PDA

View Full Version : Indians acquire Brandon Moss



Rush
12-08-2014, 01:41 PM
542008175583436800

Joey Wendle (2B) goes to Oakland.

Wrench
12-08-2014, 01:46 PM
Gotta be more involved in this deal that just Wendle, right? He is just their 9th best prospect looking at mlb rankings.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 01:50 PM
Gotta be more involved in this deal that just Wendle, right? He is just their 9th best prospect looking at mlb rankings.

Looks like it was a 1 for 1 deal - just Wendle.

But it's ok, Billy Beane is a genius - they'll be fine. ;) (sorry, I couldn't resist)...

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 02:02 PM
Gotta be more involved in this deal that just Wendle, right? He is just their 9th best prospect looking at mlb rankings.


They dealt an aging all hit platoon player who is making 7 million next year. A guy who has never cracked 3 WAR in a season during his prime.

What sort of return do you think is fair for that?

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 02:11 PM
Billy boy strikes again! I'm sure there will still be several posts saying he's still the best GM in the game

Wrench
12-08-2014, 02:13 PM
They dealt an aging all hit platoon player who is making 7 million next year. A guy who has never cracked 3 WAR in a season during his prime.

What sort of return do you think is fair for that?

I guess but power sure doesn't seem to grow on trees anymore and Moss does have two more years of control. Well worth trade for the Indians IMO.

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 02:23 PM
I guess but power sure doesn't seem to grow on trees anymore and Moss does have two more years of control. Well worth trade for the Indians IMO.

Sure it could be worth it for the Indians but at the same time it may not be; time will tell.

Power doesn't grow on trees but neither do well rounded baseball players who can do lots of things well. Players like Moss aren't really players you worry about losing. I doubt they think he will repeat what he did in his prime and even if he does it really wasn't very good to begin with.

I suppose chic.......uhm........baseball fans dig the long ball.

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 02:26 PM
He's had an .850 ops playing in Oakland the last 3 years. You're right practically worthless

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 02:30 PM
He's had an .850 ops playing in Oakland the last 3 years. You're right practically worthless

No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

Wrench
12-08-2014, 02:31 PM
Sure it could be worth it for the Indians but at the same time it may not be; time will tell.

Power doesn't grow on trees but neither do well rounded baseball players who can do lots of things well. Players like Moss aren't really players you worry about losing. I doubt they think he will repeat what he did in his prime and even if he does it really wasn't very good to begin with.

I suppose chic.......uhm........baseball fans dig the long ball.

He is going to be 31 not 35, still has good years left.

Also seems he had been playing though a hip injury for most of the season in which he had surgery in the off season to fix.

If he gives the Indians what he gave the A's last year its a win for them, anything more is even better.

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 02:33 PM
He's had an .850 ops playing in Oakland the last 3 years. You're right practically worthless

No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

What dreamworld do you live in where an .850 ops is average?

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 02:34 PM
He's had an .850 ops playing in Oakland the last 3 years. You're right practically worthless

This is a slightly misleading way to present information. His OPS has declined by ~ 100 points a year. .954/.859/.772

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 02:34 PM
It's okay I'll wait

Chi-Town Cubs25
12-08-2014, 02:35 PM
No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

An .850 OPS is considered average?? Are we back in the 90's or something?

BKdoubleStacker
12-08-2014, 02:47 PM
Can anyone tell me about wendle? Moss probably won't put up a .900 ops anymore but I think he can probably get close to .800. I'm not really that bummed as an A's fan I don't think they are going to compete next year anyway, the mariners are closing in on

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 02:47 PM
What dreamworld do you live in where an .850 ops is average?



Is OPS the only thing that determines a player's value?

IceHawk-181
12-08-2014, 02:48 PM
Moss is still an above average offensive threat despite his recent decline.

A solid 120 wRC+|0.200 ISO|~2 WAR kind of player for 2015 I bet.

Steal for the Indians.

NateyB24
12-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Billy Beane cleaning house are the athletics this poor? (Serious question not trolling)

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 02:51 PM
Moss is still an above average offensive threat despite his recent decline.

A solid 120 wRC+|0.200 ISO|~2 WAR kind of player for 2015 I bet.

Steal for the Indians.

2 WAR is the line of average. Moss has been right around that number for his true prime years. Players are still useful after 29-30 but statistically speaking this is where the decline starts. Every player has a different prime but the most common, going by the numbers, is from 26-29. After that, there is a noticeable drop off when the sample gets large enough. Still many fans want to believe that a player's prime is from 27-36.

IceHawk-181
12-08-2014, 03:01 PM
Yeah, Moss has seen his best years past.

Still an above average bat with some power is always a good thing to have around. I just worry about the hip.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 03:02 PM
Billy Beane cleaning house are the athletics this poor? (Serious question not trolling)

Moss is set to make about 7 mil, on the wrong side of 30, declining, and coming off surgery. Perhaps he just feels the money can be spent elsewhere, or has questions on his health. Unless they plan to trade Billy Butler before next season, I don't think they are really that poor

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 03:05 PM
So are the A's just packing it in? Don't see how this helps their team and I don't see them using the $7 mil saved on free agents

Chi-Town Cubs25
12-08-2014, 03:31 PM
Is OPS the only thing that determines a player's value?

No, but you foolishly claimed that an .850 OPS is somehow average.

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 03:49 PM
No, but you foolishly claimed that an .850 OPS is somehow average.


I was clearly talking about the entire player when only his OPS was raised to show how valuable he was.


If you want to throw words around without being foolish take in the context of a thread before foolishly adding to it.

lincecum=future
12-08-2014, 04:02 PM
Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about

SpecialFNK
12-08-2014, 04:09 PM
what type of defense do you have to play in order to get a good WAR when you're only playing DH? WAR is overrated when using it on someone like Moss.
his overall 2014 numbers are flawed because of the hip injury and what he did in the 2nd half compared to the 1st half.
he also hit better on the road in each of the last 3 years.

LanceUpperCut
12-08-2014, 04:25 PM
My only worry for the Indians is if his recent surgery is more of an issue cause if not I don't have a clue what BB is doing. WAR doesn't say much for an all bat guy with pretty bad defense in the outfield anyway.

Jays could of used him.

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 04:33 PM
My only worry for the Indians is if his recent surgery is more of an issue cause if not I don't have a clue what BB is doing. WAR doesn't say much for an all bat guy with pretty bad defense in the outfield anyway.

Jays could of used him.


It actually means exactly what it means for all players. There are a finite number of wins that go into the equation.

If you don't think it works for certain players then it doesn't work for any player. That's a fair stance to take but don't try to apply it to someone who actually plays a position, runs the bases and hits as it will certainly ascribe the missing value for Moss's type to those type.

Chi-Town Cubs25
12-08-2014, 05:06 PM
I was clearly talking about the entire player when only his OPS was raised to show how valuable he was.


If you want to throw words around without being foolish take in the context of a thread before foolishly adding to it.


He's had an .850 ops playing in Oakland the last 3 years. You're right practically worthless


No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

"it's practically average" Unless you refer to people as "it" then you were clearly referring to his OPS. Pretty obvious.

Artful Dodger
12-08-2014, 05:10 PM
Is OPS the only thing that determines a player's value?

No that would be WAR......

Cub_StuckinSTL
12-08-2014, 05:10 PM
Open sale on Beane's team....Scott Kazmir and Shark Please

Artful Dodger
12-08-2014, 05:12 PM
So are the A's just packing it in? Don't see how this helps their team and I don't see them using the $7 mil saved on free agents

Beane fails again, that unnecessary and disastrous Lester trade really screwed them

abe_froman
12-08-2014, 05:41 PM
Open sale on Beane's team....Scott Kazmir and Shark Please

hands off,shark is ours:D

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 05:50 PM
Beane fails again, that unnecessary and disastrous Lester trade really screwed them

I'd think Mckinney and Russel screwed them more, no?

Rush
12-08-2014, 06:18 PM
Beane fails again, that unnecessary and disastrous Lester trade really screwed them

It wasn't unnecessary and disastrous. It was the right move. He went all in when they were one of the best teams in the league. It's not his fault that everyone not named Donaldson and Reddick fell of a cliff the last two months of the season offensively. Cespedes was nothing special.

TheIlladelph16
12-08-2014, 06:36 PM
Can't wait to see how some people will likely be eating their words when the A's are in the playoff hunt again in 2015. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I've learned to take a wait and see approach with Billy's seemingly head scratcher moves, as it all tends to work out for his teams over and over again.

Lincecum4CY
12-08-2014, 06:37 PM
Right about now, Billy Butler probably thinking "****, this is going to be a long year"

Atleast he got his $$

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 06:37 PM
It wasn't unnecessary and disastrous. It was the right move. He went all in when they were one of the best teams in the league. It's not his fault that everyone not named Donaldson and Reddick fell of a cliff the last two months of the season offensively. Cespedes was nothing special.

Wait.... So, you're saying chemistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with it? And it's just a giant coincidence that the OFFENSE fell off a ****ing cliff after that trade but were pretty much fine before that?

This is why I actually am starting to hate Billy Beane, the guy can do no wrong, is the best GM in every sport, everywhere, period and anyone who questions that don't even watch baseball. Yes, that trade was bad for the A's.... it was a great trade on paper but it simply did not work out AT ALL for Oakland in hindsight.

Thankfully though, it wasn't Beane's fault... he was just setting his team up for his pre-October run like he does every season.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 06:39 PM
Can't wait to see how some people will likely be eating their words when the A's are in the playoff hunt again in 2015. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I've learned to take a wait and see approach with Billy's seemingly head scratcher moves, as it all tends to work out for his teams over and over again.

IF (big if) Oakland makes the playoffs, Lawrie is an all-star and all these prospects he just acquired turn into solid MLB regulars, I'll absolutely be the first person here to admit I was wrong.

Hell, you can sig this if you want to.... lol

TheIlladelph16
12-08-2014, 06:44 PM
IF (big if) Oakland makes the playoffs, Lawrie is an all-star and all these prospects he just acquired turn into solid MLB regulars, I'll absolutely be the first person here to admit I was wrong.

Hell, you can sig this if you want to.... lol

Haha I'm not a sig bet kind of guy, bc like I said I could be wrong. In my experience, his moves just tend to work out. There's a reason why he's top 5 in wins (with a bottom 5 payroll to boot) over the last decade plus.

Admittedly, part my admiration for Beane is slanted by my own team's incompetence. He knows how to trade players at peak value and get back long term assets in return. Meanwhile, I have a team still employing half of the 2008 World Series starting lineup when most should have been gone 3 years ago. I would love to have a GM with the cajones to trade a player at peak value, rather than appease the fan base and keep him.

Rush
12-08-2014, 06:53 PM
Wait.... So, you're saying chemistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with it? And it's just a giant coincidence that the OFFENSE fell off a ****ing cliff after that trade but were pretty much fine before that?

This is why I actually am starting to hate Billy Beane, the guy can do no wrong, is the best GM in every sport, everywhere, period and anyone who questions that don't even watch baseball. Yes, that trade was bad for the A's.... it was a great trade on paper but it simply did not work out AT ALL for Oakland in hindsight.

Thankfully though, it wasn't Beane's fault... he was just setting his team up for his pre-October run like he does every season.

Can you point to where I said this? Because I didn't. I'm not dismissing chemistry one bit. I believe in it. The Giants of the last several years have made me a believer, but I'm not going to use that as the major reason for their collapse.

Why didn't the pitching collapse then? If it was a true chemistry issue it surely would've affected the whole team. They performed well.

I could understand some time for adjustment, maybe a week or two to get acclimated to life and the team without Cespedes, but two months? I don't buy that. They had other quality veteran hitters in Moss, Crisp, Norris, Jaso along with Donaldson and Reddick. The collapse is on the hitters.

filihok
12-08-2014, 06:59 PM
Wait.... So, you're saying chemistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with it? And it's just a giant coincidence that the OFFENSE fell off a ****ing cliff after that trade but were pretty much fine before that?

This is why I actually am starting to hate Billy Beane, the guy can do no wrong, is the best GM in every sport, everywhere, period and anyone who questions that don't even watch baseball. Yes, that trade was bad for the A's.... it was a great trade on paper but it simply did not work out AT ALL for Oakland in hindsight.
Yes it did.

The fall off of the cliff would have been much worse if Beane had not had the foresight to trade Cespedes when he did. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite enough to save the A's season.

But, he did get all the players he needed to win a 7-game playoff series - you know, when it matters. Unfortunately, they didn't get there.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 07:00 PM
Can you point to where I said this? Because I didn't. I'm not dismissing chemistry one bit. I believe in it. The Giants of the last several years have made me a believer, but I'm not going to use that as the major reason for their collapse.

Why didn't the pitching collapse then? If it was a true chemistry issue it surely would've affected the whole team. They performed well.

I could understand some time for adjustment, maybe a week or two to get acclimated to life and the team without Cespedes, but two months? I don't buy that. They had other quality veteran hitters in Moss, Crisp, Norris, Jaso along with Donaldson and Reddick. The collapse is on the hitters.

Of course the collapse is on the hitters, where did I say otherwise? Did they not TRADE a hitter for a STARTER, after they already acquired TWO starters in Shark + Hammels? I mean, they traded Addison Russell for these guys, who would have thought they'd need yet ANOTHER SP to add to that rotation? It's not like they traded prospects for Lester, they traded a guy that while no one wants, was a big/key component to their lineup.

I can't answer why 'all their hitters' collapsed... I can only point to the one guy who's responsible for roster management but I'm constantly told he's not the problem and he's the 'very bestest GM ever'... he should be the one who can answer your question, unfortunately I cannot.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 07:02 PM
Yes it did.

The fall off of the cliff would have been much worse if Beane had not had the foresight to trade Cespedes when he did. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite enough to save the A's season.

But, he did get all the players he needed to win a 7-game playoff series - you know, when it matters. Unfortunately, they didn't get there.

And you know this HOW exactly? You just said it yourself, "unfortunately, they didn't get there".... so, how do you know they had all the players he needed to win a 7 game playoff series when he didn't even get there?

You don't....

filihok
12-08-2014, 07:10 PM
And you know this HOW exactly? You just said it yourself, "unfortunately, they didn't get there".... so, how do you know they had all the players he needed to win a 7 game playoff series when he didn't even get there?

You don't....
Maybe too much snark for my own good.

Point being, we don't know what would have happened if the A's had not made the trade, so we can't blame the trade for the collapse.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 07:19 PM
Maybe too much snark for my own good.

Point being, we don't know what would have happened if the A's had not made the trade, so we can't blame the trade for the collapse.

Absolutely agree, we have no idea... we can only go by the raw data that's given to us.

Before the trade, the A's were 66-41.
After the trade, the A's were 22-33

I know Beane can do no wrong but this is LITERALLY the only thing we have to go on here....

I'm in no way stating that Lester was bad for the A's or that Cespedes is a better ball player, that'd be ****ing stupid. All I can say, based on the information that's given is their record took a nose dive after that trade was made and the A's produced a full run a game less the rest of the season. That's it...

Maybe all the other A's hitters just forgot how to get on base.... or chemisty is more important on a real team than someone's fantasy team... or the team got cocky because they thought their pitching staff was invincible, I have absolutely no clue. However, these are the facts on what happened, however anyone wants to slice and dice it.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 07:21 PM
Wait.... So, you're saying chemistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with it? And it's just a giant coincidence that the OFFENSE fell off a ****ing cliff after that trade but were pretty much fine before that?

This is why I actually am starting to hate Billy Beane, the guy can do no wrong, is the best GM in every sport, everywhere, period and anyone who questions that don't even watch baseball. Yes, that trade was bad for the A's.... it was a great trade on paper but it simply did not work out AT ALL for Oakland in hindsight.

Thankfully though, it wasn't Beane's fault... he was just setting his team up for his pre-October run like he does every season.

Evaluating a trade in hindsight is a pretty unfair method to evaluate the moves a gm made.

filihok
12-08-2014, 07:24 PM
Absolutely agree, we have no idea... we can only go by the raw data that's given to us.

Before the trade, the A's were 66-41.
After the trade, the A's were 22-33

I know Beane can do no wrong but this is LITERALLY the only thing we have to go on here....
That doesn't mean we have to go on it.

When we don't know, saying we don't know is the best course of action.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 07:27 PM
I'd believe in the whole "chemistry" fall apart theory if two of their better hitters tanked too. These were guys who were most likely to benefit from cespedes being around them in the lineup and they were fine. I think it is very possible that some of their players were just playing way over their heads in the first half and came back to reality in the second. Whether that be wear and tear, scouting, or just natural regression to their real talent level.

I really didn't understand giving up Russel, but as a cubs fan I was thrilled they did. However I think the Lester move was pretty awesome. He was/is a playoff tested starter which that rotation sorta lacked.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 07:34 PM
That doesn't mean we have to go on it.

When we don't know, saying we don't know is the best course of action.

Except we do this all the time. Every trade that happens, every free agent signing is ripped apart by the "experts" here but yet, we have NO IDEA how they're going to turn out, do we? Why is it a double standard now?


I'd believe in the whole "chemistry" fall apart theory if two of their better hitters tanked too. These were guys who were most likely to benefit from cespedes being around them in the lineup and they were fine. I think it is very possible that some of their players were just playing way over their heads in the first half and came back to reality in the second. Whether that be wear and tear, scouting, or just natural regression to their real talent level.


I'd think this is the most logical explanation but it also goes against everything I was told in the other thread. Billy Beane is the greatest GM on the planet, there's no way he'd field a team that wasn't going to win the division and a best of 7 series - so there's no reason at all for them to regress.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 07:46 PM
Except we do this all the time. Every trade that happens, every free agent signing is ripped apart by the "experts" here but yet, we have NO IDEA how they're going to turn out, do we? Why is it a double standard now?



I'd think this is the most logical explanation but it also goes against everything I was told in the other thread. Billy Beane is the greatest GM on the planet, there's no way he'd field a team that wasn't going to win the division and a best of 7 series - so there's no reason at all for them to regress.

I have no problem having an educated conversation with someone about the moves the A's make. I do like Billy Beane and respect what he has done with a small payroll, however I by no means think he is the greatest gm on the planet. I think that is something that is far to hard to actually quantify. I think that Billy Beane is a gm that has a payroll limitation and has done a pretty admirable job of putting a competitive team on the field year in and year out.

Including portions of your post like that which is highlighted just makes me want to skip over what you say. I've read through these threads and have seen your posts. I understand that you do not agree that he is the best gm ever, and I can also understand why you think that, however including portions like that just detract from any respect i'd give your post. Obviously that is just my opinion and I'm sorry if it comes off as rude.

GeronimoSon
12-08-2014, 07:48 PM
Evaluating a trade in hindsight is a pretty unfair method to evaluate the moves a gm made.
Actually.. it's the only way TO evaluate a trade.. after the fact.. in hindsight.. The reasoning and logic involved with a trade defines the thought process and or the ability of the GM to project what the player or players do when they are moved.. Afterwards.. with the light shining brightly.. the GM's involved with the trade will see if they've succeeded or failed..

Failing is part of the game.. Batters who do it seven out of ten times are called superstars .. GM's who get it right more often than they get it wrong are the exception..

Being wrong isn't the end of the world..just the job you're in...

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 07:49 PM
I have no problem having an educated conversation with someone about the moves the A's make. I do like Billy Beane and respect what he has done with a small payroll, however I by no means think he is the greatest gm on the planet. I think that is something that is far to hard to actually quantify. I think that Billy Beane is a gm that has a payroll limitation and has done a pretty admirable job of putting a competitive team on the field year in and year out.

Including portions of your post like that which is highlighted just makes me want to skip over what you say. I've read through these threads and have seen your posts. I understand that you do not agree that he is the best gm ever, and I can also understand why you think that, however including portions like that just detract from any respect i'd give your post. Obviously that is just my opinion and I'm sorry if it comes off as rude.

You are completely entitled to that and not really rude, I don't blame you...

At the same time, I'm so ****ing sick and tired about hearing how Beane can do no wrong, so I apologize for the snark... just the way I am. :)

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 08:02 PM
Actually.. it's the only way TO evaluate a trade.. after the fact.. in hindsight.. The reasoning and logic involved with a trade defines the thought process and or the ability of the GM to project what the player or players do when they are moved.. Afterwards.. with the light shining brightly.. the GM's involved with the trade will see if they've succeeded or failed..

Failing is part of the game.. Batters who do it seven out of ten times are called superstars .. GM's who get it right more often than they get it wrong are the exception..

Being wrong isn't the end of the world..just the job you're in...

It's not fair because the gm has to react at the time. Agree to disagree

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 08:05 PM
You are completely entitled to that and not really rude, I don't blame you...

At the same time, I'm so ****ing sick and tired about hearing how Beane can do no wrong, so I apologize for the snark... just the way I am. :)

I can get that. I guess I do fall into the, "wait and see", for a full offseason, on Beane moves though. He has shown that he is rather capable. I can understand people questioning him though.

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 08:12 PM
I can get that. I guess I do fall into the, "wait and see", for a full offseason, on Beane moves though. He has shown that he is rather capable. I can understand people questioning him though.

I think Beane is a great GM - top 5 or so in baseball, but he absolutely should be called out for some of his moves, especially this offseason.

Regardless, we've gotten soooo far off topic, Ill reel it back in :) I actually don't mind this move for the A's. I would have expected a second prospect back in the deal, so they certainly sold low but I don't think Moss's value was where the media/fans thought. 7 mil a year for a guy like Ross is a relatively low-risk move for the Tribe though - so you gotta like it for them.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 08:23 PM
I don't really agree that it is low risk, but again, that's just a matter of opinion. The Indians don't have a huge payroll and already have a decent amount of dead money. If Moss doesn't recover well from surgery or continues his decline, 7 mil is a fair amount of money to risk.

Additionally, Beane and/or his scouts have shown a pretty solid ability to evaluate talent and the guy they got is interesting. He's been old for his league, but seems like someone who has some decent skills in multiple areas and could become an acceptable MLB regular. By no means do I think he'll be a star, but the A's have done well with filling their roster with cheap and decent players

StayOnBoard
12-08-2014, 08:27 PM
I don't really agree that it is low risk, but again, that's just a matter of opinion. The Indians don't have a huge payroll and already have a decent amount of dead money. If Moss doesn't recover well from surgery or continues his decline, 7 mil is a fair amount of money to risk.

Additionally, Beane and/or his scouts have shown a pretty solid ability to evaluate talent and the guy they got is interesting. He's been old for his league, but seems like someone who has some decent skills in multiple areas and could become an acceptable MLB regular. By no means do I think he'll be a star, but the A's have done well with filling their roster with cheap and decent players

Agreed, I wouldn't be surprised if he turns into a solid MLB 2nd baseman. The fact he's old for his league means he'll likely have a chance at a roster spot in ST.

1908_Cubs
12-08-2014, 08:32 PM
Absolutely agree, we have no idea... we can only go by the raw data that's given to us.

Before the trade, the A's were 66-41.
After the trade, the A's were 22-33

I know Beane can do no wrong but this is LITERALLY the only thing we have to go on here....

I'm in no way stating that Lester was bad for the A's or that Cespedes is a better ball player, that'd be ****ing stupid. All I can say, based on the information that's given is their record took a nose dive after that trade was made and the A's produced a full run a game less the rest of the season. That's it...

Maybe all the other A's hitters just forgot how to get on base.... or chemisty is more important on a real team than someone's fantasy team... or the team got cocky because they thought their pitching staff was invincible, I have absolutely no clue. However, these are the facts on what happened, however anyone wants to slice and dice it.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Shockingly enough, the Simpsons highlight this very example. http://www.getelastic.com/lisa-simpson-gets-why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation/ (Check this link out)

Jeffy25
12-08-2014, 08:41 PM
Gotta be more involved in this deal that just Wendle, right? He is just their 9th best prospect looking at mlb rankings.

Wendle could be their OD second basemen for the next 6 years.

I like moss, but he's a platoon player.

Jeffy25
12-08-2014, 08:45 PM
I imagine Beane would take the shark/Russell trade back right now

Blueshamrock
12-08-2014, 09:01 PM
No that would be WAR......

Not exactly, it has it's deficiencies and there likely is no way to smooth them all out. Still it provides a pretty decent baseline to start most discussions on the value a player provides. It's a much better starting point that just OPS taken over a three year sample.

In this case the OPS is even more flawed because of the platoon situation. WAR is a counting number and in that he won't get credit for at bats he doesn't take. Saying he has an .850 OPS over three years ignores so much important context.

This doesn't even get into the notion that WAR somehow undervalues guys who can only hit, play no defense and run the bases poorly. Saying that discredits the entire use of the stat to the point where it could not be used in any argument. Saying that it undervalues hitting for guys who can't do anything else well is also saying that it undervalues hitting entirely. This has to be true because if Moss could run and play D WAR would still not accurately access his value.

I didn't say that this couldn't be a position, it's just one that I wouldn't take. In the current formula for WAR hitting is weighted quite heavily as it should be. In the overall distribution position players are weighted 57% of all the WAR assigned every year and mostly all of it is for hitting. If anything the adjusted OPS counts for too much in the formula but none of this makes Brandon Moss somehow more valuable.

gaughan333
12-08-2014, 09:18 PM
Agreed, I wouldn't be surprised if he turns into a solid MLB 2nd baseman. The fact he's old for his league means he'll likely have a chance at a roster spot in ST.

I know it's not a move that makes people swoon, but getting a cost controlled MLB regular for 6 years can be huge for a team's flexibility going forward.

GeronimoSon
12-08-2014, 11:27 PM
I know it's not a move that makes people swoon, but getting a cost controlled MLB regular for 6 years can be huge for a team's flexibility going forward. Sure.. that would be true IF Joey Wendle becomes a ML'er.. nothing is guaranteed.. Previous history has shown that Beane can spot a prospect that projects to becoming a ML'er.. time will tell.. about Wendle and the health of Moss..

Halladay
12-09-2014, 12:10 AM
Can't wait to see how some people will likely be eating their words when the A's are in the playoff hunt again in 2015. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I've learned to take a wait and see approach with Billy's seemingly head scratcher moves, as it all tends to work out for his teams over and over again.

He's dealt the heart of his order(moss,Donaldson,cespedes),is about to lose Lester and trade Shark. You can wait all you want, there's not much to see. The only major leaguer he's gotten so far is Lawrie and he's hardly a shoe-in to play 150 games.

jej
12-09-2014, 01:38 AM
No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

An .850 OPS is not average. He as a player is average, but is a well above average hitter.

iam brett favre
12-09-2014, 11:13 AM
Looks like it was a 1 for 1 deal - just Wendle.

But it's ok, Billy Beane is a genius - they'll be fine. ;) (sorry, I couldn't resist)...

Yeah, he should take notes from Toronto and how they do things.

iam brett favre
12-09-2014, 11:15 AM
What dreamworld do you live in where an .850 ops is average?

The same one where Lincecum ='s the future.

iam brett favre
12-09-2014, 11:18 AM
Can't wait to see how some people will likely be eating their words when the A's are in the playoff hunt again in 2015. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I've learned to take a wait and see approach with Billy's seemingly head scratcher moves, as it all tends to work out for his teams over and over again.

Didn't you read all the comments coming from Blue Jays, Mariners, and Lincecum fans? They know good baseball, you should listen.

KingPosey
12-09-2014, 11:32 AM
No, it's practically average and likely not getting better.

An .850 OPS is absolutely no where near average, especially in today's MLB. Moss is far from "elite", but this trade is very curious from Oakland's standpoint. I'm gonna wait to reserve judgment on it for now.

But man, Moss has one of the sweetest lefty power swings in the game today. I went to As games just to watch him swing the bat.

KingPosey
12-09-2014, 11:34 AM
Is OPS the only thing that determines a player's value?

No but he is literally commenting DIRECTLY to what the last post said. Why would he argue about anything else when that is the ONLY statement that was made?

KingPosey
12-09-2014, 11:36 AM
2 WAR is the line of average. Moss has been right around that number for his true prime years. Players are still useful after 29-30 but statistically speaking this is where the decline starts. Every player has a different prime but the most common, going by the numbers, is from 26-29. After that, there is a noticeable drop off when the sample gets large enough. Still many fans want to believe that a player's prime is from 27-36.

I've really
Never heard that players have a 9 year prime that ends once they enter their late 30s by anyone that knows baseball, ever.

KingPosey
12-09-2014, 11:37 AM
I was clearly talking about the entire player when only his OPS was raised to show how valuable he was.


If you want to throw words around without being foolish take in the context of a thread before foolishly adding to it.
No, you clearly said an .850 OPS is practically average, and nothing else.

KingPosey
12-09-2014, 11:40 AM
Beane fails again, that unnecessary and disastrous Lester trade really screwed them

All those trades in that cluster saved their season. They were a team wildly overachieving on offense that was regressing to the mean, with tons of injuries, and young arms hitting innings counts they've never really been to.

Billy just gave up some really
Good pieces that would be great to have later. Cespedes is one of the most overrated bats in the league with what he's done SO FAR.

lincecum=future
12-09-2014, 05:29 PM
What dreamworld do you live in where an .850 ops is average?

The same one where Lincecum ='s the future.

Must be.