JotCast | Jay Jaffe FanGraphs Chat

Jay Jaffe FanGraphs Chat - 12/13/18

Prev Page View Full Chat Next Page

Dave

12:57

Should I go with Mexican or Chinese food for lunch?

Jay Jaffe

12:59

There is literally never a bad time for Mexican food unless you're at a chain restaurant or one that specializes in another type of ethnic food.

Don't order Mexican at a sushi bar and you will go far in life.

jontowerakerman

12:59

Hey Jay, do you have any thoughts on how the Harold Baines election into the HOF plays into wanting a bigger hall? Of course, despite how egregious the process was to getting there, the end result may be a harbinger for a future where the Hall tries to tell the complete story of the game.

Jay Jaffe

1:01

I don't think it does. the more I think about it, the more I feel like this is the Hall wanting to appease the players, who feel alienated by the impact that analytics is having on player evaluation including that of the Hall process.

It's not a mistake that Joe Morgan was on the committee.

Lou

1:01

First analytics-centric writer to make it into the HOF?

Jay Jaffe

1:05

As I wrote in The Cooperstown Casebook and referenced the other day in my brief tribute (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/tv-party-from-vegas-with-a... Stark was far head of his time in incorporating advanced stats into his HOF deliberations.

I do believe that someday, when enough of us are in the BBWAA, Bill James will be honored in similar fashion to Roger Angell, who was never a part of the organization. FWIW, Christina Kahrl is the first of the BP originals to get a Hall of Fame ballot, and she's only getting hers this year, as is BP alum Keith Law. The requirements to vote in the Spink Award election are the same (10 years of consecutive service) though I'm not sure if either voted this year, though as former ESPN colleagues of Stark, I would think that they did.

Eric Weinstein

1:06

Does Harold Baines actually owe his election to sabermetrics? It seems that he doesn’t get into the Hall without the veterans committee using him to express a backlash to sabermetrics

Jay Jaffe

1:06

quite possibly!

Wes

1:06

Jay, what do you think the Yankees do next after the Happ signing?

Jay Jaffe

1:09

decide whether or not to pursue Machado and Harper, and then act accordingly. That could mean dealing Miguel Andujar (though Didi's injury lessens that likelihood) if they sign Manny, or making a move to lessen their outfield logjam (Frazier? Voit if Harper is willing to play 1B?).

Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe

1:09

Meg killed it in that panel. Love Peter Gammons and Jayson Stark as well, but she sounded better prepared and more knowledgeable than the rest of the panel. Respect to the old guard, but really excited to continue to see the new breed of baseball analysts.

Jay Jaffe

1:14

Meg did great, and this is yet another reminder of how important Brian Kenny has been in bringing the voices from our corner of the world onto TV; even before he was at MLB, he had folks like Keith Law and Joe Sheehan on TV regularly.

It's important to remember that any of us whom they put on the show are being set up for success by being asked to discuss an area of expertise in a short spot while the rest of the panel yields the floor. Gammons and Stark, with their 40-50 years in the industry, have great depth of knowledge on just about every aspect, and probably more TV experience than just about anybody else in the industry. The rest of us can only aspire to be so at ease in front of the cameras.

Ariel White

1:15

Why isn't there a link to the article schedule and the fan ballot at the top of each article in your HoF series? Also, Are we going to get two articles today (as there was not one yesterday)

Jay Jaffe

1:19

Good point about the fan ballot/schedule - will add.

You won't be getting two articles today, alas. The ripple effect of losing a day seals a solution that I was already considering in order to create a bit of breathing room, in that I will be doing shorter profiles on Roy Oswalt and Miguel Tejada, since neither has a fighting chance of getting 5%. Both had great careers and are better than many HOFers from a JAWS standpoint, but Oswalt, with just over 2,000 innings and no Cy Youngs, has less of a shot than Johan Santana did last year, and Tejada's drug-related controversies doom his candidacy too.

Marshall

1:20

What made Andruw Jones such an otherworldly defender?

Jay Jaffe

1:22

As I said in his profile (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jaws-and-the-2019-hall-of-fame-ballot-...), shallow positioning, a quick first step, and an uncanny knack for the right routes are what made him elite. I'm sure being coached by his father from age 3 helped to give him such a high baseball IQ

Ariel White

1:22

You often write things along the lines of, "Getting to 50% — gaining eight points a year over the next two — could make his candidacy stand out among those eligible for the Today’s Game Era Committee ballot." (From your Larry Walker article in the current series). Is there actually any correlation between doing well on the writers ballot and doing well on the committee ones? If so, is there any reason to assume that one causes the other? It seems more likely that it just means that their candidacy was good and they were noticed by both. (Alternatively does the opposite trend (and potential cause of the trend) exist - namely that if you do badly on one it hurts your case on the other?)

Jay Jaffe

1:26

One of the first things they ask both in the ballot creation process and in That Room is what kind of support a player received on the writers' ballot. It's VERY difficult for a sub-5% guy to even get onto those ballots — Grich and Whitaker never have, Simmons took forever, Cone and Saberhagen have been bypassed thus far, etc. Once they were on, guys like Santo and Allen, who were 5%'d and then restored in a sort of amnesty in 1985, struggled for support in that format, though the former eventually was elected posthumously. For a short time, there was a rule that only guys that got to 60% could even be considered by the VC!

All of which helps to explain the shock of Baines' election. That he peaked at 6.1% in five turns was presumed to be yet one more strike against him in that format.

mike

1:27

can you talk about this random as heck TBR/CLE/SEA trade

Jay Jaffe

1:28

I haven't seen who Tampa Bay got there — chatting, you know — but I do think that this has something to do with Cleveland's familiarity with Santana, who can play defense much better than Encarnacion, and who was viewed even when Seattle acquired him as somebody likely to be dealt again.

Anxious Padres Fan

1:28

Do you think AJ Preller does anything substantial this offseason? Or is just a bunch of hot air so he can remain the mysterious GM that he clearly tries to portray himself as?

Jay Jaffe

1:32

That the Dbacks and Giants are going the rebuild/retool route makes it all the more likely the Padres can turn the corner in 2019, perhaps not unlike the Phillies last year. I suspect they'll make some kind of splash — they were heavily linked to Syndergaard and have been mentioned as being aggressive regarding Realmuto. I've heard they were interested in Dallas Keuchel, too.

Hingle McCringleberry

1:32

I think the Baines decision was a colossal mistake because now everyone can make the case "well, Baines got in, why shouldn't I?" How do we avoid Ba?ines becoming the new standard for getting in to the Hall

Jay Jaffe

1:34

The key is for the writers to understand that this shouldn't change what they're doing. The lowest common denominator is NOT the standard. That 94-95% voted against Baines in the past, and that we've seen such outcry regarding that pick, is an indicator that the writers aren't suddenly going to drop their standards, however convoluted they may sometimes appear. Though I think this only intensifies the likelihood of the elections of both Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz.

Casual fan

1:35

How many hits do you think Votto gets by the end of it? Even if he only averages 140 for the next 5 he would be close to 2500. He could get close to 3000 right?

Jay Jaffe

1:35

I think 2,500 is the right neighborhood, as I said last April here https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-reds-slump-has-extended-to-joey-vo...

Kevbot034

1:36

When will we see some big name rookies next season (Baby Vlad, Baby Tatis, Eloy Jiminez, etc.)?

Jay Jaffe

1:37

Probably not until after the Super Two deadline, and certainly not until recalling him games their service clocks enough to retain the player in question for an extra year.

Lou

1:37

Joe Kelly is a Dodger. Thoughts?

Jay Jaffe

1:38

I was salty here

Did they drill him in the ribs with a 95 mph fastball first?

Source confirms Joe Kelly to the Dodgers for three years and $25 million, pending physical. @Ken_Rosenthal… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

1:41

That aside, Kelly has been erratic throughout his career, with performance that hasn't close to matching this stuff. ERAs in the 4s and 5s, and FIPs unimpressive relative to other relievers.

Stuff plays and stuff pays, though. The Dodgers must think they can "fix" Kelly well enough to get value over the course of the deal, and if we're talking $9 million per win, the bar really isn't tremendously high.

Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe

1:41

Encarnacion to...the Rays, not Mariners!

Jay Jaffe

1:41

welp, as noted, it's hard to do analysis of a trade when you haven't actually read the transaction in full.

Norris

1:42

Happ, Sabathia, and Paxton instead of, e.g., Corbin and/or Keuchel: Are the Yankees saving cash for something else, or just being frugal this offseason?

Jay Jaffe

1:46

I don't see Paxton and Happ as being any more of a risk than Corbin or Keuchel, and we know that the door isn't closed on MM or BH yet, regardless of what Cashman is saying.

I don't think they're going to spend money just to spend money, and they may well want some slack in their payroll so as to take on salary in midseason while still staying under the tax threshold.

Ariel White

1:46

What do you think of the new DRC+? Jeter and Baines have about the same career value in the new WARP system. Trout isn't always the best. That seems off to me, but I've seen the numbers (along with their variances) for predictability, reliability, and descriptivity. I feel like I'm falling into the same trap that people fell in a generation before me when they refused to accept advanced stats over their comfortable traditional ones.

Jay Jaffe

1:48

DRC+ seems promising, and was made by very smart people. I haven't had a chance to look closely at it, and I'd like not only to do that myself but to see what sharper minds than my own have to say about it. I'm skeptical regarding why it's suddenly OK to use one-year park factors, but again, haven't had the chance to look closely at their reasoning.

1:48

How would you rank the following prospects for the purposes of a dynasty fantasy baseball league? Victor Victor Mesa, Colton Welker, Jared Kelenic, Daulton Varsho, Corbin Martin and Dane Dunnig

Jay Jaffe

1:49

Ranked in the order of knowledge about how to differentiate these guys

1) anybody besides me, particularly colleagues Longenhagen and McDaniel
99) me

Ariel White

1:49

7 years seems to be arbitrary for a peak. Why did you pick that? Obviously some players (like Koufax) would look much better with a shorter peak and other players would look better if the peak was 8 or nine years

Connecting…

Your current subscriptions

None

E-mail Address	Chat Owner	Status	Remove

Enter your email address to be notified when Jay Jaffe hosts a chat