Jump to content

The Time to Make a Decision on Chris Davis is Now


brianod

Recommended Posts

Trying to project Chris Davis' offense over the next year, or 5 or 7 years, is real difficult. For me, the difficulty of comparing him to other sluggers is that Chris appears to have changed and improved his approach over the last couple of months. That doesn't mean he won't continue to be streaky (or that he won't continue to strike out a lot), but it may mean he'll hold steady, at a very high level, or even improve, for a few seasons before he starts to decline.

I think you have to assume that any player over the age of 28 will decline, and decline at an accelerating rate with each passing year, through the rest of his career. A few will temporarily buck that trend, but the most will not. With Davis you need to set a baseline, maybe using some kind of weighted average, and then assume 0.5 wins/year in decline. If you use a 5-4-3-2-1 weighting of the last five years Davis' baseline is 3.5 WAR. So you could assume a 7-year contract for 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 wins for a total of 14 wins. At $7M per win that's $98M. If you assume salaries inflate at 5% per year $98M becomes $114M. If MLBTR is correct and he's in line for $150-175M, that's a rather huge overpay. $175M would be paying for something like 20 wins after inflation, or about 40% more than my estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just because MLB retired it, makes its something not viable.

Of course, just my own pinion.

I'd say that if MLB retired a number, which was essentially unprecedented for an extremely change-resistant organization, that was significant. That the analytical community completely dismissed the number is more significant.

Some players can hit well in no pressure situations and not well in leverage situations.

Knowing that a guy does come through when the team needs them, has to be a benefit to somebody?

I know this could spawn a 124-page side thread, but there is scant evidence for any kind of clutch hitting ability. Google it and you'll come up with dozens of studies that failed to find any effect, and a few that found an effect that was very small. Basically, you'll almost always prefer a good hitter who's poor in clutch situations over a poor hitter who's good in those situations, in those situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because MLB retired it, makes its something not viable.

Of course, just my own pinion.

Some players can hit well in no pressure situations and not well in leverage situations.

Knowing that a guy does come through when the team needs them, has to be a benefit to somebody?

Some players get up in more GW situations than others, just like RBI. Also I think you may be confusing GWRBI with walk off RBI. This is my pinion: trax3944.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that if MLB retired a number, which was essentially unprecedented for an extremely change-resistant organization, that was significant. That the analytical community completely dismissed the number is more significant.

I know this could spawn a 124-page side thread, but there is scant evidence for any kind of clutch hitting ability. Google it and you'll come up with dozens of studies that failed to find any effect, and a few that found an effect that was very small. Basically, you'll almost always prefer a good hitter who's poor in clutch situations over a poor hitter who's good in those situations, in those situations.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/5/11/8577943/baseball-clutch-hitting-visualized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davis is almost definitely gone next year, but at least we'll get a pick out of it. Shame too, as I think 1B is going to be the hardest position for us to fill in 2016. Walker is struggling a bit and he's more of a DH type anyways and there isn't much on the free agent market. Hopefully Parmalee busts out.

I wouldn't care if we got a dozen picks he can't be replaced..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takeaway: "...it becomes readily apparent that players bat near their career averages regardless of the situation. There are good hitters and not-so-good hitters, and clutch situations and non-clutch situations. Good hitters perform better than not-so-good hitters no matter what the situation is. Clutch hitting is real and happens every day--clutch hitters are more a phantom of the data than a real phenomenon"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takeaway: "...it becomes readily apparent that players bat near their career averages regardless of the situation. There are good hitters and not-so-good hitters, and clutch situations and non-clutch situations. Good hitters perform better than not-so-good hitters no matter what the situation is. Clutch hitting is real and happens every day--clutch hitters are more a phantom of the data than a real phenomenon"

I am starting to see that point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want everyone to remember these quotes whether or not Davis resigns. The drumbeat when he's producing is "You can't just go out and find another Chris Davis. He just carries the team!" But that's backwards-looking. In 2014 we had Chris Davis and he didn't remotely produce like either the 2013 or 2015 Chris Davis. And despite the fans yearning and dreaming, he's not likely to be more consistent and more productive going forward than he was in what's normally a player's peak years. This is not unlike last year, when the most probable outcome of resigning Markakis and Cruz was a several win decline from 2014 Markakis and Cruz, and accelerated decline in the following years. You don't get the luxury of signing only the peak versions of the guys you want.
.

Yeah just like everyone who wasn't in favor of signing Cruz kept justified by banking on him declining rapidly. To me that was just wishful thinking and there is less reason to think Davis will decline as he is younger than Cruz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he can. We have three 30 HR types in Jones, Schoop, and Manny. We don't need to spend 7/160M on another one.

Right but Seattle drafted Jones so give them the credit for that. Our draft people for every Manny or Scoop seem to draft far to many Mark Smith, Wade Townsend, Billy Rowell, Matt Hobgood, Dylan Bundy types so in reality we would be lucky to get a top player in dozen picks and that is proven to be so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but Seattle drafted Jones so give them the credit for that. Our draft people for every Manny or Scoop seem to draft far to many Mark Smith, Wade Townsend, Billy Rowell, Matt Hobgood, Dylan Bundy types so in reality we would be lucky to get a top player in dozen picks and that is proven to be so!

You do know that Schoop isn't a product of the draft right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but Seattle drafted Jones so give them the credit for that. Our draft people for every Manny or Scoop seem to draft far to many Mark Smith, Wade Townsend, Billy Rowell, Matt Hobgood, Dylan Bundy types so in reality we would be lucky to get a top player in dozen picks and that is proven to be so!
What does the draft have to do with not spending 160M on Davis?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...