2009 AL/NL Awards Discussion

[Swifty]

I think you answered your own point, long term winning is exclusive and almost unrelated to immediate value.

Utley is their franchise position player, I'm not disputing that.

Once the 2009 25 man roster is put together though, I don't really care where they're playing on the field as long as they're in there day in and day out. Coghlan's .390 OBP and .850 OPS isn't any more or less valuable in left than it is at second. That he can play second helps us out by allowing us to (in theory) find a corner outfielder, which should be an easier commodity to find. You may value the player differently organizationally based on his position, but it's not as if pitcher X pisses himself on the mound because Utley's a .9-something OPS out of 2B, he does it because he's Chase Utley. Same thing with Ryan Howard, the pitcher doesn't look at him and go "oh he's a pushover because he's just OPS'ing .900 as a 1B, that's dime a dozen."

[Beef]

I think you answered your own point, long term winning is exclusive and almost unrelated to immediate value.

Utley is their franchise position player, I'm not disputing that.

Once the 2009 25 man roster is put together though, I don't really care where they're playing on the field as long as they're in there day in and day out. Coghlan's .390 OBP and .850 OPS isn't any more or less valuable in left than it is at second. That he can play second helps us out by allowing us to (in theory) find a corner outfielder, which should be an easier commodity to find. You may value the player differently organizationally based on his position, but it's not as if pitcher X pisses himself on the mound because Utley's a .9-something OPS out of 2B, he does it because he's Chase Utley. Same thing with Ryan Howard, the pitcher doesn't look at him and go "oh he's a pushover because he's just OPS'ing .900 as a 1B, that's dime a dozen."

Well, no, but I don't value players based solely on what a pitcher pisses on the mound.

I don't think I answered my own point at all. Long term winning isn't completely unrelated to immediate value. On one hand, we are able to talk about the difference Cliff Lee makes (granted it is a lot easier because he came in mid year) over some sort of average type pitcher, so why not for the current year do the same with Utley and Howard? I think the fact that Lee came in mid season almost gives us a blueprint of a way we can assess the value of these guys. Without Lee, they probably do X. Without Howard they probably do Y. Without Utley they probably do Z.

You seem to want to consider those things for the future and, since the team is what it is for the current year, ignore it for this year. I don't think that is really fair. I agree that for long term winning, that second baseman that can do what Utlet does is most important, so why ignore that for the current year? He has a lot of value going forward given his capabilities and he has that value this year as well.

I kind of think you answered my own point with the Coghlan example. I just think you are ignoring the current year a bit too much. Coghlan's offensive numbers are more valuable to the team at second base because he could then be replaced in left now with a player that will be better than what we could stick at second base now. At least, I think so, unless we just stick Bonifacio in left field once we move Coghlan to second. In that incredibly horrifyingly backwards case, I would definitely be wrong.

[wanks1212]

Why can't you accept this? I hate the notion that just because you came in at the end you weren't valuable.

I've never disputed Lee was valuable. I explicitly stated he WAS valuable, just that he was NOT as valuable as Utley. Lee may have been the third most valuable player on that team. Maybe. But, again, it's 80 innings.

Utley was 13th in OPS and 8th in wOBA in the NL. Those are damn good numbers when compared to other NL hitters, and he had 687 PA in 151 games.

Lee threw 80 innings. Yes, his ERA+ of 138 is good, but it's not in the top 10 in the NL. He wasn't CC Sabathia with the Brewers good (255 ERA+ in 130 innings). He's a good pitcher and he clearly upgraded their team, but he wasn't around long enough and he wasn't dominant enough to eclipse Utley's season-long production that was, at the least, as valuable when comparing Utley to other NL hitters and Lee to other NL pitchers.

If we view Lee's and Utley's contributions compared to other pitchers/hitters equally (which they MAY have been, although that's dicey), Utley's advantage in games played/time with the team make him more valuable to the 2009 Phillies than Lee.

Do you think that the '03 Marlins would argue with you if you said that Urbina was a top-3 or top-5 valuable player on that team and that was only with a partial season as a reliever.

I think the 2003 Marlins would view JP as one of their three most valuable players. But, assuming others were looking at it, they MAY say Uggie was one of their 3-5 most valuable. Maybe.

But Uggie had a 238 ERA+ in 40 innings. Lee's ERA+ in his 80 innings was 138. And, of course, Urbina typically pitched in high leverage situations, but whatever.

Uggie was dominant. Lee was merely very good. And Uggie still wasn't one of their 3 most valuable players.

Just look at the landscape of baseball. Teams cannot win without pitching. Hence, AJ Burnett gets basically $90 mil guaranteed over 5 years. We have, what, 1 position player who averages more than $20 million on a deal that lasts for more than 3 years yet we have 2 pitchers already and there's a good chance we add a 3rd (Halladay), if not a 4th (Lee) and 5th (Beckett) in one of the next two offseasons.

Sure, pitching is valuable. But looking at salaries isn't the best way of considering value. Also, if we're considering position players who hypothetically get $20+million per year, Mauer and Pujols indisputably join the $20+ per mil class in this offseason, if not the next. And A-Rod and Tex already get $20+ mil per year, Miggy's right at $20 mil this year and surpasses that total in the coming years under the terms of his deal.

Think of it this way, you're in an elevator and you're riding up to the 19th floor. On your way up, the cable that's been in there since the elevator's installation snaps and as you plummet towards the ground at the last moment, the emergency break clamps grab the sides of the elevator shaft and your messy end is averted. Yes the cable was there since the beginning, yes the cable did some great things, and yes the emergency break only came in at the very end when it was absolutely needed but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

I don't like this analogy, and Beef already kind of covered it.

If a team makes a trade for a player, it's clearly to fill an area of need; if that newly acquired player excels, then his acquiring team is obviously much better off than they would have been if they just went with the status quo at the position. Ergo, I see more value placed on the incoming season savior than I do a good hitter who just happens to play 2B.

The Phillies were much better off with Lee than the pitchers he replaced in the rotation. But I can't see a good pitcher who contributes roughly equal value for a much shorter period of time as more valuable than a good hitter who's around all season.

[Bobbob1313]

Why did my post about Cliff Lee get ignored? That makes me sad, because I showed that he basically pitched well in less than half of his games and pitched like shit in the other half. I'm not going to say a guy who pitched 6 good games is their most valauble player.

[Beef]

Why did my post about Cliff Lee get ignored? That makes me sad, because I showed that he basically pitched well in less than half of his games and pitched like shit in the other half. I'm not going to say a guy who pitched 6 good games is their most valauble player.

Lefty's roommate is a Philly fan