Hoffman---> Brewers
by JI on Jan 8, 2009 9:14 AM PST
48 comments
The Brewers have reached agreement with Hoffman on a 1-year, $6 million free-agent contract, according to major-league sources. The deal includes $1.5 million in incentives, bringing the potential total value to $7.5 million and will be announced today
The Brewers lost their closer, Salomon Torres, to retirement at the start of the offseason. Three of their other relievers — Eric Gagne, Brian Shouse and Guillermo Mota — are free agents.
Hoffman can still get people out, but that seems like way too much money for a guy who'll only throw 50 innings and is in danger of collaspe.
0 recs |
48 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Staying in the NL is probably good...
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jan 8, 2009 9:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You moron you should've stayed with the Padres
by Jeff on Jan 8, 2009 9:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wait, nvm, the Brewers are probably going to be mediocre.
Delicious
by JI on Jan 8, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Players like Hoffman should just retire with their career team
by Jeff on Jan 8, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why retire if you team is trying to screw you?
Also, Marlins!
by JI on Jan 8, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hoffman has enough money already and should understand the situation into which the organization was thrust
by Jeff on Jan 8, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he blew it all on shoes and needs more.
Also, you can’t blame a guy for wanting to get off that shipwreck, get paid market value, and go to a team that was just in the postseason.
by JI on Jan 8, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is, he wanted to stay. This whole situation seemed doomed from the get-go.
You never want a franchise icon to leave and play for someone else, but you also don’t want him hanging around forever if it’s going to hamstring you. Given their money situation and Moores’ divorce, I didn’t see anything good happening there. $6 million would be something like 15% of the Padres’ (target) payroll (reportedly). The team wanted him around, and Hoffman wanted to stay, but he didn’t want to take a $3.5 million pay cut. I can understand both sides.
The team didn’t do itself any favors in the PR arena, though.
by Teej on Jan 8, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What would you do if your company did this to you? You'd be fucking pissed and go get another job.
(I know you don’t have enough money and if you did you’d retire but you aren’t getting paid to do something that is fun)
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 8, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was less money when it was first reported
but whatever. His peripherals were solid and closing games still seems to add 50% or so to a player’s contract.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 8, 2009 9:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Salomon Torres retired?
I’m only now getting to grips with the fact that he’s not an intriguing rotation candidate with the M’s.
Maybe Hoffman just wanted to reunite with Little T….
by marc w on Jan 8, 2009 10:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Or kick his @55...
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jan 8, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoring for page hits . . .
Looks like the U-T has a mini-site up to mark the end of the Trevor Hoffman Epoch.
by Teej on Jan 8, 2009 10:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah...
I mean, it’s not like the Seattle papers’ web sites did nothing when Edgar announced his retirement.
I’m actually with Jeff – Trevor should’ve retired w/the Padres. And Mays with the Giants. Aaron to the Brewers (in the AL at the time, right at the onset of the DH) makes a bit of sense, in that the Braves spent many years in Milwaukee, but that could be argued as well…
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jan 8, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I was making fun of myself for whoring for hits for my employer.
by Teej on Jan 8, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Duh!
Context! Forgot for a minute that you worked there :-)
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Jan 8, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
First Tony Gywnn, Jr.
Now Trevor Hoffman. The Brewers are quickly becoming the arch-nemesis of the Padres. And with the hiring of GMZ, our rivalry with the Padres may be growing some roots finally.
by Wilder. on Jan 8, 2009 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Weird I guess the Dodgers didn't want to give him more than $4mil
Would’ve spiced up the Dodgers Padres rivalry had he signed with LA.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Jan 8, 2009 11:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
tRA seems to like Hoffman
But not enough to make the contract worth it. At least it’s only a 1 year deal. I was afraid of a vesting option or something.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 8, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Statcorner says Hoffman is worth 1 to 2 WAR
That makes him worth it right there. Multiple the WAR value by 1.5 to account for leverage and that gives you 1.5 to 3 WAR making his contract worth it even if he doesn’t do that well.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 8, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Using an aging adjustment lowers Hoffman's WAR below the 0.9 from last year.
Not entirely sure how they get that (I’m assuming they use the PythagenPat method that I saw them using on fangraphs, but I’m not sure), but doing a Marcel-type on his tRA* gives 3.74, which is higher than last year and given a similar amount of innings, will result in a WAR lower than the 0.9 from last season.
Still, including leverage he may be worth it, but most other projection systems see him in the 0.6-1.0 range, including leverage, as far as I’ve seen.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 8, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I was just looking at statcorner
and kinda assigning weights to last year and the two before that. He had been around 2 WAR for a while and then bounced down to 0.9 last year mostly due to shortened playing time so I didn’t factor last year as heavily as I normally would. I think its a reasonable deal but not a good one.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 8, 2009 11:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, when I did a Marcel-type (including age) analysis on it I got a 3.74 tERA
with replacement-level set at 4.65, and 50 IP, I get 0.5 WAR.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 8, 2009 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
er, that 3.74 tRA*
that was actually tERA*, so that’s even worse.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 8, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Our WAR needs an updated formula.
It’s going to get lower.
by Matthew on Jan 8, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If only a FanGraphs writer
was preparing a series introducing how to calculate pitcher WAR that might coincide with the release of Win Values for pitchers on that site. Say, next week.
That would be nice.
by davidcameron on Jan 8, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If only said imaginary writer
would share that with other fangraphs writers.
SC’s formula is updated FWIW. I had to calculate new cutoffs for SP and RP replacement level since SC keeps the two separate.
by Matthew on Jan 8, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If your saying what I think you're saying...
by JI on Jan 8, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then FanGraphs would be the coolest site ever?
Yes, I agree.
Look for an announcement in the not too distant future. And then watch me pound my head against a wall trying to explain the formula to some of our readers…
by davidcameron on Jan 8, 2009 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just hope it's not the w% version that Tango has
FIP or tRA, I don’t mind but the w% is non-intuitive to the point of being counterproductive.
by azruavatar on Jan 9, 2009 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Complicated - yes
Counterproductive? I think that’s a bit extreme.
Tango helped me rework the formula a bit to make it a bit easier for non-mathy types to follow. It’s still not simple, but it’s easier.
by davidcameron on Jan 9, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I use the word counter productive because
at first glance, to the uninformed, it looks like you are using win% to evaluate pitchers. Now I know that the win% is really a derivative of some kind of dips evaluation compared to the league average dips evaluation but that’s not necessarily common knowledge.
And why the reluctance to comparing predicted FIP against predicted league average or replacement level FIP. That’s so straight forward, imo, and I’ve never known (or asked) why Tango uses the win% method.
by azruavatar on Jan 9, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Run environments
Basically, you need a dynamic runs to wins converter to stabilize the replacement level.
Anyway, we’ll go through it all next week, and hopefully it makes sense after I lay it out in a series of posts.
by davidcameron on Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Will you try to make it defense independent?
That is, will pitcher runs allowed be based on FIP, or something like wOBA against?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 9, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to spite Graham
We’re doing it based on FIP.
That said, and I’ll talk about this more next week in the series on FanGraphs, there’s an argument to be made (I’ve made it to myself a lot lately) that FIP is too context neutral. While we want to strip out defense, we’re also stripping out things like stranding runners, which have a tangible impact on wins and losses. In some ways, a FIP/tRA based win value for pitchers is more of a true talent estimate than a true past tense win value metric.
But, we already have so many context dependent pitching metrics, I’m not sure we need another one. So, FIP it is. I think we’ll figure out a way to improve the formula as time goes on, though.
by davidcameron on Jan 9, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We gonna see info on predicted value using the projections fangraphs posts anytime soon?
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 9, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Our motto is “if it’s cool, we’re working on it”. Or something like that.
by davidcameron on Jan 11, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that makes more sense.
How did you calculate the replacement level, anyway? Is it using 1.07*lgAvg for RP and 1.28*lgAVG for SP and then using the PythagenPat based formula or did you actually do an analysis of “replacement” starting pitchers (I can’t find the book blog post where they did that, if I find it I’ll post it).
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 8, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
