Would trading Mancini be the best option now?

[Number5]

3 hours ago, ArtVanDelay said:

The defensive adjustment for DH is pretty harsh.  The comments about Trumbo putting up more wins this year because he won't be in RF are very overstated. 

False.  The DH adjustment will not be nearly as great as the amount playing in RF drug his WAR down.  Not close.  All you have to do is look at David Ortiz and Pedro Alvarez to see that.

[ArtVanDelay]

36 minutes ago, Number5 said:

False.  The DH adjustment will not be nearly as great as the amount playing in RF drug his WAR down.  Not close.  All you have to do is look at David Ortiz and Pedro Alvarez to see that.

Not sure what David Ortiz and Pedro Alvarez have to do with anything?

FG had Trumbo's defense at -18.3 last year.  

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6876&position=1B/OF

The positional adjustment for DH per 162 games is -17.5.  Almost identical to Trumbo's 2016. 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/

Since you brought up David Ortiz, he DH'd 140 times last year and his positional adjustment was -15.2. 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH

[gtown]

I'd try to package Mancini wit a relief pitcher and see what you could get from the Mets. I know they have a 1B prospect but they are also weak at that position right now so another option couldn't hurt.

[Number5]

23 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

Not sure what David Ortiz and Pedro Alvarez have to do with anything?

FG had Trumbo's defense at -18.3 last year.  

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6876&position=1B/OF

The positional adjustment for DH per 162 games is -17.5.  Almost identical to Trumbo's 2016. 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/war-position-players/

Since you brought up David Ortiz, he DH'd 140 times last year and his positional adjustment was -15.2. 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH

We are talking about WAR.  The impact of Trumbo's defense on his WAR is quite obvious, and is much greater that the impact of the DH adjustment on the WAR of both Ortiz and Alvarez.  Not close.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I seem to remember the O's trading once for a player that another GM deemed "an old 30."

Frank was worth 34 wins from 25-29, and despite that triple crown just 29 wins from 30-34.  And he's an inner circle HOFer.

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

We are talking about WAR.  The impact of Trumbo's defense on his WAR is quite obvious, and is much greater that the impact of the DH adjustment on the WAR of both Ortiz and Alvarez.  Not close.

The break-even point is 17.5 runs.  If Trumbo's (defense+positional adjustment) is worse than -17.5 he's better off DHing.  Last year he was at -21, so based on that he'd gain a few runs, or a fraction of a win, by DHing full time.  

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

Kosuke Fukudomeo 1.4fWAR in 2008, ASG starter.

That's not particularly remarkable.  Bobby Richardson had four separate seasons worse than that where he was on the All Star team, including one where he was a full win below replacement.  And another year where he was worth -0.7 rWAR but won both a Gold Glove and got some down-ballot MVP votes. He played in seven All Star games in a 12-year career worth eight wins.

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The break-even point is 17.5 runs.  If Trumbo's (defense+positional adjustment) is worse than -17.5 he's better off DHing.  Last year he was at -21, so based on that he'd gain a few runs, or a fraction of a win, by DHing full time.  

Or, you could maybe actually look at the oWAR and WAR of Trumbo, Ortiz, and Alvarez and notice the much greater difference between oWAR and WAR for Trumbo than the other two.  The difference quite obviously is the impact of Trumbo's defense was considerably greater than the impact of the DH adjustment for the other two.  Alvarez had the added hit of a few amazingly bad innings at third base, making his oWAR/WAR difference greater than Ortiz's, but the hit to Trumbo for his right field play is clearly greater than any DH adjustment.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Or, you could maybe actually look at the oWAR and WAR of Trumbo, Ortiz, and Alvarez and notice the much greater difference between oWAR and WAR for Trumbo than the other two.  The difference quite obviously is the impact of Trumbo's defense was considerably greater than the impact of the DH adjustment for the other two.  Alvarez had the added hit of a few amazingly bad innings at third base, making his oWAR/WAR difference greater than Ortiz's, but the hit to Trumbo for his right field play is clearly greater than any DH adjustment.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.  Ortiz played five innings in the field last year.  Alvarez 53.  Their defense had little impact on their value.  Trumbo played 800, and his (defense + position) was a few runs worse than what it would be if he'd just DHed the whole time.  

oWAR and dWAR just serve to confuse, all they do is both factor in positional adjustment so they're no longer additive.

[ArtVanDelay]

37 minutes ago, Number5 said:

We are talking about WAR.  The impact of Trumbo's defense on his WAR is quite obvious, and is much greater that the impact of the DH adjustment on the WAR of both Ortiz and Alvarez.  Not close.

And yet you have no proof whereas I just posted a bunch of it. 

[tntoriole]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

And there are several scouting reports that say otherwise.

We shall see.

http://wavy.com/2016/07/06/trey-mancini-heats-up-for-the-norfolk-tides/

 

[Number5]

16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.  Ortiz played five innings in the field last year.  Alvarez 53.  Their defense had little impact on their value.  Trumbo played 800, and his (defense + position) was a few runs worse than what it would be if he'd just DHed the whole time.  

oWAR and dWAR just serve to confuse, all they do is both factor in positional adjustment so they're no longer additive.

Exactly.  And the difference between oWAR and WAR for those two players is much less than for Trumbo, with the obvious difference being how his poor defense in RF affected his WAR.  The discussion you entered was regarding the other ArtVanDelay's claim than the DH adjustment would have just as much impact on Trumbo's WAR as his bad play in right field.  I was pointing out that that is quite obviously not the case. 

[ArtVanDelay]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Exactly.  And the difference between oWAR and WAR for those two players is much less than for Trumbo, with the obvious difference being how his poor defense in RF affected his WAR.  The discussion you entered was regarding the other ArtVanDelay's claim than the DH adjustment would have just as much impact on Trumbo's WAR as his bad play in right field.  I was pointing out that that is quite obviously not the case. 

Nor was Trumbo’s seasonal WAR figure unduly deflated by randomly poor defensive numbers. Trumbo split the season between the outfield and designated hitter, and his UZR in the outfield was right in line with his career numbers, where he has been roughly 10 runs below average over a full season for a corner outfielder. That figure plus the positional adjustment for corner outfield (-7.5 runs) is equivalent to the adjustment for designated hitter (-17.5), which means that making Trumbo a designated hitter isn’t going to save him any more runs as a player overall.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mark-trumbo-is-still-a-free-agent-for-obvious-reasons/

I'm not sure if you understand the positional adjustment.  DHs are heavily penalized by WAR for not playing defense.  Trumbo isn't gaining anything by DHing.  The positional adjustment for DH basically falls in line with what he has done as an outfielder. 

Trumbo also played more games than Alvarez and Ortiz last year.  I really don't understand your argument, but that might be what accounts for the difference you're talking about. 

[weams]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Even Rick knows that spouting off RBI and the fact that he won a SS and made the AS Game isn't actually indicative of much of anything.  He just didn't want to post "47 HR." as the entirety of his post.

47 Homers are quite a bit. Alone. 

[mdbdotcom]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

47 Homers are quite a bit. Alone. 

It must be very difficult to hit that many home runs in one season and earn so little WAR.