Today's Fun Fact

by Jeff on Nov 5, 2008 11:09 PM PST in Miscellaneous Comment 41 comments

Anyone for a little math? Let's calculate some WAR (Wins Above Replacement) using two handy posts from The Book Blog.

Mark Ellis

Offense: using a simple .1/.2/.3/.4 2005-2008 weighting system, Ellis' offense comes out almost exactly league average

Defense: +15. He's amazing

Offense + Defense wins/162: ~1.5

Positional Adjustment: +0.25

Replacement Level Adjustment: +2

Playing Time: Let's say 75%

Mark Ellis WAR: 2.79 (2.5-3)

Mark Ellis contract: $11m/2 - $16.5m/3

Manny Ramirez

Offense: +45

Defense: -20. He's terrible

Offense + Defense wins/162: ~2.3

Position Adjustment: -0.75

Replacement Level Adjustment: ~+2

Playing Time: Let's say 85%

Manny Ramirez WAR: 3.06 (2.75-3.25)

Manny Ramirez contract: Speculation is that he's already been offered $50m/2yr - $75m/3yr; seeking more

-----

Not that I expect the Mariners to be involved, but this is going to be a fascinating offseason to watch. The teams that get it will be chasing after guys like Orlando Hudson and Rafael Furcal. The teams that don't get it will be chasing after guys like Pat Burrell, Adam Dunn, and Manny Ramirez. Billy Beane already pulled off the bargain of the decade, and you better believe he knows exactly what he paid for. But who's going to follow his lead? More than any other that comes to mind, this offseason should make it abundantly clear which teams have a shot at the pot and which teams are playing a joker in their flush.

I can't help but think that this'll be a bad winter to be a Mets fan.

3 recs | Comment 41 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I wish we were good enough to try and sign one of the more rewarding FAs, because this class is pretty damned good.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Nov 6, 2008 2:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This isn't really fair considering that Mark Ellis definitely should have gotten more than he got

by Fogel on Nov 6, 2008 6:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Obviously not around $25 million per year, but the gap still should have been smaller

Maybe Hudson’s contract would be a better comp (when he recieves one)?

by Fogel on Nov 6, 2008 6:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

O-Dawg apparently is seeking 5/$75+

by Goose on Nov 6, 2008 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That one will be worth looking at too

the funny thing is that Dunn and Burrell are out and out worse players than both second basemen, by a pretty good margin. Watch them not get paid like it.

by Jeff on Nov 6, 2008 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends.

Hudson’s D might be on the decline. The metrics aren’t as universally in love with him as they are with Ellis. And he’s coming off a pretty serious injury. So to Ellis. Which neither Dunn or Burrell are.

For comparison, look at Adam Everett. If you assumed he would be healthy prior to the start of 2008, then he was a ridonkulous bargain. But going forward, it looks like his broken leg in 2007 has decreased his range.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2008 1:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, Ellis likes it in Oakland

and wanted to stay there. So the deal Beane got wasn’t simply a wins per dollar bargain.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2008 1:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This much I know

it’s not meant to be a fair and direct comparison. It’s just an example of how one skillset is wildly undervalued while another is wildly overvalued, even if in the end they add up to approximately the same contribution. I mean, could you ever imagine Manny signing a contract like Ellis’?

by Jeff on Nov 7, 2008 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I agree entirely that D is underrated

But, Ellis already had one serious shoulder injury before, and is now coming of a labrum tear, and shoulder surgery again. It’s not unreasonable for his value to be discounted because of concerns about his shoulder. While shoulder injuries of hitters are nowhere near as bad as they are for pitchers, they’re still pretty serious.

And Ellis also very likely took (much) less money to stay with the A’s.

I would never imagine Manny signing such a contract, because despite his age, he’s pretty durable, there are no serious physical concerns. And also, he’s never shown a desire to take less money to stay with a team.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 8, 2008 6:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather my infielders be coming off upper-body injuries than lower-body injuries

You’re right, of course, but I don’t think Hudson or Ellis qualify as Everett-level risks.

by Jeff on Nov 7, 2008 7:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not putting them as Everett level risks.

Just using him as an illustration. For one, because they have broader skill sets than Everett.

But, Ellis already has a compromised / damaged shoulder prior to this season, which is why the A’s have never tried him at SS.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Nov 7, 2008 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to admit

I’m worried at the Dodgers pursuit of him and what he will do to the team. His energy revitalized them down the stretch, but how long does that last?

The Dodgers have holes at SS, 3B/2B (depending upon DeWitt) and half their rotation. Blowing the entire wad on Manny seems short sighted…

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Nov 6, 2008 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It never rains, it pours.

Good to have you back and posting, Jeff!

by chinn on Nov 6, 2008 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

OKAY!... I get it!

this offseason should make it abundantly clear which teams have a shot at the pot and which teams are playing a joker in their flush.

The whole of the baseball world is rockin’ the ganja except for the smart teams! Sabermetrics, my anti-drug!

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 6, 2008 11:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

junior

what about griffey, he would be perfect for DH

by BadenBall on Nov 6, 2008 2:02 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

I HEARD THE KID WAS ON HIS WAY HOME

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 6, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been saying this for months

by JI on Nov 6, 2008 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously why doesn't somebody make a fanpost about this or something

by Nick S on Nov 6, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because the overwhelming logic of the move would surely make for a boring fanpost in which everyone agrees

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 6, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When I think DH

I think of past-their-prime, punchess, old, worthless retreads.

by BrianL on Nov 6, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1 WAR, bad

by Jeff on Nov 6, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a nagging feeling that

he meant perfect not in a baseball sense

by JI on Nov 6, 2008 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

On the one hand, I wouldn't really care since we're not going to win this year anyway

On the other hand, ewwwwwwww

by Jeff on Nov 6, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like my legacies untarnished and burnished in amber, thanks

not rotten, putrid and comical.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 6, 2008 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget the opportunity cost.

by JI on Nov 6, 2008 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Something tells me that this response was lost on him

by Robert on Nov 6, 2008 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Which makes it all the more fun

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 7, 2008 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

WAR!

What is it good for?

by Graham on Nov 6, 2008 2:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

last in every significant defensive metric in the NL

HUH

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 6, 2008 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Say it again

by JI on Nov 6, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good God Y'all

by johnbai on Nov 6, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought a joker counted for a flush?

Although I did once hear about a variant of poker devised as a sardonic mock of the Mets’ futility, in which various cards represented various players and one particularly loathed bullpen pitcher was represented by the joker, which had no value whatsoever toward a hand.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 6, 2008 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs