If you don't undestand that Buck likes Izzy at SS...

[Mackus]

Name one.

His brother would be a big improvement. Would have to trade for him, but he's not a guy that would be impossible to pry loose or be ridiculously costly in terms of talent.

I think you don't quite understand just how inept Izturis is offensively. He's the worst everyday player in over 10 years with the bat. 10 years, nobody has ever been worse. It may even be longer since somebody had such a miserable season, but I could only find stats as far back as 2000 when I looked. I think only 10 guys have been below a .600 OPS in that time frame, and only one or two below .575, nobody has been particularly close to Izturis' impossibly bad .550ish OPS this season.

[Mackus]

Name one.

Someone else mentioned him earlier, but Jhonny Peralta would be one if his option doesn't get picked up.

Really, it's hard to find a SS who had a worse year than Izturis did this season. In fact, you name somebody who played worse than him!

[RVAbird]

Whole lot of negatives with Furcal.

1) Health - It hard to valuable from the DL. The played 36 games in 2008 and missed almost two month so far this year.

2) This contract:

09:$6.5M, 10:$8.5M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M club option

2012 option becomes guaranteed with 600 PAs in 2011

may earn additional $1M annually based on health

limited no-trade clause (may block deals to specified clubs

3) He will be 33 next year do things are not going to get much better.

The Rays are not trading Brignac to the O's. Not after the O's started to play .600 ball and beat them in a pennant race.

1) Even despite missing time this year he's been 4 wins above replacement (AKA 4.5 wins better than Izturis)

2) If Furcal were a free agent this season and only wanted a 2 year deal I'd be happy to give him a 2/24 deal. When the season is done he'll have been worth about 32 MM in FA bucks over the last two years.

I would be ecstatic to pick up the 2012 option if he gives us 600 PAs next year and I'd likely pick it up either way.

A limited no-trade clause over one year with an option is pretty much insignificant.

3) He should be fine from age 33-34. There are no signs of decline with his bat and he's been spectacular defensively this year.

To say that Furcal on a 2/24 deal is a worse option than Izturis at 400K is absurd. Had Furcal been our starting SS this year we would likely win 5 more games. That sounds downright premium to me.

[RVAbird]

The difference between Izturis and Furcal this year (~4.6 wins) has been almost twice as much as the difference between Wigginton and Teixeira (~2.6 wins).

The difference between Izturis and Furcal this year (~4.6 wins) has been more than twice as much as the difference between Miguel Tejada and ARod (~1.9 wins)

The difference between Izturis and Furcal this year (~4.6 wins) has been about the same as the difference between Brian Matusz and Cliff Lee (~4.3 wins)

The difference between Izturis and Furcal this year (~4.6 wins) has been about the same as the difference between Brian Roberts (who has played in 49 games!) and Robinson Cano (potential MVP?!) (~4.9 wins).

[wildcard]

1) Even despite missing time this year he's been 4 wins above replacement (AKA 4.5 wins better than Izturis)

2) If Furcal were a free agent this season and only wanted a 2 year deal I'd be happy to give him a 2/24 deal. When the season is done he'll have been worth about 32 MM in FA bucks over the last two years.

I would be ecstatic to pick up the 2012 option if he gives us 600 PAs next year and I'd likely pick it up either way.

A limited no-trade clause over one year with an option is pretty much insignificant.

3) He should be fine from age 33-34. There are no signs of decline with his bat and he's been spectacular defensively this year.

To say that Furcal on a 2/24 deal is a worse option than Izturis at 400K is absurd. Had Furcal been our starting SS this year we would likely win 5 more games. That sounds downright premium to me.

I have no problem with Furcal when he plays. But we just lived through having BRob on the DL for half the year and we should know what something similar would do to the O's if Furcal was out for an extend period.

Looking at the last 3 years it would appear that there is a 40% chance of an extended period on the DL. That is too risky.

Meanwhile he is being play $12M per year.

[wildcard]

Someone else mentioned him earlier, but Jhonny Peralta would be one if his option doesn't get picked up.

Really, it's hard to find a SS who had a worse year than Izturis did this season. In fact, you name somebody who played worse than him!

I thought they said when we played the Tigers that they were going to pick up his option.

[RVAbird]

I have no problem with Furcal when he plays. But we just lived through having BRob on the DL for half the year and we should know what something similar would do to the O's if Furcal was out for an extend period.

Do you understand the concept of value? Players who play in 70% of their team's games and are really good are much more valuable than players who play in 90% of their team's games and are awful. Those value differentials I posted took into account the games that Furcal has missed.

Looking at the last 3 years it would appear that there is a 40% chance of an extended period on the DL. That is too risky.

Would love to know how you came to this definitive probability.

Meanwhile he is being play $12M per year

And he has been worth about 17 MM this year. He was worth about 13.5 MM last year. So...not only is he a much better player than Izturis, he's also outperformed his contract over the last two years.

[wildcard]

His brother would be a big improvement. Would have to trade for him, but he's not a guy that would be impossible to pry loose or be ridiculously costly in terms of talent.

I think you don't quite understand just how inept Izturis is offensively. He's the worst everyday player in over 10 years with the bat. 10 years, nobody has ever been worse. It may even be longer since somebody had such a miserable season, but I could only find stats as far back as 2000 when I looked. I think only 10 guys have been below a .600 OPS in that time frame, and only one or two below .575, nobody has been particularly close to Izturis' impossibly bad .550ish OPS this season.

His brother has not played more the 50 games at SS since 2004 at AAA. Who knows if he could even play everyday at SS.

[wildcard]

Do you understand the concept of value? Players who play in 70% of their team's games and are really good are much more valuable than players who play in 90% of their team's games and are awful. Those value differentials I posted took into account the games that Furcal has missed.

Would love to know how you came to this definitive probability.

And he has been worth about 17 MM this year. He was worth about 13.5 MM last year. So...not only is he a much better player than Izturis, he's also outperformed his contract over the last two years.

If you buy in to that stuff, good luck to you. Personally I don't.

I said looking at the last three years. In that period the Dodgers have played 469 games. Furcal has played in 272 of them. The is 58%. Therefore he has not played in 42% of the games.

[RVAbird]

If you buy in to that stuff, good luck to you. Personally I don't.

I said looking at the last three years. In that period the Dodgers have played 469 games. Furcal has played in 272 of them. The is 58%. Therefore he has not played in 42% of the games.

What you said was that there was a 40% chance of an extended DL trip, which is not the same thing as Furcal having missed 40% of his teams games over the last three years - which, conveniently, includes just the second time in Furcal's entire career in which he has played in fewer than 131 games and accumulated fewer than 542 PA as 1/3 of it's data pool (the other season was his sophomore year when he was simply not yet broken in as a full time player).

You mixed up a recent sample that was inappropriately skewed with future projection, which is not surprising considering you think this team, more or less as currently constructed, will sustain a .600 winning percentage.

I'm done with this argument because you've consistently responded to concrete estimates of value with anecdotes, abstractions and strawman arguments. Good luck to you, as well.

[H0smash]

I have no problem with Furcal when he plays. But we just lived through having BRob on the DL for half the year and we should know what something similar would do to the O's if Furcal was out for an extend period.

Looking at the last 3 years it would appear that there is a 40% chance of an extended period on the DL. That is too risky.

Meanwhile he is being play $12M per year.

That's why we should have a really good (all-defense) middle infield utility guy on the bench (it can even be Izturis if you want), in case BRob or Furcal got hurt. That guy would essentially be the same as Izturis, so you would still get more value for the games that Furcal would play since he is so much better than Izturis, but if he's hurt at all, you get the same all-defense SS in the games he misses. If you want any hope/chance of contending or getting above .500 next year, we should upgrade offensively at SS.

[wildcard]

What you said was that there was a 40% chance of an extended DL trip, which is not the same thing as Furcal having missed 40% of his teams games over the last three years - which, conveniently, includes just the second time in Furcal's entire career in which he has played in fewer than 131 games and accumulated fewer than 542 PA as 1/3 of it's data pool (the other season was his sophomore year when he was simply not yet broken in as a full time player).

You mixed up a recent sample that was inappropriately skewed with future projection, which is not surprising considering you think this team, more or less as currently constructed, will sustain a .600 winning percentage.

I'm done with this argument because you've consistently responded to concrete estimates of value with anecdotes, abstractions and strawman arguments. Good luck to you, as well.

Most projections use past data to look at what will happen in the future. Projections are not fact, they are just a best guess based on past experience. The fact that Furcal has only played on 40% of the Dodgers games over the last three years is concerning. Considering he is getting old the chances that his body will be able to keep him off the the DL for extended periods looks poor. That is not twisting data. That is just looking at the facts and projection forward.

I did not say the O's would be able to sustain .600 win percentage over a full season without adding more players. So don't say I said it if I didn't. I am not telling you what you think. I would appreicate the same treatment from you.

I have read about fangraphs and their projections of their defensive data. Its very subjective. As are their value of players worth. People can accept what they project if they want. I see their system as flawed. It's not that I have not looked into them. Do you understand how they come up with their data?

[Ruzious]

Someone else mentioned him earlier, but Jhonny Peralta would be one if his option doesn't get picked up.

Really, it's hard to find a SS who had a worse year than Izturis did this season. In fact, you name somebody who played worse than him!

The O's do need to get better all-around at SS, but I'd bet the wife and kids that Peralta is not one the O's would consider. Actually watching him play over the years, he is not even close to acceptable defensively at SS.

[El Gordo]

The Fielding Bible currently rates Izzi at 0. Barmes is a +15, Hardy and Bartlett are both +8. Uribe is a -2, Guzman is a +3. All would be better options to Itzuris.

[Ruzious]

Guzman is another one who's an absolute joke defensively at SS.