Who would you rather? Hayward or Davis

[Can_of_corn]

How many of us have actually looked at Heyward stat line and not just judged him by the perception of what he was supposed to be?

In the last 3 years only one was injury shortened here are Heyward's offensive numbers...

407 Games played

1502 At bats

412 Hits

38 Homeruns

156 RBI

.270 BA

.776, .735, .797 OPS

That's a guy that we want to give 20 million a year for 8 years or more???

Yes...

[mskrulz]

I don't understand how this is even the least bit relevant.

It's relevant to the quote I was responding to if you read it.

"Illusion of value? Defensive metrics are all illusion and hitting is all concrete facts? Is that the point? That the way to be sure a guy can play defense is that he's a center fielder? Gordon is Heyward in five years. It's funny that the quote talks about putting a winning team on the field and somehow uses that to denigrate Heyward and Gordon, who both played on excellent teams this year."

[weams]

How many of us have actually looked at Heyward stat line and not just judged him by the perception of what he was supposed to be?

In the last 3 years only one was injury shortened here are Heyward's offensive numbers...

407 Games played

1502 At bats

412 Hits

38 Homeruns

156 RBI

.270 BA

.776, .735, .797 OPS

That's a guy that we want to give 20 million a year for 8 years or more???

But his defensive metrics are off the charts!

[mskrulz]

Yes...

Yes you've looked at the stats or yes you want to give 20 million a year on a long term deal for those numbers?

[Can_of_corn]

Yes you've looked at the stats or yes you want to give 20 million a year on a long term deal for those numbers?

Both..

[ArtVanDelay]

It's relevant to the quote I was responding to if you read it.

"Illusion of value? Defensive metrics are all illusion and hitting is all concrete facts? Is that the point? That the way to be sure a guy can play defense is that he's a center fielder? Gordon is Heyward in five years. It's funny that the quote talks about putting a winning team on the field and somehow uses that to denigrate Heyward and Gordon, who both played on excellent teams this year."

I did read it. Still completely irrelevant. You're basically saying that Heyward and Gordon don't deserve the contracts that they'll get because they had good teammates this year.

[Can_of_corn]

I did read it. Still completely irrelevant. You're basically saying that Heyward and Gordon don't deserve the contracts that they'll get because they had good teammates this year.

And yet he references RBIs, which are a team-mate reliant stat, to attack Heyward's offensive contribution.

[mskrulz]

I did read it. Still completely irrelevant. You're basically saying that Heyward and Gordon don't deserve the contracts that they'll get because they had good teammates this year.

NOOOO I'm not at all. I'm responding to a premise that we are discounting Gordon and Heyward's value as winners because the article stated that teams are looking to win on the field and Gordon and Heyward played on excellent teams. Yes, its true that Gordon and Heyward played on excellent teams but my interpretation of the article is that teams need to look past some sabermetrics when handing out mind boggling contracts to guys that are NOW going to be counted on to be cornerstone players based on the money that they are now going to be paid. The fact that Heyward and Gordon played on winning teams at their current salaries doesn't take into account their importance to another team when they are making a larger share of the payroll and the roles that they are going to take on in relation to the salary they are making, the team and teammates they play with, and the percentage of payroll they are taking on. Heyward and Gordon's defensive ability and offensive capabilities meshed great with the Royals and Cardinals but that doesn't necessarily ring true in every situation especially considering the money that they will now be paid.

[mskrulz]

And yet he references RBIs, which are a team-mate reliant stat, to attack Heyward's offensive contribution.

I referenced many stats.

[Can_of_corn]

I referenced many stats.

But not OBP or OPS+ or wRC.

You sure did a good job mentioning BA and RBI tho.

[mskrulz]

But not OBP or OPS+ or wRC.

You sure did a good job mentioning BA and RBI tho.

They are all referenced within the article that I copied.

[OFFNY]

Who would you rather? Hayward or Davis?

Hayward ........ #21.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think that's what the quote does at all. I think it says that spending 20 million dollars on a guy that hasn't truly proven his worth with an "expectation" that he has yet to reach his potential with much of his worth being defensive is not a good value.

I think Heyward is fully worth $20M a year at his current level of performance. He's 26 so there's not a lot of hope that he'll get better, but there is some wiggle room in the idea that he's especially been hurt by the expanding strike zone and one of these years MLB may try to change that. But he doesn't have to break out, he's already a six win player. Even if a substantial part of that six wins has a somewhat higher risk associated with it due to defensive metrics.

He's still a 26-year-old with an established value two wins a year north of Adam Jones.

I don't think the article is saying that they are not good team or "winning" players but they are also not 20 million dollar cornerstone players. Take Heyward or Gordon for that matter out of each's prospective lineup this past year and they are still excellent teams.

Right, so the winning team argument was both wrong and irrelevant. Heyward and Gordon are excellent players who happened to be on excellent teams.

If Heyward is just a pretty good player, and not a free agent you'd pay $20M a year for, there probably aren't many free agents in the next five years you would pay that for. Even if you are a total defensive metrics skeptic and think Heyward is an average defensive player he's worth three wins a year, or $21M/yr on the free agent market.

[DrungoHazewood]

...but my interpretation of the article is that teams need to look past some sabermetrics when handing out mind boggling contracts to guys that are NOW going to be counted on to be cornerstone players based on the money that they are now going to be paid.

To me that reads "I know the best information available says these guys are worth $100M+ contracts, but when we're going to commit that much money we need to trust other information that is probably worse."

[weams]

I think Heyward is fully worth $20M a year at his current level of performance. He's 26 so there's not a lot of hope that he'll get better, but there is some wiggle room in the idea that he's especially been hurt by the expanding strike zone and one of these years MLB may try to change that. But he doesn't have to break out, he's already a six win player. Even if a substantial part of that six wins has a somewhat higher risk associated with it due to defensive metrics.

He's still a 26-year-old with an established value two wins a year north of Adam Jones.

Right, so the winning team argument was both wrong and irrelevant. Heyward and Gordon are excellent players who happened to be on excellent teams.

If Heyward is just a pretty good player, and not a free agent you'd pay $20M a year for, there probably aren't many free agents in the next five years you would pay that for. Even if you are a total defensive metrics skeptic and think Heyward is an average defensive player he's worth three wins a year, or $21M/yr on the free agent market.

He is absolutely worth 20 million a year for seven years. absolutely. I would not give it to him because of the pick. But he is worth it.