908 replies to this topic

[slink]

GeneralGeeWhiz, on Friday, December 9th, 2011, 9:04 PM, said:

Pujols is one of the greatest players of all time, probably top ten, and the best hitter since Ted Williams. BUT paying 254 million over 10 years to a 31 year old player (who has peaked IMO) is foolish.

I tend to agree with this. It worries me that the contract will hamstring other maneuvers into the market in the coming years. However, I thought the same thing with the Vernon Wells contract. Essentially, though, Arte is playing with house money with the TV deal for 3 billion over 20 years. I think Moreno just said "WTF, I am not getting outbid, don't see another way to get back into the playoffs, let's do this."

[GeneralGeeWhiz]

slink, on Friday, December 9th, 2011, 9:52 PM, said:

I tend to agree with this. It worries me that the contract will hamstring other maneuvers into the market in the coming years. However, I thought the same thing with the Vernon Wells contract. Essentially, though, Arte is playing with house money with the TV deal for 3 billion over 20 years. I think Moreno just said "WTF, I am not getting outbid, don't see another way to get back into the playoffs, let's do this."

yeah man i couldn't of said it better. trust me i would LOVE to have Pujols in the Giants lineup, just not for 10 long and very expensive years.

[BillyPilgrim]

if you have the money, might as well overpay one of the greatest right handed hitters ever.

[digitalmonkey]

Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs.Matt Kemp for MVP!!!!!

[speedz99]

GeneralGeeWhiz, on Friday, December 9th, 2011, 9:04 PM, said:

BUT paying 254 million over 10 years to a 31 year old player (who has peaked IMO) is foolish.

I agree, with the one caveat being that his decline might look worse than it actually is...there's a chance he had a slow start to the last season and just never got to recover because of injury. But yeah, even if he's not in a big decline yet, he will be soon. Unless someone invents a very impressive steroid that's undetectable by modern standards...

BillyPilgrim, on Friday, December 9th, 2011, 11:46 PM, said:

if you have the money, might as well overpay one of the greatest right handed hitters ever.

Meh, weak excuse. Money is limited no matter what team you are, and overpaying by that much just limits how much you can spend on other big ticket players.

digitalmonkey, on Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 5:05 PM, said:

Ryan Braun tested positive for PEDs.

This just doesn't make much sense to me. He doesn't look like a steroid freak, and his numbers don't support it either. We'll see, I guess.

[slink]

Analysis from Halos Heaven:"Based on Fangraphs’ linear dollar per WAR, the basic inflation rate is that dollars per win inflates on a 5% per year basis. According to this model, in 2012 each WAR a player attributes to his team is worth $5 million, and at the end of Pujols’ contract one WAR will be worth $7.76 million. Thus, based on Pujols’ $25.4 million AAV over the length of the contract, he would need to accumulate 41.2 wins for the Angels over the ten years of the contract for it to be an even win-win. In the 11 seasons of his career, Pujols has a total WAR of 88, good for an average of 8.8 wins per season. If the Angels signed the Albert Pujols in 2001 instead of 2011, and you subtracted one average season off his total numbers, then Pujols would have a total WAR of 79.2 wins over the course of his new contract. This number would be worth $553 million over the course of this contract. Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."So free agents can expect 5 million per 1 WAR?I wonder how this holds up to other recent free agent signings. Easy enough to check on BRef.

[timwakefield]

speedz99, on Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 11:13 PM, said:

This just doesn't make much sense to me. He doesn't look like a steroid freak, and his numbers don't support it either. We'll see, I guess.

Yeah I think it's pretty unfair to rush to judgment before he is re-tested and allowed to say his piece. Not all steroid users look like steroid freaks though. Anyway like you said, we'll see.

[BaseJester]

slink, on Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 12:27 AM, said:

Analysis from Halos Heaven:Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."

In the sense the writer is using "half as good", a 0.02 WAR player is twice as good as a 0.01 WAR player. It's entirely possible for Pujols to have a negative WAR at the end of this contract.

[mrdannyg]

slink, on Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 1:27 AM, said:

Analysis from Halos Heaven:"Based on Fangraphs’ linear dollar per WAR, the basic inflation rate is that dollars per win inflates on a 5% per year basis. According to this model, in 2012 each WAR a player attributes to his team is worth $5 million, and at the end of Pujols’ contract one WAR will be worth $7.76 million. Thus, based on Pujols’ $25.4 million AAV over the length of the contract, he would need to accumulate 41.2 wins for the Angels over the ten years of the contract for it to be an even win-win. In the 11 seasons of his career, Pujols has a total WAR of 88, good for an average of 8.8 wins per season. If the Angels signed the Albert Pujols in 2001 instead of 2011, and you subtracted one average season off his total numbers, then Pujols would have a total WAR of 79.2 wins over the course of his new contract. This number would be worth $553 million over the course of this contract. Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."So free agents can expect 5 million per 1 WAR?I wonder how this holds up to other recent free agent signings. Easy enough to check on BRef.

Closer to $4.5M/WAR recently, and inflation has been slowing. If the economy turns though, inflation will probably catch up.The risk with Pujols is his age. If he's actually 31, it is a reasonable deal. Sure, he'll never be worth 4 WAR at 40 years old, but he could easily be worth 6-9 in the next few years, and make up for it in overall value easily. But if he's actually a few years older, as suspected, then you've just given a 10-year deal to a guy who will be 34-35 by the time the season starts, and that is scary.

[Dread Aidan]

speedz99, on Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 8:13 PM, said:

This just doesn't make much sense to me. He doesn't look like a steroid freak, and his numbers don't support it either. We'll see, I guess.

How do numbers support steroid use?(Beyond something like a player peaking at age 37.)

[speedz99]

Dread Aidan, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 8:45 AM, said:

How do numbers support steroid use?

Ok, I guess looking at a snapshot doesn't necessarily support steroid use (unless the snapshot includes something like 73 home runs), but a sudden spike in numbers might.http://www.baseball-...braunry02.shtmlLooks pretty consistent to me.

[Dread Aidan]

speedz99, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 10:19 AM, said:

Ok, I guess looking at a snapshot doesn't necessarily support steroid use (unless the snapshot includes something like 73 home runs), but a sudden spike in numbers might.http://www.baseball-...braunry02.shtmlLooks pretty consistent to me.

Consistently using steroids!I think a sudden spike in numbers might be suspicious, but there have been plenty of guys who have tested positive who have also been kind of awful. Basically, I'm not sure you could create a mathematical formula to determine who is on steroids.Also, when we say "steroids," that is just supposed to mean any illegal performance-enhancing drugs, yes?I should also mention that I don't even care who uses and who doesn't.

[speedz99]

Dread Aidan, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 10:24 AM, said:

Consistently using steroids!

That's possible.

Dread Aidan, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 10:24 AM, said:

I think a sudden spike in numbers might be suspicious, but there have been plenty of guys who have tested positive who have also been kind of awful. Basically, I'm not sure you could create a mathematical formula to determine who is on steroids.

I think that if you knew who was using PEDs and when they started, you probably could create such a formula. I mean, what are the possibilities here?1. He has always used steroids and for some reason got caught on this blood test.2. He just started using steroids this season.3. It was a false positive (for whatever reason).My thoughts:1. Possible, although that wouldn't make much sense to me unless he changed his administration routine or the test has changed.2. Unlikely, due to my guess (based on no evidence) that PED use should cause numbers to go up. His numbers are basically exactly where they should be based on other seasons. It also wouldn't make much sense for that good a player to all of a sudden take the risk to start using. I feel like these days the risk has increased to the point where anyone with a brain would only take PEDs to make to the bigs or to heal from injury.3. Possible. I actually think this is the most likely. Maybe I'm naiive.

Dread Aidan, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 10:24 AM, said:

Also, when we say "steroids," that is just supposed to mean any illegal performance-enhancing drugs, yes?

Yes. We could switch to PEDs if you'd like.

Dread Aidan, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 10:24 AM, said:

I should also mention that I don't even care who uses and who doesn't.

I wouldn't care if it wasn't illegal both in real life and in the sport. Either everyone can use it or nobody should. I care that someone using PEDs might get to the big leagues and make a ton of money while someone who doesn't cheat might be stuck in the minors.

[mrdannyg]

Steroids aren't like using a power-up in a video game. A guy starting to use one before a certain season would likely generate no differences in future stats. If there was a difference, it would likely be in the games played column, since the most useful aspect of steroids is the improved healing. Sure, can help a guy get stronger, etc, but that is more likely to show up over the course of several years.

[speedz99]

mrdannyg, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 6:53 PM, said:

Steroids aren't like using a power-up in a video game. A guy starting to use one before a certain season would likely generate no differences in future stats. If there was a difference, it would likely be in the games played column, since the most useful aspect of steroids is the improved healing. Sure, can help a guy get stronger, etc, but that is more likely to show up over the course of several years.

Yeah, this is incorrect. If a guy starts cycling at the end of a season, his stats the next season absolutely should see a bump. There's a reason why athletes abuse PEDs, and it ain't for the long-term gain.

[timwakefield]

Yeah I think it's fairly obvious that PEDs do (or can) have a significant effect in more than just injury-recovery. It's tough to tell how immediate that effect is because it's tough to know when a player started using. But all you need to do is look at the home run numbers to see how much it changed the game. McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds crushed a record from 1961 (McGwire and Sosa more than once, and Bonds likely would have more than once as well if the league didn't take to walking him at a ludicrous rate after he hit 73), a record that nobody else had really even sniffed for decades, and they all happened to do so while using PEDs. Not a coincidence. League-totals in home runs hit during the "steroid era" tell the exact same story as well. As far as "caring" about steroid users, speedz nailed that one too. It's against the rules, so it is explicitly cheating and unfair to the non-cheaters. Whether or not it's a wise and reasonable rule is a different question or discussion.

[mrdannyg]

speedz99, on Monday, December 12th, 2011, 11:34 PM, said:

Yeah, this is incorrect. If a guy starts cycling at the end of a season, his stats the next season absolutely should see a bump. There's a reason why athletes abuse PEDs, and it ain't for the long-term gain.

I might not have made my point clearly. I acknowledge that abusing PEDs can have significant, immediate effect on things like strength, that contribute to a player. Baseball isn't just about being strong though - a player suddenly getting stronger and going through body changes will have to make slight timing adjustments. For most players, they're not going to get a 'power-up' immediate boost in stats - it will take time for them to make the necessary adjustments.

[speedz99]

Now this does not surprise me.

[mrdannyg]

speedz99, on Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 10:57 PM, said:

Now this does not surprise me.

My favourite comment, Jason Mewes-style:ProductiveOuts: I know they say "Don't judge a book by its cover", but WHOA THAT BOOK PROBABLY SUCKS ALL OF THE BALLS. secure.mybookorders.com/order/john-roc…

[Dread Aidan]

Barry Bonds gets house arrest for obstruction of justice. I don't know how he'll survive!