitely available money and they would have made it to the playoffs regardless of what they gave reyes.

do teams have budgets?

so teh bet is, the marlins make the playoffs in the 6th year, ceetar wins. because if not, then they needed to spend more, and couldn't because of jose reyes salary. if they do make it, then it doesn't matter how much they paid him, or how well he does, they paid enough to get them there. if the 2007 mets paid 50 million fucking dollars to get an extra win out of a reliever, or maybe just an extra out, when they could have gotten that extra win for four million dollars, then they are fucking morons, who wasted forty-six million dollars, and who lost out on a grand opportunity to further funnel forty-six million dollars into bernie madoff's magical money-palooza!

bay is grossly underperforming relative to what he's being paid for. that makes it a bad deal. holliday is overperforming relative to what he's being paid for. that makes it a great deal. either is a bad or great deal regardless of how the team performs. either way a team is underpaying or overpaying. either way, a team is eating into its profitibility or building it. either way, a team has flexibility, or lacks it. pay more to win more. yes. but pay more and win less, bad deal! pay more and get less, bad deal. pay a lot get a little, bad deal. why is this an argument?

lets say bay and holliday both got fairly reasonable contracts given their expected performance. lets look at their performance over the first two and a half years. [table:1bmkke34][tr:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]bay[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]holliday[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34][/td:1bmkke34][/tr:1bmkke34][tr:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]year[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]WAR[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]value[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]salary[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]delta[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]WAR[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]value[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]salary[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]delta[/td:1bmkke34][/tr:1bmkke34][tr:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]2010[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]1.5[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$6M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$8.7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$-2.7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]6.7[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$26.7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$16.3M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$+10.4M[/td:1bmkke34][/tr:1bmkke34][tr:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]2011[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]0.7[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$3.3M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$18.1M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$-14.8M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]5[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$22.7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$16.3M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$+6.4M[/td:1bmkke34][/tr:1bmkke34][tr:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]2012[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]-0.3[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$-1.4M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$6.7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$-8.1M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]2.2[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$10.0M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$7M[/td:1bmkke34][td:1bmkke34]$+3.0M[/td:1bmkke34][/tr:1bmkke34][/table:1bmkke34] jason bay has given his team 2 wins' worth of value over its duration to date. matt holliday has beat that this year. if the cards had jason bay instead of matt holliday in 2011, a reasonable person would expect them to have missed the playoffs by 3 or 4 games.

if i got $40k of work out of my $60k worker, but still met my deadlines and customer requirements, then i wasted $20k and my boss is gonna be a little miffed. that $20k came out of profits, or perhaps prevented him from making capital improvements elsewhere in teh company, or kept him from giving another worker a deserved raise, or whatever. it doesn't matter. money isn't free. it has value. it's value is what you can reasonably expect to get for the money. why is this so hard?

if i hire a software engineer for $60k a year and he only puts out the same level and quantity of work as a software engineer i could have hired for $40k a year, it was a bad hire, no? if i paid $30 for a nice meal in new york city, and they gave me a bag with a burrito from taco bell, it was a bad deal, no? if i paid $50k for a car and all i got was an old chevy cavalier, i made a terrible purchase. ... if i run a baseball team, and i pay a guy $20 million dollars a year, and he only gives me, eh, league average production, i'm gonna have a stern talk with my general manager. ... you pay for something. anything. burrito. ball player. bag of baseballs. you expect to get something in return which carries a value equivalent to what you paid to acquire it. if you get less value in return, you got a bad deal. ... i don't think it's really all that abstract.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I made those WAR charts two years ago for some CPF posts on the topic of best Mets pitcher WAR seasons. (source -- bbref) Maybe, bbref modified its formula since then, thus accounting for the discrepancies you discovered. fair enough. now go back and fix them. i kid.

so, to be clear, you're only looking at the value he returns in that final year? he could go all babe ruth apeshit for the first five years, and turns in a stinker in teh sixth, and its a bad deal, or conversely, he goes all jason bay in the first five years, but turns in a respectable, even good final year, and suddenly its a good deal. are those really the parameters you're talking about? the rest of your post was all nonsense. if a team has a $200 million payroll, and waste $20 million on a guy who gives them nothing, they still wasted that money, and they still got nothing, and they still could have been better. i don't know why expected value is a difficult concept. if i go to a restaurant, and buy off the dollar menu, i expect to get about a dollar's worth of food, either in quality or quantity or both. if i go to a different restaurant, and spend thirty dollars on my dinner, i expect to get about thirty dollars worth of food, either in quantity or quality or both. if i go to a restaurant and pay thirty dollars for a twenty-dollar meal, i got ripped off. if i go to a restaurant and spend twenty dollars on a thirty-dollar meal, i keep going back there. whether or not i can afford a seventy dollar dinner has no bearing on how much of a good deal i got. the florida marlins went to the jose reyes restaurant and bar. they spent thirty dollars on tehir meal. will they get the thirty dollars wotrh of food that they expect?

i'm happy to find that jim fregosi is the superior player to tony fernandez, even if only by a handful of career WAR, such is my latent dislike of tony fernandez for his sucky suckness on the mets.

Ceetar wrote: I think the Marlins* will be happy they have Reyes in 2017, and won't be looking to upgrade at SS for production reasons. To me, that means it's not a 'bad deal'. upgrade. that's a different kettle of fish, i think. are the mets looking to upgrade left field? we have jason bay, and to my knowledge, there's been no effort to upgrade left field other than perhaps by throwing walls at him and hoping he cannot play. how would we know if the marlins were looking to upgrade from jose reyes? how would we know if they wished they could upgrade from jose reyes? how would we know if they looked back on the reyes deal in hindsight and said, "we could have spent that money more wisely"? ... i submit to you tha the answer ot the last question is to look at reye's WAR for the life of his contract, compare that to the level of production they should have expected to get for 106 million dollars, andif the former is significantly lesser than the latter, then its safe to say that the marlins could have spent the money more wisely. because htey have a budget, and by spending 106 million on one player, those 106 million dollars were not available to spend on other areas of need.

i think the theory of WAR is indeed that you expect that a 4 WAR player adds 4 wins to your total relative to 0 WAR player. likewise replacing a 2 WAR player with a 6 WAR player should add 4 wins to your total. balls bounce and odd things happen and sometimes you win a game by fifty runs and sometimes you win a game by one run after fifty innings. but in the grand scheme of things, 4 WAR means 4 wins. on average.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Dickey on pace for a 7.2 season WAR, 8th best in franchise history. RankPitcher/TeamWARYEAR1Dwight Gooden11.719852Tom Seaver9.519733Tom Seaver9.219714Jon Matlack8.619745Tom Seaver7.719756Tom Seaver7.61969 7Tom Seaver7.519688Jerry Koosman6.819689Jon Matlack6.7197210Jerry Koosman6.71969 Dickey on pace for a [crossout]7.2[/crossout] 8.2 season WAR, [crossout]8th[/crossout] 5th best in franchise history. RankPitcher/TeamWARYEAR1Dwight Gooden11.719852Tom Seaver9.519733Tom Seaver9.219714Jon Matlack8.619745Tom Seaver7.719756Tom Seaver7.61969 7Tom Seaver7.519688Jerry Koosman6.819689Jon Matlack6.7197210Jerry Koosman6.71969 Listened to yesterday's Mets/O's game on Baltimore radio. Pre-game Baltimore crew, recounting Dickey's 2nd 1-hitter, described RA's stuff as being absolutely filthy. OE - Dickey the knuckleballer hasn't thrown a wild pitch all season. what's your data source? bb-ref has gooden at 11.9, and fangraphs has him at 9 WAR for pitching. each has him at an additional 1.1 WAR for offense. (isn't it at all frustrating that nobody sums these together in a conveniently located website?) i assume this list to be only pitchers' WAR, a bb-ref has dwright's 2007 was an 8.1 WAR and beltran's '06 was an 8.0 WAR. omitting hte hitting component of pitcher's value, bb-ref would tell you that hte top four seasons in mets history would be delivered by pitchers. the next three by hitters, and than alternating to round out the top ten.

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: in 2011, teh world champion st louis cardinals paid jake westbrook $8M for essentially replacement-level performance over the course of 180+ innings. was that a bad contract? did they overpay him? well, assume they cut Westbrook and called up the next guy from AAA and he gave them 1 win less. Not even factoring in the 8 figure windfall the Cardinals got by making the playoffs and having all those home games as a result of that 1 extra win. so, that's a no, i take it? let me try a different angle. jason bay has a terrible contract, no? the mets are paying him a shit-ton of money, and getting almost no production out of him. when he's not injured, he's not hitting, and when he is injured, he's still not hitting. he's contributed, in his three seasons to date, only 2 WAR of production total. there's a possibility that he may not play another game this season, too. now lets say that's true - that he doesn't play another game this season. and lets also extend out hypothetical to include a mets world series victory this season. is hte jason bay contract suddenly a good one?

Ceetar wrote: I could go into a long discussion on how dollar 'values' apply to actual baseball, but it's 4:55. Basically, I care about total value/WAR not $/per. If the Mets had paid say $50 million for a quality closer in 2007, that'd be a gross overpay but it probably would've gotten them into the playoffs. i don't have any idea what you mean by "total value/WAR not $/per" if he's a $106M over 6 years of his contract, then he's a $17M player each year of his contract, on average. if he's a 4-WAR per year player for the 6 years of his contract, then he's a 24WAR player for the duration of his contract. 24/106 ~ 4/17, give or take some noisy simplification. it's easier to talk in per-year context because its a more readily understandable context. do you understand how good a player has to be to be worth 24 WAR over 6 years? i don't. but if i look at what a player has to do to be worth 4 WAR in a season, i can get a sense of what level of performance he would have to average to be worth 24 WAR over 6 years. so, if 24 WAR over 6 years is the approximate value for reyes, based on a now-year WAR-to-dollar approximation, then how much worse than that would he need to perform for it to be considered a bad deal? the marlins are paying him 106 million dollars. on the free market, when you pay 106 million dollars, you expect to get back 24 wins above replacement. sometimes you get more, sometimes less. that's what makes some deals great and some terrible. how much less than 24 WAR would jose reyes have to generate for you to feel that the deal was a bad one. heck, for any player, how much would overpaying is enough to make a deal bad? if you pay a guy $33M, but only get $19M of production, was that a bad deal? if you pay a guy $6M but only get $3M of production out of him, is that a bad deal? in 2011, teh world champion st louis cardinals paid jake westbrook $8M for essentially replacement-level performance over the course of 180+ innings. was that a bad contract? did they overpay him?

in hindsight, the pr disaster angle seems somewhat overplayed, no...?