Hardy/Bush arbitration numbers (Latest... Bush signs: $2.55 million; see reply #90)

[logan82]

How does treating a player just like every other player equate to alienating them? Are we also alienating Bush? Did we alienate Cappy last year by not giving him what he asked in arbitration? If this actually goes to arbitration I might agree, but that rarely happens.

[sbrylski]

Gopher, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the future of players' salaries. I think they will continue to climb at their current pace rather than leveling off. - Reed

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/salaryinflation.gif

 

Study Link

 

Salaries cycle up and down, that's a fact. (Or, more appropriately, rise then flat line, then rise again.) But also note that our profits will rise as well. We won't be stuck at ~$80-$90MM payroll cap as average salaries zoom by. Just two years ago some doubted we'd hit an $80MM payroll, and we are already there. That's not to say we'll be able to afford all our current players past 6 seasons, but the relative payroll situation we are in right now is the same one we should be in for the foreseeable future.

 

The cycle is not just an owners spending problem either. The system itself creates salary inflation as well:

 

In fact, arbitration is how these outrageous salaries will come back to bite the owners. By agreement, arbitration results are tied to free agent salaries, so today's higher free agent salaries will increase arbitration results in a few years. How do you think owners will act when they see their arbitration-eligible salaries rising rapidly?

 

And as for our window of opportunity, Gopher said it best with:

 

Either way, you're entirely too hung up on this group of players and finances. You can continue to win while turning over portions of your roster as long as you continue to draft well and replace those players, and spend your money on the right players.

 

Can't really expand on that, its all there.

 

And lastly, the arby numbers are about what I'd expect. JB, Dave Bush would get 3/$20-something on the open market, if not more. He is a HELL of a 6th/7th starter. Hey, he's a pretty good 4th/5th. I'm really pulling for him though, because if Dave Bush ever wins a Cy Young, BrianTA owes me a beer.

[DrWood]

I think the average salary clearly increases--the increase in minimum salary ensures that. What is open for discussion is the dynamics of the salaries of the elite players--that is what seems to be more herky-jerky than a continued increase.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"You mean like Vargas? I know you hate Bush for some reason but if only one starting pitcher goes it should be Vargas, he's the worst of them."

 

OK, for starters, I didn't list Vargas ahead of Bush as a personal preference in this case, because Doug already committed to Goosio for 2008, which means he's probably already in the team's plans. So I should have more explicit there. Am I happy Doug gave Goosio all that money? Of course not. He's as bad as Bush.

 

But he did, so it's too late, unless he trades him. And it seems unlikely when you just signed someone, especially Doug, that you turn around and dump him right away.

 

And while I don't HATE Boosh (he may be a nice guy for all I know), I made it clear that I think he's very overrated (especially at BF.net), so yes, I'll freely admit I wish Doug wouldn't weigh us down with a 6th SP and a 7th SP, for $3 million apiece. When will Vargas and Bush pitch, anyway?

 

____________________________________________________

 

I still wish Doug would have used this surplus of SP candidates and thinned the ranks a bit with a trade.

 

"Geno, when did they impose a trade deadline in January? Because as far as I know the offseason isn't over and we could still thin out the SP ranks between now and the start of the season."

 

Yeah, yeah, the offseason isn't over, but when DM signed Cameroon, that pretty much sealed the starting 8. If he trades a Vargas or a McClung or a Bush or a Choate, it'll just be to get rid of the guy, which wouldn't be necessarily upgrading 1/3rd of that LF/3B/CF situation we faced for 2008.

 

Of course it's better to buy a free agent to fill a need, because you're not giving up the talent you'd have to, in a trade. But in this case, we had a need for a BETTER solution that a Mike Cameron, a big surplus of MLB SPs, a few blocked nuggets, and no trade happened. Now we have about 8 starting pitchers (only 2 of whom are star material in Sheets and Gallardo), 5 slots, and 3 unhappy dudes who could make 30 starts on KC, Pittsburgh, Washington, Oakland...etc.

 

I ask this: OK, if you say there's no trading deadline in January, then who would Doug bring in, in a trade for about 2 or 3 of these 1/2-assed starting pitchers, plus a Gamel or a Brad Nelson, to cement us as a playoff contender? And who would he replace?

 

I fear/suspect Doug overplayed his hand, and "settled" for an old, 25-game suspended, bandage for CF, as Spring Training approached. (By the way, he also settled for a seriously aging, downward-trending solution at catcher, too, but that's another thread).

 

Was the Cameroon signing a BAD move? No, considering he did nothing else to bring in a prime candidate like a Blalock, Rolen, Ethier, etc. So Cameroon as a fall-back solution for a year or so, is a decent move. Was it a move you make, to alleviate the rotation logjam we have? Was it a move you make to solidify 1/3rd of your LF/3B/CF problem for the longer term? No, because my money says we'll be looking at another stopgap like Cameroon next winter.

 

I suspect Doug REALLY believes in Matt LaPorta's chances to take over LF or RF next year. Because otherwise, he'd find a way to get us a longer term solution at 3B/LF/CF, a guy under 32 at least.

 

________________

 

"Winning is a team stat, not a pitcher stat so that argument is on thin ice. That is like judging a teams QB by how many wins the team had.

 

I'd say his ability is as good as Capuano and Vargas for sure though."

 

One thing first, Ennder. You should admit your bias FOR Dave Bush, as I came outfront with my distaste for him being on the roster. It refreshes your angle for readers not familiar with us, and reminds everyone that, no matter what, you'll be defending him.

 

And as for his ability? AS GOOD as Vargas? Yeah, I'll spot you that one. But Capuano's one bad season removed from 2 solid back-to-back seasons, including an All-Star berth. Of the 2, it seems more likely that Capuano will bounce back to his former dependability, than Bush is to rise to a new level at this point in his career.

[DrWood]

if you go by the numbers, Bush was probably a slightly better than average #4 starter in the league. If you expect him to be a top-notch #2, you're probably going to be disappointed. If your expectations are that he will perform like a guy that merely deserves to be starting in the MLB, then he will almost certainly exceed them.

[Ennder]

Am I happy Doug gave Goosio all that money? Of course not. He's as bad as Bush.

 

But he did, so it's too late, unless he trades him

 

It is too late with Bush as well, we already offered him arbitration. We either give a contract or the arbitrator does, that is what confuses me here.

 

 

One thing first, Ennder. You should admit your bias FOR Dave Bush,

 

I have no bias for Bush or any other Brewer. I defended him last year because he pitched better than his stats suggested early in the year.

 

And as for his ability? AS GOOD as Vargas? Yeah, I'll spot you that one. But Capuano's one bad season removed from 2 solid back-to-back seasons, including an All-Star berth

 

While I hate ERA as a metric for a single year it is a pretty handy one for comparing similar careers. Capuano has a career ERA of 4.39 and an ERA+ of 101, Bush has a career ERA of 4.53(4.48 as a starter) and an ERA+ of 100. They are more or less equal to each other.

 

Bush has better peripherals but has had a career long trend of bad strand rates which at this point is probably not something he will fix, he just doesn't pitch well from the stretch. Bush also has a career long problem in the 1st inning which leads to some frustrating starts.

 

Capuano has a career long trend of wearing down early, his OPS+ in pitches 76-100 is terrible for a career. He also seems to find and lose the strike zone for stretches of games at a time leading to very inconsistent stretches.

 

Vargas is a step behind both of them and we agree on that so not going into his stats.

[PKBadger]

I ask this: OK, if you say there's no trading deadline in January, then who would Doug bring in, in a trade for about 2 or 3 of these 1/2-assed starting pitchers, plus a Gamel or a Brad Nelson, to cement us as a playoff contender? And who would he replace?

 

 

Given that we've traded away Inman and Thatcher, plus Salome and Jeffress' progress is being delayed by suspensions, and we really have no holes on the Major League roster, I would think it's a perfect time to replenish the farm system via trade.

 

I don't get why we have to trade "2 or 3", anyway. 5-man rotation, one guy moves to long relief, Parra starts in Nashville. We really only need to trade one.

[DrWood]

I agree they only have to trade away one of the starters. With 8 guys, ONE of them is likely to be nicked up at any given point of the season. (seven starters, minus one injured = 5 starters and one relieving) Trading away 2 (or 3) might be a good idea if they can get a much better starter in return.

[lukevan]

I agree, why can't we trade Vargas for a pitching prospect? Why do we HAVE to fill a hole on the major league roster in order to relieve our crowded starting rotation? Bush can work out of the bullpen or start if we decide to pitch Villy out of the pen again -- which I hope does not happen.

 

Sure we could trade Bush for a prospect also and save the club about 2.5 million, but is that really a major concern? Hang onto Bush until the trade deadline and someone will most assuredly be looking for a SP to fill a hole. Then we might actually get something worthwhile, like more bullpen help if we end up needing some.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"I have no bias for Bush or any other Brewer. "

 

Dude, it's OK to admit a little man-crush. When we brought up all the home runs he gave up, you said it was bad luck. When he was getting torched before the 5th inning, you blamed the outfielders for not catching up to those missiles he was giving up, when it was all those walks, it was bad umpiring. I admitted I've had biases FOR Carlos Lee, and against Wes Obermueller. It's healthy. And it lends your arguments credibility and perspective. Go ahead. Get it out of your system!

 

"While I hate ERA as a metric for a single year it is a pretty handy one for comparing similar careers. Capuano has a career ERA of 4.39...Bush has a career ERA of 4.53...They are more or less equal to each other. "

 

I admit the editing job there, because you said ERA for career numbers is pretty handy to use. 4.39 vs. 4.53, when the playing fields are level? I'll take the 4.39, every time, please.

 

"Capuano has a career long trend of wearing down early, his OPS+ in pitches 76-100 is terrible for a career. "

 

What's Bush's OPS+ during pitches 76-100, then? My money says it's awful, since he routinely gets pounded by the 5th or 6th inning or so.

 

"Sure we could trade Bush for a prospect also and save the club about 2.5 million, but is that really a major concern? "

 

I understand this sentiment, lukevan, but my point was that I was upset that Doug's "only?" option left now, with regard to leveraging this surplus of so-so starting pitchers, is to just dump one or two, for nuggets...which doesn't address the 2008 LF/CF/3B conundrum. It's too late now, since Cameroon, getting over $6 million, won't be sent to the bench to free up at bats for an Andre Ethier or a Hank Blalock or a Scott Rolen (oops, too late on that one!), should Doug still somehow acquire someone that good.

 

We had tradeable SP depth, a glaring need for a lefty hitter for one of those 3 slots, and Doug missed the free throw on that one...

[TooLiveBrew]

Free throw? Come on. Each of your named examples has been discussed there & back again, so I won't expand more than to say Melvin did a nice job of utilizing the talent he had & augmenting it.

which doesn't address the 2008 LF/CF/3B conundrum.

 

Melvin was more creative than dealing for an Ethier - he solved a huge part of our defensive problems. We now have a very well-rounded roster, as opposed to having a lot of good players & not knowing how to align them (sbryl had that great sig not too far back).

[Ennder]

What's Bush's OPS+ during pitches 76-100, then?

 

Bush has a career .737 OPS against which is a 95 OPS+ for him

Capuano has a career .852 OPS against which is a 118 OPS+ for him. He has been a disaster from pitchers 76-100.

 

The first two months of last year is the only time in Bush's entire career that he had big problems late in games, which is why I don't much like him as a RP. His big problems are from the stretch and in the 1st inning which would seem to me to be a bad mix as a RP.

 

:lol Dude, it's OK to admit a little man-crush. When we brought up all the home runs he gave up, you said it was bad luck. When he was getting torched before the 5th inning, you blamed the outfielders for not catching up to those missiles he was giving up, when it was all those walks, it was bad umpiring. I admitted I've had biases FOR Carlos Lee, and against Wes Obermueller. It's healthy. And it lends your arguments credibility and perspective. Go ahead. Get it out of your system!

 

You are seriously off base here. I defend any player that people are misjudging by using the wrong stats to judge them by. Bush had an extremely unlucky first half last year but he was pretty mediocre in the 2nd half. His BB's were up, his K's down and he gave up even more extra base hits than normal, the fact he finally had a decent strand rate is the only thing that saved him from a really ugly second half. I'm very statistical in nature and as an avid fantasy baseball player I try my absolute hardest not to let anything bias the numbers.

[lukevan]

Doug's "only?" option left now, with regard to leveraging this surplus of so-so starting pitchers, is to just dump one or two, for nuggets

 

I'm don't think Vargas ever really would've gotten us anything close to Mike Cameron in terms of a trade. I don't think his value has really dropped all that much, IMO we were expecting too much for our excess milquetoast starting pitching in the first place. Teams are trying to get good pitching this time of year, not Varg-1.6 WHIP-pitching.

 

Blalock, Ethier, Rolen... any would've been great, but I wouldn't have wanted to trade Hall or Sheets for any of them.

[Fatter than Joey]

What's Bush's OPS+ during pitches 76-100, then? My money says it's awful, since he routinely gets pounded by the 5th or 6th inning or so.

 

I will back Ennder on this one -- Suppan, Cappy, Vargas all faltered earlier in their starts in their starts last year -- they got crushed in the 6th, Bush got crushed in the 7th. Ultimately I think Yost left all of them in way to long, but Bush got through more innings.

 

You are seriously off base here. I defend any player that people are misjudging by using the wrong stats to judge them by.

 

In all fairness, people were using a lot more stats than ERA to point out Bush was not pitching well, and I know I thought that he would be a 5.00 ERA type of pitcher throughout the season.

 

I'm very statistical in nature and as an avid fantasy baseball player I try my absolute hardest not to let anything bias the numbers.

 

I got the impression you were defending Bush because you had projected him to do well for your fantasy team, so in essence you were defending your ability to draft fantasy guys, -- I could be totally wrong, but that was the impression I was left with -- not that there is anything remotely wrong with it -- we all have our prejudices, I am sure that the statistics will bear this out http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ennder]

I owned Bush in 1 league last year and thought he was being drafted too early and no he didn't pitch poorly in the 1st half. He had a 3.88 xERA in the first half which adjusted for him is roughly a a 4.20-4.30 ERA. Pretty much every number slid in the 2nd half except strand rate which rebound but he was much worse in the 2nd half.

 

I also find it kind of odd (and even a little insulting) that people assume defending a player means you are biased towards them. That might be how you guys operate but my goal posting on this forum is not to go out and try to make all the players I like look good and the ones I don't look bad.

[TheCouga23]

Out of Capuano/Bush/Vargas, I would keep Bush, no questions asked. His ratios are good. I just don't think he has learned to deal with pressure. It takes him a while (after the first inning) to settle down, and he does poorly with runners on base. He needs to relax and trust his stuff, because he has one of the best K/BB ratios in all of baseball.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

Let's start with the quick part:

 

"I'm don't think Vargas ever really would've gotten us anything close to Mike Cameron in terms of a trade...Teams are trying to get good pitching this time of year, not Varg-1.6 WHIP-pitching."

 

Oh I agree, lukevan.

 

Teams aren't going to give up a 26-year-old stud lefty-batting 3B or OF for a Vargas. But package Vargas with a Capuano/Bush type, along with a Gamel or a Zach Jack, and now you can get someone better than a senior citizen on drug suspension who Ks way too often, doesn't steal like he used to, and has a lousy batting average.

 

_____________

 

Dude, it's OK to admit a little man-crush.

 

 

"You are seriously off base here. I defend any player that people are misjudging by using the wrong stats to judge them by. "

 

Who annointed YOU as the arbitor of which stats we're to use, to assess a player? By saying we're "wrong" by employing a universally-accepted and very widely-used stat like ERA, then you're fishing for specific stats which back your support for Bush.

 

"Bush had an extremely unlucky first half last year but..."

 

When you use LUCK to support so many Bush arguments, then that's not very scientific or unbiased. When Carlos Lee got an error on a ball hit to him, did you ever play the Bad Luck card for his benefit?

 

Bush gave up too many HRs (27), his WHIP was the worst of his career (1.40), his ERA was over 5, and the Brewers didn't skip some of his starts for no reason. Too often, Bush simply didn't do his part to help us win. If he pitches well enough to give our team a better chance to win this year, fine. I'll root for him, and not try to find arcane reasons to KEEP supporting him, regardless, when he fails.

 

"I'm very statistical in nature and as an avid fantasy baseball player I try my absolute hardest not to let anything bias the numbers...He had a 3.88 xERA in the first half which adjusted for him is roughly a a 4.20-4.30 ERA"

 

Pitches 76-100...1st Inning stats...xERA...stats from just the first half...adjusting his bad ERA to make it look more favorable... That's statistical cherry-picking to support a player you chose in fantasy baseball, and now you're digging in to defend him, in the hope of supporting that your decision to draft him, was a smart one. You like him. That's cool. It's not wrong. Just admit it, and let's move on.

 

"I also find it kind of odd (and even a little insulting) that people assume defending a player means you are biased towards them. That might be how you guys operate..."

 

Wow.

 

When you say "that might be how you guys may operate", I have to steer you toward a halo salesman I know.

 

"but my goal posting on this forum is not to go out and try to make all the players I like look good and the ones I don't look bad."

 

When Bush pitches poorly, you cite bad luck, bad defense, bad playing conditions, bad umpiring. When comparing Corey Hart to Carlos Lee, you did your damnedest to make Lee look like a fat, stumbling, overpaid frat boy, and Hart to be the second coming of Robin Yount. We all do it here. I do. Even you. It's human nature, the very spirit of debate in baseball forums, to try to make players your argument is supporting, look good and opposing players look...not as good.

 

Your debating style here is no better or worse than the rest of ours.

[Ennder]

Pitches 76-100...1st Inning stats...xERA...stats from just the first half...adjusting his bad ERA to make it look more favorable... That's statistical cherry-picking to support a player you chose in fantasy baseball, and now you're digging in to defend him,

 

This is completely and utter bull. I pointed to pitches 76-100 to show that people are off base saying he has problems late in the game, in the same exact sentence I pointed out that he stinks from the stretch, gives up too many extra base hits and struggles in the 1st inning, all bad things. I was looking at the good and the bad instead of making up some problem that he doesnt' really have in the late innings. That is in no way trying to make him look better. xERA is a better stat than ERA if you are looking at a season so I'll always point to it. Sorry but you are living in the dark ages in how you tend to valuate players. I look at EVERY player the same way using the same metrics. The only time I look at something like pitches 76-100 is when someone specifically states it is a problem with the pitcher and it turns out it isn't.

 

When comparing Corey Hart to Carlos Lee

 

I have never really compared Hart to Lee so really don't know what you are talking about. The biggest discussion I ever had about Lee was showing he isn't any less streaky than Jenkins.

 

Your debating style here is no better or worse than the rest of ours.

 

If you dig around for stats that support your view while ignoring other stats then I'd say my way is better, I don't do either of those things. Your post as moved from a little insulting to very insulting, I'm sorry but just because you buy into the Joe Morgan school of statistics does not make it wrong when I look deeper.

 

Hitters - OBP, SLG, LD%, FB% are the big stats while keeping an eye on BABIP.

Pitchers - k/9, bb/9, GB%, xERA are the big stats while keeping an eye on BABIP, LOB% and hr/fb which can have a huge effect on ERA and are largely out of the pitchers control over a single season.

[lukevan]

Oh I agree, lukevan.

 

Teams aren't going to give up a 26-year-old stud lefty-batting 3B or OF for a Vargas. But package Vargas with a Capuano/Bush type, along with a Gamel or a Zach Jack

 

Sure that could've happened. That might be dealing a little too much from our SP, leaving only Parra as a replacement starter with major league capabilities. And who knows if a team would've been willing to cough up a good everyday player even for that package, who knows that Doug Melvin didn't already try this?

 

and now you can get someone better than a senior citizen on drug suspension who Ks way too often, doesn't steal like he used to, and has a lousy batting average.

 

While I appreciate your style, this is really about as negative as you could be on Cameron. Sure you may be right with each point, but one could easily paint the picture of Cameron as an above average CF both offensively and defensively. I supported bringing Rolen in, but I think Cameron's overall impact will be very near what Rolen's would've been, assuming all the position moves into the equation. I think Cameron also comes with the least amount of question marks as any of our previous targets.

[TerraceReserved]

"You are seriously off base here. I defend any player that people are misjudging by using the wrong stats to judge them by. "

 

Who annointed YOU as the arbitor of which stats we're to use, to assess a player? By saying we're "wrong" by employing a universally-accepted and very widely-used stat like ERA, then you're fishing for specific stats which back your support for Bush.

No one has annointed Ennder as the arbitor of which stats to asses a player. He's just using the ones that have been proven to mean a whole lot more than ERA.

To use a bad analogy to get my point across, it's not like he's saying cookie dough ice cream is better than mint chocalate chip - thats solely an opinion based on the individual. He's saying some stats are better than others, which is a fact. If you continue to ingore these facts, then so be it.

[xisxisxis]

If you dig around for stats that support your view while ignoring other stats then I'd say my way is better, I don't do either of those things.

 

What I see as selective bias is claiming ERA is a horrible stat, yet using ERA often to argue a point. Either it's a bad stat or it's not. Using it when it appears to support a point and not using it when it doesn't support a point can lead some to suspect that bias is entering the argument.

 

 

 

No one has annointed Ennder as the arbitor of which stats to asses a player.

 

True Terrace, but it's pretty clear from quotes like this:

 

I defend any player that people are misjudging by using the wrong stats to judge them by.

 

I'm sorry but just because you buy into the Joe Morgan school of statistics does not make it wrong when I look deeper.

 

that Ennder doesn't respect any opposing viewpoints to his and disagreeing with him is a combination of ignorance and incompetence.

 

 

 

He's just using the ones that have been proven to mean a whole lot more than ERA.

 

"Proven"? Runs created is probably one of the best stats that's shown a very good correlation to RS and RA, but it still isn't 100% accurate. I'd like to see some of the proofs that K/9IP is relevant to RS or RA, or K/BB, or LD%, or FIP, PHRAP, FRAGGLE, CHONE, FIGGINS...... Because the only numbers that matter in baseball are RS and RA. If you can't show a correlation to either of these, then you may be able to argue that a stat like BABIP has value, like a slick fielding light hitting SS, but having value doesn't imply proof.

[TooLiveBrew]

that Ennder doesn't respect any opposing viewpoints to his and disagreeing with him is a combination of ignorance and incompetence.

 

That just way off-base. The fact that arguably the most objective poster on this site is getting called out on this is ridiculous imo.

[DrWood]

Bush's ERA has consistently been worse than you'd expect from his rate stats. Is there any stat that quantifies the tendency to give up big innings?

[Ennder]

What I see as selective bias is claiming ERA is a horrible stat, yet using ERA often to argue a point.

ERA by itself is not a bad stat, it just requires about 500 IP of sample to be useful. I would like you to point out a case where I used ERA to judge a pitcher for a single season.

 

 

that Ennder doesn't respect any opposing viewpoints to his and disagreeing with him is a combination of ignorance and incompetence

People can think whatever they want but when you come and say something like a pitcher stinks because he only had 10 wins last year I'm not going to really value a statistic like that. It is pretty obvious that Geno doesn't respect any advanced metrics as he just makes a joke out of any serious post that uses them.

 

I personally don't like being called a liar and accused to defending a player because I 'drafted him on a fantasy team' just because I look deeper into a player than his ERA over part of a season. I'm competely baffled that someone believes that "It's human nature, the very spirit of debate in baseball forums, to try to make players your argument is supporting, look good and opposing players look...not as good."

 

When I debate a player I'm looking at what actually happened, I'm not trying to somehow trick the other person by ignoring some stats. It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter with GSP, any time someone uses an advanced metric he assumes they are trying to dupe the other person, that simply is not the truth.

 

 

Bush's ERA has consistently been worse than you'd expect from his rate stats. Is there any stat that quantifies the tendency to give up big innings?

 

The problem is in his strand rate. Normal pitchers sit in the low to mid 70's. Bush has had 69%, 67%, 64% and 66% (2007) the last four years. That is usually a stat that jumps around year to year so is considered largely out of the pitchers control (part of the luck factor people talk about). There are a few pitchers who set a higher or lower baseline and he seems to have set a lower one. Jeremy Bonderman is the same way with strand rates of 66%, 65%, 68%, 70% and 66% the past 5 years.

 

 

 

[Fatter than Joey]

The fact that arguably the most objective poster on this site is getting called out on this is ridiculous

 

We all have our prejudices, especially when we are emotionally evolved with a team or player.