ANY chance Ben Sheets rejoins the team?

[mkm13]

For example, a player would not be worth as much if you knew going into the year they were going to miss the last 1/4 of the year and they couldn't pitch in the playoffs

 

The monetary values are based on performance. What a guy actually pitched. Not what he might have been worth if it was a full season. You said you knew how this worked.

O my gosh, did you even read the rest of what I wrote? I know how the formula works. I know it is based on performance (or runs saved). I said the problem with it is that it leaves out variables that are important. I am arguing the fact that someone said his value was 20.6 million last year (based on fangraghs). I UNDERSTAND how that simplistic formula works. Many on here apparently don't know how to make the leap to understanding its limitations. Any true stats guy would be laughingat some of this right now.

 

The most important thing when looking at statistics is being able to analyze them. So yes, according to Fangraphs (based on their formula), Ben Sheets was worth 20.6 million last year. That doesn't tell the entire story. I already explained some of why in Ben's case it is not accurate.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Would Sheets have been more valuable had he missed the beginning of the season and pitched his 200 IP from the beginning of May to the end of the season? Other than *possibly* affecting the use of CC down the stretch, the answer has to be no.

 

200 IP of 3.09 E.R.A ball accounts for the same runs above average, regardless of when they occurred.

[rluzinski]

I know how it works, you don't need to explain.

 

I simply can't reconcile that claim with your continued objection to how the system handles Sheets' missed time during the regular season. The system is as conservative as it can get in that regard. You are replacing Sheets' production with a AAAA starting pitcher (around 5.3 ERA in the NL, last year, IIRC). On the flip side, when CC pitched 9 innings instead of 8, he didn't get credited the difference between him and a MLB reliever. He was credited the far greater value of him over a AAAA starter. Many teams have far better replacement options in the event of an injury, so this system is assuming a very bad scenario.

 

Like I said earlier, if you read that 8 part explanation of the system's methodology, there's plenty of stuff to argue about in regard to the methodology. I don't really like that it's based on FIP, for one. It doesn't consider the context of that production at all. Do we want the context to be runs, wins, playoff appearances or World Series rings? A person could argue that a 1.0 ERA over 250 IP is worth nothing if it was done on a team that won 30 games.

 

And the system doesn't look at anyone's post season performances, good or bad. I agree that if you signed a starting pitcher that could never play in the post season, he would be worth less. How much less? I have no idea. But Sheets had about a 3.1 ERA in 200 IP. Even if he wasn't available in the post season, that has tremendous value to a team in general and had tremendous value to the Brewers specifically in 2008. I didn't think that was going to be a hard sell. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[mkm13]

rluzinski, please point out where I was specifically talking about "regular season" as you point out. Never did. You know as well as I do there are only a few teams that would spend 21 mil a year on a player. ALL of them teams would not spend that much on someone they knew would miss the end of the year and not be able to pitch in the playoffs. If they are spending that much money, their goal is to win the world series. It is completely shocking to me some people are arguing his value last year was 20.6 million and that you of all people would defend it.

 

I realize his production when he pitched was very good and I have never argued that fact.

[TheCrew07]

I think the point mkm13 is trying to make and that many are overlooking is that if you look at the number of $20 million dollar players there are according to Fan Graphs, then look at the actual number of $20 million dollar players there are around MLB... something doesn't quite add up.

 

There's 20 million dollars from a paper formula, then there's 20 million dollars when you actually to pay a guy, and there is a very select number of teams that will actually pay a player 20 million dollars. Just like a 20 mil contract to the Yankees is a much different issue than a 20 mil contract to the Brewers..

 

The values, both in $ and WAR on fangraphs should be used more for comparison sake, than actually applied to a contract situation. Sheets is a good pitcher, but no one was going to give him 20 mil after 4 straight years of significant DL time and/or injury outside of the Yankees, and they signed Burnett. He was worth 25 million last year according to Fan Graphs and the contract he got was widely criticized by the same people defending Sheets, and he's only making 16.5 mil annually compared to his supposed best of value of 25.

 

edit. For the sake of a contract, should we be considering the last 3 or 4 years worth of data as an average, instead of his best season?

[rluzinski]

I think the point mkm13 is trying to make and that many are overlooking is that if you look at the number of $20 million dollar players there are according to Fan Graphs, then look at the actual number of $20 million dollar players there are around MLB... something doesn't quite add up.

 

The distinction is true talent vs. actual production. Actual production has a far greater spreader than true talent, which is what teams pay for. More players will hit .300 than are actual .300 hitters.

For the sake of a contract, should we be considering the last 3 or 4 years worth of data as an average, instead of his best season?

 

You would look at his projections, so basically, yes. Even next year, his IP projection is going to be terrible, so he'll probably go the 1 year route and hope to significantly improve on it.

 

rluzinski, please point out where I was specifically talking about "regular season" as you point out. Never did.

 

But that's what Fangraphs is calculating. The value of regular season production. If you think that's a limitation of their methodology, so be it. I don't even know how you would weigh playoff production. 10x? That would sure make Sabathia's value look worse.

 

ALL of them teams would not spend that much on someone they knew would miss the end of the year and not be able to pitch in the playoffs.

 

Playoffs aside, you keep saying he missed the end of the regular season. As several people keep pointing out, that's completely irrelevant. He had a 3.1 ERA in 200 innings. That's specifically the part of the system you seem to be struggling with. He traded 20 IP of 3. ERA for replacement level ERA.

 

And again, all the calculations are context neutral. You think they shouldn't be. You think they should consider the odds a team has of making the playoffs. That's fine. You aren't wrong or right.

[mkm13]

No I am not struggling with it I understand the missed games at the end of the season were factored in. It is still a point that needs to be made because in general teams will be less likely to give out money to guys that can't/haven't stayed healthy. I know Melvin was somewhat lying, but he mentioned a big reason why they signed Suppan for as much as they did is because he can be counted on every 5th day. Don't think it is as true as he claims, but I do believe Suppan recieved more money because of his durability.

 

Again, this is all hypothetical because when a team looks into signing a player whether injury prone or not, there is still no guarantee he will get hurt or stay healthy the following year. So teams will still sign players based on potential. With this argument we are talking about last year and we know Sheets was not able to go in the playoffs. That is definetly a killer in terms of value. If a team knew a guy couldn't go in the playoffs that kind of money would not be spent.

[DuWayne Steurer]

You're talking about a hypothetical that will never occur. There's never been, nor will there ever be a scenario where a team is going to sign a player and know that he won't be available for post season (except maybe a September free agent pickup)

 

If you're signing a guy, you're assuming he'll be available.

 

You're arguing Sheet's perceived value, and others are arguing his mathematical value. I don't think there's anybody here who thinks those 2 are the same thing.

[RyDogg66]

I think the point mkm13 is trying to make and that many are overlooking is that if you look at the number of $20 million dollar players there are according to Fan Graphs, then look at the actual number of $20 million dollar players there are around MLB... something doesn't quite add up.

 

There's 20 million dollars from a paper formula, then there's 20 million dollars when you actually to pay a guy, and there is a very select number of teams that will actually pay a player 20 million dollars. Just like a 20 mil contract to the Yankees is a much different issue than a 20 mil contract to the Brewers..

The reason there are more $20 million dollar performances than there are $20 million dollar a year contracts is the same as why a guy like Jeff Suppan is worth negative $400k last year while making over 8 million and negative 2.5 million this year while making close to 12 million.

 

As long as teams are handing out contracts to the Jeff Suppans of the world that produce at a negative rate, there will be performances every year where guys are making much less than their contributions.

[mkm13]

You're talking about a hypothetical that will never occur. There's never been, nor will there ever be a scenario where a team is going to sign a player and know that he won't be available for post season (except maybe a September free agent pickup)

 

If you're signing a guy, you're assuming he'll be available.

 

You're arguing Sheet's perceived value, and others are arguing his mathematical value. I don't think there's anybody here who thinks those 2 are the same thing.

Well they were saying his value last year was 20.6 million. When you look at the big picture and the fact he couldn't pitch in the playoffs that is not true. That is my point. He had a great year when he was healthy, but that doesn't mean it was worth 20.6 million.

[RyDogg66]

No, it is true, he was worth 20.6 million. Contracts are given out WITHOUT knowing what a player will do over a given year. According to Fangraphs, Jeff Suppan should have been in AAA last year. Had the Brewers paid Sheets 20.6 million for his performance and paid Jeff Suppan league minimum (a full $800k more than he was worth) they would have gotten the same results, for the approximate same amount of money (Sheets actually earned 12.1, Suppan 8.3).

[TheCrew07]

Exactly Rluz, so then how you can definitively say what Sheets is worth? Because Fangraphs and/or Tango says so it must be true? Just looking at it very quickly a player's true value is roughly 50-60% of their max value in their career. In the past you've made the argument that Sheets earned his money because he pitched X IP of Y ERA making him exactly worth his contract based on what FanGraphs said his performance was worth. I just don't see how it's possibly that nice and tidy. Coming off of his previous seasons when he signed his contract it's probably a safe guess that both the Sheets' camp and the Brewers were expecting an average IP pitched above the 150.66 IP he averaged over the course of his contract. In that context he absolutely got paid more than he deserved.. The perspective here is totally dependent on the context in which someone chooses to frame their point of view.

 

Contracts aren't based on only 160 IP, it wouldn't be fair to the player if they were, I'm curious if there is a standard IP that contracts are based on or if it's all just based on "gut" feel. The point is, if a contract is signed for 12 million, and the pitcher only pitches until the end of the June due to injury, fans are going to be upset about the dead 6 million, but usually forgiving the first 1 or 2 times. Once a player has a track record, regardless of the severity, the fans are going to be on his case. I don't really feel strongly either way on that, I'm truly indifferent, mostly I'll just caution that using FanGraphs dollar value is a slippery slope when evaluating someone's contract.

 

Did Sheets earn his money in 2008? Absolutely. If he would have been hurt early in the season, he would have already had surgery, maybe would be back on the mound, and the Brewers might have a comp pick coming... either way he wasn't going to be available for the playoffs. I'm not sure what the backwards logic about being able to pitch in the playoffs proves, when it wasn't even a possibility given his injury. If you want to make a hypothetical argument about a minor injury at the start of the season then it's unfair to dismiss someone else's hypothetical argument, how can one be more valid than the other? When a player signs the big contract for a team, he's perceived as "the guy". Predictably every Sheets injury coincided with Brewer woes on the field... It's tough to win games without your best player. When "the guy" on the most popular professional team in the state is somehow always ready to go we tend to carry that expectation to the other teams and players we root for. I think that's the unfortunate side of the story with Sheets, but in the end he was injury prone, not to an extreme like Pavano who never pitched, but he missed significant time 4 straight seasons and missed the single most important series for many fans on the site which was the playoff series against the Phillies.

 

What makes a mathematical representation of value more valid than a perceived notion of value? Especially considering the sliding economic scale in MLB? A players value to one team is different than if that player was playing for another team in the league... there's no direct correlation based solely on a players performance as teams like Milwaukee are looking for or should be looking for production from players who aren't eligible for Free Agency, which changes the economy of scale greatly. This is we ended up with a pitcher like Suppan who's making the most money on the team, but he's in the bottom 3rd of the 25 man roster talent wise. The Brewers need to be paying their best players the most amount of money.

 

If I were a GM I'd be using both... I'd try to come up with a mathematical base that would be based on the current FA market, then adjust for the more intangible aspects like injuries and home team discounts to come up with a best guess at a particular contract.

[kramnoj]

People who have looked at contracts have noted that teams often don't pay the true stars enough money and often pay too much to players who are merely average or good. Market dynamics lead to inflation for talent towards the middle of the bell curve of talent. The few teams who can afford mega contracts limit the competition for talent at the good end of the bell curve, meaning they get paid closer to what they are worth.

 

Few teams would pay Sheets $20M for what he provided to the Brewers last year. But more teams will pay $10-$15M and be satisfied with half the value that he contributed.

[mkm13]

No, it is true, he was worth 20.6 million. Contracts are given out WITHOUT knowing what a player will do over a given year.

You are still not getting what I am saying. The argument was how much he was worth last year, not how much he would be worth in future years based on his numbers last year. In order to get his real value LAST year, you have to take into account he missed the playoffs (that is significant - any team considering paying 21 million a year for a player has a goal of winning the world series...not making the playoffs).

 

You have to take into account what teams would pay assuming they knew he would miss the playoffs. That is the only true way to find his monetary value last year.

[rluzinski]

Don't think it is as true as he claims, but I do believe Suppan recieved more money because of his durability.

 

Right, Melvin thought Suppan could pitch above replacement level for more innings than some other options.

 

Value = Value over Replacement Level x Playing Time

 

I used to hate the term "innings eater" but I've come to realize the value of having even a below average starting pitcher who can log 200 innings at the back of the rotation.

 

Exactly Rluz, so then how you can definitively say what Sheets is worth?

 

I've already made it clear that I don't even agree with all of Fangraph's methodology. You can define "value" in all kinds of ways, afterall. I think it's a reasonable method but there's nothing definitive about it. It was initially designed by Tango to be used with projections to predict what a player will get in free agency, which it does pretty well.

[Thurston Fluff]

You think we could have gotten MORE than 20 million dollars of value with the 12 million we paid Sheets? If every free agent/arbitration/contract extended player on our team performed a 1.67x the cost of his contract, we'd be in the playoffs pretty much every year.

 

That $20 million figure is calculated via the most expensive way to acquire a player which (obviously) is the worst way to acquire a player. For that calculation to be truly useful it has to take into account all salaries not just what they can get on the open market.

One that is only used when necessary. That is not how most or our players have been acquired. If you plug our entire team into that calculation you would find a team vastly more expensive than what our payroll was so that is not a valid way to calculate value IMHO. How valuable was Ben in relationship to our other players who would be worth quite a bit more than they were paid as well? What Sheets could have got us in trade would not have cost us $20 million and very well could have helped us get to the playoffs as well as during the playoffs. So the whole he was worth $20 million is off base.

 

I've already made it clear that I don't even agree with all of Fangraph's methodology. You can define "value" in all kinds of ways, afterall. I think it's a reasonable method but there's nothing definitive about it. It was initially designed by Tango to be used with projections to predict what a player will get in free agency, which it does pretty well.

 

If this is the case then it is clearly a misuse of it to assess Sheets value last year. It is meant to assess value going forward not looking back. If it was meant to calculate the value of past performance I think it would have to include something about health and availability to a much larger degree. Looking forward there is merely a risk of injury not a guarantee of it like looking back does.

[kramnoj]

So the whole he was worth $20 million is off base.

 

In a world where Torii Hunter was given 5/$90M for being mostly a 2-3 Win player, Sheets was certainly worth $20M last year.

[Invader3K]

I have to admit this whole conversation has made my head hurt a bit.

 

Getting back to the original discussion, there was a very recent report that Sheets' agent made some comments about Sheets and absolutely would not talk about when Sheets is coming back. It did not sound that promising, as far as him being back with a team anytime soon. I'm trying to find a link to the article right now...

 

Edit: Here it is: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/06/agent-tightlipped-about-ben-sheets-status.html

Andrew Marchand of 1050 ESPN Radio spoke to Ben Sheets' agent, Casey Close, who gave away very little about his client's status. Close said he would make no comments about where Sheets might end up and "wouldn't even say how Sheets is doing," according to Marchand. Sheets had surgery in February to repair a torn flexor tendon in his right elbow.

[mkm13]

So the whole he was worth $20 million is off base.

 

In a world where Torii Hunter was given 5/$90M for being mostly a 2-3 Win player, Sheets was certainly worth $20M last year.

And Torii Hunter would be available to play in the post season. Last year Sheets was not. If you are talking about value LAST YEAR, that needs to be heavily considered as no team would pay 21 million on a player that couldn't play in the playoffs. If you are saying Sheets could get a 21 mil a year deal based on his numbers last year (assuming healthy) I would agree. But last year, his value was not 21 million.

[giffted1]

And Torii Hunter would be available to play in the post season. Last year Sheets was not. If you are talking about value LAST YEAR, that needs to be heavily considered as no team would pay 21 million on a player that couldn't play in the playoffs. If you are saying Sheets could get a 21 mil a year deal based on his numbers last year (assuming healthy) I would agree. But last year, his value was not 21 million.

You just cant do that...teams do not give out contracts based on whether said player player plays in the playoffs. No team can know if they player they are signing will be available in the postseason, so they pay them for expected production. Last year Sheets production was worth 21 mil. If he'd pitched the entire season, he would have been worth even more.

 

To play along, lets say that the difference between Sheets and Suppan in the post season (one start) was worth something absurd like 5 mil. And lets say the Brewers charge Sheets for that, so we'd subtract it from the 21 mil. Even then he's still underpaid.

[mkm13]

You just cant do that...teams do not give out contracts based on whether said player player plays in the playoffs. No team can know if they player they are signing will be available in the postseason, so they pay them for expected production. Last year Sheets production was worth 21 mil. If he'd pitched the entire season, he would have been worth even more.

 

To play along, lets say that the difference between Sheets and Suppan in the post season (one start) was worth something absurd like 5 mil. And lets say the Brewers charge Sheets for that, so we'd subtract it from the 21 mil. Even then he's still underpaid.

This entire argument started on whether or not if Sheets was underpaid LAST YEAR. Not if based on his numbers, he would get some future contract or what he would be worth in the future. This is specifically what started it:

 

"He was actually very underpaid. How many of the booing Brewer fans would admit that? This value is according to fangraphs. 2005 Salary 6 mil, Value 12.7 mil 2006 Salary 9.6 mil, Value 14.7 mil 2007 Salary 11.1, Value 9.4 2008 Salary 12.1, Value 20.6"

 

If you are talking about strictly last year, not future years where he could pitch in the playoffs, he WAS NOT worth 20.6 million last year. You have to account for not being able to pitch in the post season. That is a big deal.

[rluzinski]

We are talking in circles now. You think Sheets performance wasn't worth $20 mil because he wasn't available in the playoffs? That's fine. Fangraphs is looking at the regular season only. They are saying his 3.1 ERA over 200 IP during the regular season is worth $20 on the open market. Duduct whatever you deem appropriate for Sheets not playing in the playoffs. I agree that in your hypathetical, teams wouldn't pay as much but it's pretty unquantifiable.

 

Now if you or anyone else want to continue arguing that his missed starts during the regular season is not being considered, I will continue to contend that it is. I've already explained why I think if anything, it's overstated. No where else to really go with it.

 

I think there's a very good chance Sheets doesn't play this year. That means teams will have to come up with their ERA and IP estimates for Sheets next year. It will be interesting to see what he's offered, if healthy. Trying to project playing time for Sheets is tough, to say the least. A 3.5 ERA over 80 innings is worth $7 mil. I could see him getting a 1 year deal in that range.

[mkm13]

I have been arguing the same thing from the very beginning. You keep wanting to limit this to "regular season". To find ones value, you can't do that. I know Fangraph only uses regular season, and in Ben's case, that is an issue if you are trying to look at what value he brought to you THAT YEAR. Teams don't pay the big bucks for the hopes of making the playoffs. They pay them with a goal to win the world series.

[cwolf2012]

You still have to get there to talk about winning the world series. He generated 20 million worth of value in the process of getting there. That's over 4 wins better than a AAA replacement pitcher, all by himself.

 

I don't understand the point of your argument. You say the fact that he got injured severely by the end of the season somehow subtracts a number from his actual value for the full season (including playoffs)? It obviously hurt the Brewers that Sheets hurt his elbow, but I don't see how his value is any less because of it. If he isn't on the team, we don't even get the chance to play in the playoffs. How does that not translate to him being worth what he was?

 

Now, would someone pay him 20 million a season for one year's worth of work? Absolutely not (well, maybe for this past season, I know the Yankees would have). His injury risk is even higher than it was before. GMs are smart enough to hedge bets based upon how many IP they think he'll have. It's pretty obvious that with a guy like Sheets, you need an incentive laden contract. I see something like 1 million for this season just to sign him + incentives in case he comes back and 5 million plus incentives for next year being the contract he's offered. If a guy like Sheets pitches 200 innings, he's worth pretty much the same as any other top pitcher in the game.

 

That doesn't mean teams should pay him based upon the idea of him pitching 200 innings. It's a far more fair guess that he'll hit around the 100 IP mark next year. So a team will offer him something like 5 million, with a bonus for every 20 innings past 80 or so.

 

You can't fault a person for getting injured. If anything, Sheets played through injuries last year to help the team. He came out against the Cubs against doctor's orders because he wanted to make the playoffs.

[mkm13]

Correct, you do still have to get there. He helped get us there...along with 15 other guys. I am not arguing he didn't have a very good season when healthy. He did. I agree based on runs saved during the regular season he would be worth somewhere close to that assuming he stayed healthy and was able to pitch in the playoffs. Again, teams don't throw that kind of money out there for the hopes of making the playoffs. They do it with the hopes to win the world series.