Pelfrey's Trade Value

[AlwaysinModeration]

As for this actual debate, the Kurt Suzuki experience would indicate that Pelfrey's early 2015 performance will be viewed as a the new norm, and vindication of their investment in him, rather than an aberration from his career numbers. Thus I would bet against Pelfrey getting traded. While we can hope that Pelfrey is healthy, improved, and has a better repertoire, I would also bet that his numbers in June 2016 look kind of like Suzuki's June 2015 numbers--in line with career numbers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I remember reading Bill James' Moneyball and his statement that "clutch" doesn't exist, and thinking, "Really?  He's trying to bring science to baseball, and his way of trying to explain something he doesn't understand isn't to study it, it's to deny that it exists?"  :Let's say perhaps Pelfrey is striking out fewer and getting "lucky" double plays is because he's trying to replicate his success and get double plays instead of strike outs.  At what point are all the double plays not "luck"?

1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball.

 

2. Re: clutch hitting, I don't believe sabrematricians went into the study trying to discount clutch hitting... It's merely that after studying thousands of hitters over the history of baseball, they discovered that it does not appear to be a quantifiable trait. And that makes sense when you think about it. If a hitter was capable of "stepping it up" and becoming a clutch hitting machine, why wouldn't he do so on a more regular basis? Why does someone have to tap into a "clutch moment" during a critical game situation to become a better player? If it was a quantifiable skill, we'd see hitters routinely hitting third inning doubles whenever a guy is on base because he'd have the ability to flip a switch in run-scoring situations.

[USAFChief]

1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball.

 

 

Right.

 

Everybody knows Billy Beane did.

[drjim]

 

Right.

Everybody knows Billy Beane did.

 

I thought Brad Pitt did. Now I'm really confused.

[Jham]

 

1. Bill James didn't write Moneyball.

 

2. Re: clutch hitting, I don't believe sabrematricians went into the study trying to discount clutch hitting... It's merely that after studying thousands of hitters over the history of baseball, they discovered that it does not appear to be a quantifiable trait. And that makes sense when you think about it. If a hitter was capable of "stepping it up" and becoming a clutch hitting machine, why wouldn't he do so on a more regular basis? Why does someone have to tap into a "clutch moment" during a critical game situation to become a better player? If it was a quantifiable skill, we'd see hitters routinely hitting third inning doubles whenever a guy is on base because he'd have the ability to flip a switch in run-scoring situations.

 

1. Sorry about the credits.  I bet the author gets that a lot though, and probably gets pretty mad.

 

2. Re: clutch.  You made my exact point.  Perhaps it is not a quantifiable trait.  That is not the same thing as saying that it doesn't exist.  But you can't justify its theoretical non-existence with anecdotal accounts and theory like "well any hitter would just try to be clutch more often" and then discount other posters who justify their positions on anecdotes, theory, or (gasp) watching players play.  

 

For the record "clutch" and "choking" have been proven by empirical data if you insist on use of stats.  http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-1304701.pdf provides one study.

Ignoring a factor of performance that is proven to exist because we don't have a metric for it is incomplete scouting in my mind, especially when practically all of our metrics are based on a series of statistically significant correlations rather than factors of causation.  I remember learning in a psych course at the U of M that there was a strong correlation with success in upper management and being a white male.   But being a white male was not the cause of their success.  They were more likely to have had education, training, grooming, and other advantages that would cause  their success.  Companies that received 500 applicants for a position might be able to cut their hiring process and expenditure by 50-75% if they limited their interviews to white males, and they'd still most likely come up with a perfectly suitable hire.  Measuring for causation would be far less efficient than working from the simple correlation, but, in their search for efficiency, they might miss a non-white male candidate who would have been the best hire available.  What things cause pitchers to limit runs?  Are we so sure Pelfrey doesn't have those things?  I'm not 100% either way, but I see a better pitcher this year, and the fact that this isn't reflected in his FIP makes me question its accuracy in this particular case.  Maybe someone who knows the ins and outs of its calculation can show which figures are keeping it at his career levels.  I suspect it's the K's, which I actually think will go up.

 

 

 

 

[howieramone2]

 

Seems to me we're asking Ryan to also do St. Peter's job than.

It was my understanding that Ryan was supposed to do what he thinks is best for the team. If what Ryan thought what's best for the team wasn't necessarily what's best for the business, that's when ownership or the team president tell him to go jump in a lake.

But I forgot, this is the Twins we're talking about. Everyone has to share the same ideas so as not to cause awkwardness at the company X-mas party.

St.Peter decides how much to charge for hot dogs and beer. I don't see a major overlap between his and Ryan's duties.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

2. Re: clutch.  You made my exact point.  Perhaps it is not a quantifiable trait.  That is not the same thing as saying that it doesn't exist.  But you can't justify its theoretical non-existence with anecdotal accounts and theory like "well any hitter would just try to be clutch more often" and then discount other posters who justify their positions on anecdotes, theory, or (gasp) watching players play.  

Okay, so you believe clutch hitting exists as a repeatable trait.

 

So prove it.

 

Otherwise, you're just using personal bias and conjecture to believe in something has has no indication that it exists. Me? I'll put stock in the mountains of data that indicates it's not a repeatable skill. Could that data be wrong? Sure. But it's more likely to be right than anecdotal evidence based on as little as one data point.

[Kwak]

"Clutch" hitting doesn't exist?  I guess a definition of "Clutch" is required to have any meaningful discussion.

 

Maybe include something like "hitting with men on base"--too broad but seems like it belongs somewhere in "clutch".  Hitting when the lead changes--perhaps a bit too narrow, but seems like that should also be in the definition somewhere.  Oops, the dreaded RBI may be in there someplace--a bit too broad because some "runs" are more useful than others.  Exception:  those who believe RBI's are unimportant because the randomness of hitting is exposed as less important.  

 

"Clutch" hitting--some hits are more useful than others.  That violates the the law that OBP and OPS are supreme measures of hitting because they lump all hits together, the useless, the useful, and the critical.

 

I game I sometimes play:  look at a team's box score and adjust all the hits, walks, HBPs, opponents errors, even useful outs, and place them (as best as permissible) in the same inning.  Players with multiple hits, walks etc. would be moved to a separate inning.  Then count up all of the runs that team could have scored--if they had only bunched everything into one (or two) innings.  The run totals are impressive.  This is sort of a back door method to define (or at least explain) the concept of "clutch" hitting.  In short, not all hits should have the same value assigned--sort of like how SLG illustrates that extra-base hits are generally more useful than singles, thus exposing the time-honored statistic of BAVG as a less useful measure of the quality of a hitter than newer statistics.  Thus, "clutch" hitting does exist--but "clutch" hitting needs to be defined in order to measure it.  The lack of a rubric for "clutch" hitting doesn't render "clutch" hitting non-existent.

[Jham]

 

Okay, so you believe clutch hitting exists as a repeatable trait.

 

So prove it.

 

Otherwise, you're just using personal bias and conjecture to believe in something has has no indication that it exists. Me? I'll put stock in the mountains of data that indicates it's not a repeatable skill. Could that data be wrong? Sure. But it's more likely to be right than anecdotal evidence based on as little as one data point.

 

There are numerous studies of how pressure effects individual ability.  Actual controlled studies where variables are minimized.  They show that both choking and clutch exists.  Baseball is a nuanced game with many variables.  It's no surprise that a scenario that effects different players differently would be hard to measure.  You're missing the point though.  If you think your latest favorite metric can accurately predict the success of a team or player without accounting for the hundreds of thousands of variables that your stat doesn't account for, then you are misunderstanding proper usage of statistics.

If you really want to utilize money ball principles you should actually be focusing on the outliers, as they are more likely to be "undervalued" in the market.  Is Pelfrey an outlier re: FIP?  Possibly.  Maybe he regresses.  Maybe his FIP comes down, maybe he's an outlier.  Doesn't matter.  His value is pitching for this team.

[drivlikejehu]

 

There are numerous studies of how pressure effects individual ability.  Actual controlled studies where variables are minimized.  They show that both choking and clutch exists.  Baseball is a nuanced game with many variables.  It's no surprise that a scenario that effects different players differently would be hard to measure.  You're missing the point though.  If you think your latest favorite metric can accurately predict the success of a team or player without accounting for the hundreds of thousands of variables that your stat doesn't account for, then you are misunderstanding proper usage of statistics.

If you really want to utilize money ball principles you should actually be focusing on the outliers, as they are more likely to be "undervalued" in the market.  Is Pelfrey an outlier re: FIP?  Possibly.  Maybe he regresses.  Maybe his FIP comes down, maybe he's an outlier.  Doesn't matter.  His value is pitching for this team.

 

The Pelfrey claim is ludicrous because he has a long track record with no evidence of some magical run prevention ability. If anything his career ERA is actually worse than you might think based on his peripherals.

 

So far as humans being capable of chokes and clutch performances, that is true. However, the issue has been studied exhaustively and they do not exist as repeatable deficiencies or skills in MLB. A possible reason is that mentally weak players fail before they make or establish themselves in the big leagues. 

 

The population of MLB players is a very controlled one. The characteristics of those players, physically and mentally, are very different from the population at large.

[Jham]

 

The Pelfrey claim is ludicrous because he has a long track record with no evidence of some magical run prevention ability. If anything his career ERA is actually worse than you might think based on his peripherals.

 

So far as humans being capable of chokes and clutch performances, that is true. However, the issue has been studied exhaustively and they do not exist as repeatable deficiencies or skills in MLB. A possible reason is that mentally weak players fail before they make or establish themselves in the big leagues. 

 

The population of MLB players is a very controlled one. The characteristics of those players, physically and mentally, are very different from the population at large.

My whole point is that Pelfrey has seemed to have made some significant changes this year.  He has a new splitter which has proven fairly effective for one.  He also seems to be attacking more and nibbling less (haven't looked up stats to verify).  He appears to be a much more effective pitcher, which is why I'm wondering why his FIP doesn't reflect it.  It doesn't appear to be luck.  I'm not sure which aspect of FIP is holding his number up.  

Regarding clutch being repeatable.  Once again a proponent of metrics tries to make his case with anecdotal evidence and conjecture.  Clutch is proven to exist.  I'll agree that we don't have a metric for it.  I'll agree that we don't have a stat to predict who will be clutch or who will remain clutch.  Nevertheless, your efforts to minimize the variables of clutch as it applies to baseball is way off.  Maybe if we replaced live pitchers with hitting machines...  

 

Clutch (and yips) exists in labs.  It exists in our own personal lives, as well as in baseball.  You can say we can't measure it or predict it.  That doesn't mean it isn't there or that it can't mess with data or stats that don't account for it.  

 

There is no metric for confidence.  Are you saying that confidence doesn't affect performance?  The mental side of the game can change from pitch to pitch let alone season to season.  There are thousands of variables that aren't accounted for in any stat, any of which might skew the results. 
 

[Rosterman]

Pelfrey has to help in this decision by pitching lights out thru that last week in july. If the Twins are going to get anything worthwhile for him, it will be a trade before the close of the trade deadline.

 

Of coure, some wise club may pounce on the Twins early and take Pelfrey off the market, but highly doubt it.

 

The Twins have a major investment in the guy from this and the past two seasons. They would like to egt something for him in the end that MAY pay off during the longer hall, even if it is another...Escobar...by chance.

 

Pelfrey SHOULD not get a qualifying offer. Unless, of course, if he is lights out thru July, but then you still have a mont-and-a-half to make a qualifying offer TOO MUCH of a gamble.

 

The best pitching chips the Twins have to tradde are May and Gibson. Teams will be asking about them. You could AFFORD to part with one of the other, too, if the price is right. In this case, the Twins hold the cards. There is no need to move either of them.

 

Milone you can run thru waivers in August and trade off for a low level minor league guy if push comes to shove and he shows major league staying power. Problem is, he either has to go back to AAA to start or go to the bullpen.

 

The prospect watch is such that Taylor Rogers is the big name, and a lefty that could be anoter Milone, but probably best being a bullpen arm. We all thought Meyer would be up this year. Doesn't look like it will happen. Berrios will leapfrog him, and although Berrios will tell everyone that he will break camp in the rotation, it probably won't happen until 2017.

 

We have lotsof questions on prospect starters. But right now, looking at the minors, don't really see any of them cracking the rotation this season...do we? I see Berrios getting a one game callup at the most, or maybe a September bench rest if the Twins wish to put him on the 40-man, which is questionable.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Milone has a zero chance of clearing waivers if he's pitching anything like he has pitched in the past several months.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Moderator note:  I'm seeing lots of bickering, and I'm seeing lots of references to studies that supposedly do and do not exist with absolutely no links indicating as such.  How about we do this:

 

1)  Provide a link to said studies instead of our word that they do exist.

 

2)  Recognize that regardless of which, studies can be flawed for various reasons and address the study and not the poster. 

 

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Moderator note:  I'm seeing lots of bickering, and I'm seeing lots of references to studies that supposedly do and do not exist with absolutely no links indicating as such.  How about we do this:

 

1)  Provide a link to said studies instead of our word that they do exist.

 

2)  Recognize that regardless of which, studies can be flawed for various reasons and address the study and not the poster. 

 

Here is a good summary that cites the key works in this area while providing some helpful numbers and graphics:

 

http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/baseball/wpa/wpa_2007/no_clutch.html

 

Note that the links to other articles are out of date, but the title and author are listed so you can search for them easily enough. 

 

It's actually a pretty simple matter to research and the statistical results are 100% clear. This is not a topic on which there is any credible dissension.

[LimestoneBaggy]

 

 

Pelfrey is the same Pelfrey. 2015 FIP of 4.14. Career FIP of 4.24. 2015 xFIP of 4.48 vs career xFIP of 4.54. Everything is the same except ERA. So any argument about how well he's doing is per se about his ERA - what else could it possibly be about?

 

 

 

I'm late back to the party again, but isn't that career FIP remarkably similar to that of E. Santana's 4.26? Even with the complete disaster pile Pelfrey been over the past few years?

 

I'm not saying a near 3 ERA is likely (may not logical), but if he's pitching below 4 (3.99 counts) at the end of the season, and the Twins are still in it, I'll take too many decent pitchers next season over not enough. No one-year contract should ever blocked a good, young pitchers, and a good GM understands injuries, learning curves, and roster management.

 

Pelfrey is doing something different in his pitching than he did over the last few years. I want to see whether the changes are actual improvement or smoke and mirrors. I want to know if an outfield defense that isn't cooking steaks and sunning themselves can help the pitchers out.

 

Essentially, I enjoyed my opportunity this year to pay a crapola of funds (drive five hours with three kids under 7) to see the team play, forget to look who was pitching that day, and not be wholly disappointed when any of our starters are on the mound when I show up. I managed to get the family to a game and Pelfrey beat the Red Sox 2-0.....Mike Pelfrey.... I don't care what happens for the rest of the season (hyperbole), I'm all aboard the Pelfrey Express

 

That is until some team goes crazy and throws out an offer that can't be passed up. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't get why they'd deal him at this point.......they have decent playoff odds, they should not jeopardize those for 2020 or 2021, imo. I'm not suggesting trading to improve this year's odds, I'm suggesting now is no the time to make those odds lower by dealing for a guy or two in A ball......

[nicksaviking]

 

St.Peter decides how much to charge for hot dogs and beer. I don't see a major overlap between his and Ryan's duties.

 

I agree.  That's why I said Ryan is supposed to be in charge of doing what's best for the team which is not necissarily what is best for the organization.  The GM isn't supposed to be in charge of PR.  There is supposed to be a hierarchy with people above Ryan weighing these issues.  If there's not, and Ryan is unilaterally supposed to pick and choose what's best for the team or best for business himself, then his job duties are fraught with conflicts of interest.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'm late back to the party again, but isn't that career FIP remarkably similar to that of E. Santana's 4.26? Even with the complete disaster pile Pelfrey been over the past few years?

Raw FIP isn't adjusted for park, league, etc.  By FIP- (100 is league average, lower is better), Ervin Santana is at 102, Pelfrey 106.  And for his career, Santana has matched that FIP in performance -- his ERA- is 101 (Pelfrey's is 112).  And Santana has 60% more career innings too.  (Not really a comment on their respective contracts or anything, just some info.)

[hotshot031]

 

I agree that Pelfrey's value in trade isn't a lot, which is why I think the Twins should ride his hot hand through the season and keep trying to make a postseason run, or at least stay relevant for as long as possible.

 

I'd be more interested to see what Milone might bring in trade... Possibly May if a decent young catcher can be found.

 

If the Twins are still reeling on July 25th, then a Pelfrey trade might be in order.

I'd rather deal Pelfrey. He has a small, expiring contract that doesn't fit longterm. You could get a couple of Escobar's back....

 

I'd also look into dealing nolasco and see if you can't do one of Gleeman's ideas....a bad contract for a bad contract swap. That Elvis Andrus contract doesn't look very good for the Rangers right now....I'd take it...

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'd rather deal Pelfrey. He has a small, expiring contract that doesn't fit longterm. You could get a couple of Escobar's back....

Why do the Twins need more Escobars? They're already facing a roster logjam at multiple positions.

 

When a team is contending, there's no good reason to sacrifice today's wins for marginal prospects that may or may not have even a small impact in 2-3 years.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd also look into dealing nolasco and see if you can't do one of Gleeman's ideas....a bad contract for a bad contract swap. That Elvis Andrus contract doesn't look very good for the Rangers right now....I'd take it...

Nolasco has roughly ~$31 mil remaining on his deal.  Elvis Andrus, $107 million.  No thanks.  If you are willing to essentially put $76 mil cash towards a position of need, you can do way better than a struggling Andrus.  For example, that amount would have almost scored you Brian McCann or Russell Martin either of the last two offseasons, and catcher is almost certainly a bigger long-term need than shortstop.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Okay, so you believe clutch hitting exists as a repeatable trait.

 

So prove it.

 

Otherwise, you're just using personal bias and conjecture to believe in something has has no indication that it exists. Me? I'll put stock in the mountains of data that indicates it's not a repeatable skill. Could that data be wrong? Sure. But it's more likely to be right than anecdotal evidence based on as little as one data point.

Here is a good summary that cites the key works in this area while providing some helpful numbers and graphics:

 

http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/baseball/wpa/wpa_2007/no_clutch.html

 

Note that the links to other articles are out of date, but the title and author are listed so you can search for them easily enough. 

 

It's actually a pretty simple matter to research and the statistical results are 100% clear. This is not a topic on which there is any credible dissension.

Clutch hitting ability exists, more than previous research would indicate.

 

- Nate Silver.

 

 

Follow the links.

 

 

 

Also, Dustin Johnson.

[Shane Wahl]

Elvis Andrus' contract is the worst in baseball now, right?

[drivlikejehu]

 

Clutch hitting ability exists, more than previous research would indicate.

- Nate Silver.


Follow the links.



Also, Dustin Johnson.

 

I read the article when it came out. Silver is really talking about the ability of hitters to adjust to the situation, say for David Ortiz to line a single instead of swinging for a home run. But it's a very tiny factor and not  at all related to the mental qualities stressed previously in the thread for why some players are clutch and some choke. It's very misleading the way you have selectively quoted Silver here.

 

Also, Pelfrey is not a hitter, so even that tiny nugget is irrelevant to him.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I read the article when it came out. Silver is really talking about the ability of hitters to adjust to the situation, say for David Ortiz to line a single instead of swinging for a home run. But it's a very tiny factor and not  at all related to the mental qualities stressed previously in the thread for why some players are clutch and some choke. It's very misleading the way you have selectively quoted Silver here.

 

Also, Pelfrey is not a hitter, so even that tiny nugget is irrelevant to him.

I've browsed several of these clutch performance studies now. One problem with them appears to be that they struggle to consistently define what "clutch" is for the purpose of their measurements. And really, the only definition that matters is each fan's own definition of clutch for him or herself. So the debate will continue to rage.

 

I did not misquote Silver. Reading the ESPN excerpt of Silver's chapters, I get the sense that he really, really wants to prove that clutch performance is a myth, but that he can't. He even says that, outside of the playoffs, David Ortiz actually wasn't much of a clutch hitter in 2004 at all. Think about that statement for a moment. To me that is as sublime an endorsement for the existence of clutch hitting than if Silver had shown it conclusively through research.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Clutch hitting ability exists, more than previous research would indicate.

 

- Nate Silver.

You're joking, right? From that very same article:

 

Certainly clutch hitting may exist in the classic sense of the term, but a lot of what we think of as clutch hitting may really be situational hitting. In some sense, the answer to the question of who the best clutch hitters are is that they're usually just the best hitters, period.

 

...

 

When we analyze play-by-play data, David Ortiz does rate as a clutch hitter overall, but most of the damage was limited to just two seasons, 2000 and 2005. Take those two years away, and his lifetime clutch rating is essentially zero.

 

...

 

Mark Grace rates as the best clutch hitter of the past three decades according to our metrics, producing between 13 and 14 more wins as a result of his clutch hitting. This makes a certain amount of sense. Grace had a reputation for being a very smart hitter, and there are some references to his clutch ability in the historical literature.

 

What we may be seeing here is the effect of smart situational hitting. As you'll recall, a player who had the ability to adjust his hitting approach in different situations -- slapping a single or blasting a home run as the situation required -- would provide some small but discernible benefit to his club.

 

...

 

That said, apart from the bonus effects of plate discipline, it's probably folly for a club to go looking for clutch hitters -- the ability just isn't important enough in the bigger scheme of things. Producing wins at the plate is about 70 percent a matter of overall hitting ability, 28 percent dumb luck, and perhaps 2 percent clutch- or situational-hitting skill.

Silver himself doesn't buy into the clutch hitter argument, he concludes that well-rounded hitters are able to adjust to the situation as needed. It makes a ton of sense but changing strategy is a far cry from "clutch"... That is "adjusting to the situation". One-dimensional hitters can't adjust. Guys like Joe Mauer, well, they adjust (Joe has solid MoB and RISP numbers throughout his career, probably due to his situational awareness of the game).

 

Look at the list of hitters in that article. What traits do most of them share? Good/very good averages, decent discipline, and moderate/good power. In other words, they are all well-rounded hitters. Funny how so many players who profile in such a similar manner are the "clutchiest"... Or maybe it's not "clutchiness" at all but the ability to adjust in-game that put them at the top of that list.

 

The word "clutch" implies that a hitter is able to step up his game in a particular situation to the benefit of his team. Silver's article doesn't reach that conclusion. The conclusion it reaches is that good, rounded hitters continually adjust based on the game situation to the benefit of their team. It's part of what makes them good hitters. They don't suddenly become better hitters in that clutch situation, they use their rounded skillset to achieve the best possible result as often as possible. It's a skillset they have (and use) throughout the game, clutch situation or not.

 

Let's say you have Adam Dunn at the plate. His options for a PA are basically the following: walk, homer, strikeout. What if your team is in a tie game, runner on second, two outs in the ninth? Dunn isn't a great fit for that situation. Chances are he puts two runs on the board or doesn't win the game.

 

Now let's say you have that same situation and John Olerud (totally random guy to pick, I know) in that situation. Olerud has more options for the PA: single, double, walk, homer, strikeout. Three of those options win the game.

 

Who is the "clutch hitter" there? Simple, it's Olerud because he has a more versatile repertoire to help the team win. Does that mean John Olerud is a clutch hitter? No, absolutely not... It means he's a more flexible hitter that can adapt to the situation.

[nicksaviking]

 

Elvis Andrus' contract is the worst in baseball now, right?

 

I'd say Bobby Bonilla's contract through 2036 is the worst in baseball, however I guess his zero WAR could be worse.

[nicksaviking]

 

Mark Grace rates as the best clutch hitter of the past three decades according to our metrics, producing between 13 and 14 more wins as a result of his clutch hitting. This makes a certain amount of sense. Grace had a reputation for being a very smart hitter, and there are some references to his clutch ability in the historical literature.

This is not surprising, as according to the well known anecdote, Grace was also the guy to coin the term "Slump Buster". 

 

I didn't see anywhere where unattractive baseball groupies were factored into these statistics.  Are they measured by quantity or quality?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd say Bobby Bonilla's contract through 2036 is the worst in baseball, however I guess his zero WAR could be worse.

True.    Although at least Bonilla is only owed ~$25 mil now.