The Marlins got Choi and about $7 million in salary relief for their 1B.

The Brewers get a lot of filler and De La Rosa and about $3 million in salary relief for their 1B.

Hard to see why the Brewers are so bad so often.

Obviously the Brewers are getting screwed in this deal. But aside from not waiting for a better offer, what does this hurt? It's not like they were going to the playoffs this year with Sexson anyways. It is not good that they are cutting payroll when they receive something like 20 million in revenue sharing, but heck, that is the current MLB system, I don't see why teams can't exploit it.

Richie, Shane, Lyle, Junior and Chad are SO post-Watergate chic

Shag carpet, panelled rec rooms, vinyl barstools. Tab. Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. All In The Family. Everything's Bigger In Texas. "Apres-ski".

It was an era, all right.

The trade : If you take away Sexson, the Brewers had a two-man roster... Podesdnik and Jenkins. And frankly I don't think Podsednik's 2003 is for real.

They got three guys (Overbay, Spivey, Moeller) who are probably as good as any of the other position players on their suck-ass roster. That doesn't make it a good trade... Sexson is a lot to give up... but heck, they need warm bodies and they got plenty. Moeller deserves to play every day, anyway.

These trades where you get four or five decent guys for one are the best sorts of trades for teams who need to cut salary. There's a good chance that one of the guys you get will play over his head for a while.

Though the Spivey acquisition tells me that Rickie Weeks is going to start at AA or AAA. I was hoping the Brewers would leave the job open for him, hoping he would force their hand in spring.

Wait a second ... Weren't the Brewers going to be competitive with their brand new stadium?

If this is what the Brewers consider "fair value" for Sexson, I imagine the Jays can get Sheets for Kevin Cash, Dave Berg and Dave Gassner.

The Brewers pretty well redid their whole infield with this trade. New first and 2nd baseman plus a guy who can play all of the infield, a catcher and 2 pitchers. I think they did pretty good for giving up Sexson and a reliever.

Pathetic - I shudder to think of who will be wearing the Brewers uniform at the All-Star game this year.
I'll be writing in 'Sausage #2' on my ballots.

I like Spivey, and I think Capuano could be an asset in the rotation. De la Rosa isn't bad as far as pitching prospects go. Moeller is okay as a catcher. Ordinarily, you'd like more for someone like Sexson, but plenty of teams have done worse when trading established players making large coin.

Yes and imagine how the rose-coloured glasses worn by the Bauxites would interpret this if we traded Delgado for all those D-backs...

"Overbay is an OBP god..."
"De La Rosa gives us another stud to join Arnold, Bush, MacG et al..."
"With 2 2Bs we can now trade Hudson and get yet another amazing P prospect..."
"Moeller as backup C means we don't have to endure Cash's .150 BA..."
"And all that excess cash we saved on Carlos' salary means we can go and get a great #1a like Millwood to fit in right behind Doc..."

uh huh

and remember it's great that the Sox signed Schilling for 3 years
and it's even better that the Yanks signed Sheffield for 3 years.

I think the Canucks did pretty well here...flame away.

I am not sure how this impacts the rule 5 draft. Milwaukee had been seen as (i) hungry to grab players off other teams rosters as their roster is poor, and (ii) having a good up and coming minor league system (like the Jays). This trade probably reduces the chances that Milwaukee will be active in the rule 5 and might mean they lose a player.

Let me clarify. I wouldn't trade Sexson at this point, so I'm against the trade. But the Brewers did get some useful players back, which is not to say that they received equal value.

"Pod", trolling isn't welcomed here. Take it somewhere else.

What is 'Pod Trolling'?

This is really a MUCH odder trade than the Lee/Choi deal. You could see logical reasons for both teams to make that deal. I'm going to give the edge to the Brewers in this trade but the fact that they took Counsell's salary reduces the value for them greatly in my mind.

I don't really understand this deal much at all from the D-Backs' standpoint. They just traded away one half of the reason they ever competed for playoff spots in Schilling. And their response was to trade a bunch of assets for a guy they'll probably own for one year max and won't make up anywhere near the difference of losing Schilling?

True that by including Counsell and Spivey they save about $2.4 million in 2004 salary over Schilling (plus the $6 million deferred to Schilling in '05). But I can't see how they weren't much better off by just keeping their young guys and buying a cheaper righty platoon-mate for first base and bettering their offensive depth elsewhere like in the outfield. I hope they're able to sign Sexson long term because otherwise I'm not seeing the logic in this trade for them.

If there's one thing that I don't like about the trade for the Brewers is that they had to take salary back. If they have to cut payroll to $30 million why would they make a deal where they have to take back salary? Counsell is due at least $3.4 million if they buy out his $3.75 million 2005 option. I remember Spivey signing a two year deal after his big '02 season so he might make more than a million in '04 as well.

Maybe the Brewers didn't have that much to cut afterall. Outside of that it's not a bad return...De La Rosa is the major prospect and Spivey and Overbay will be useful and relatively cheap though not stars. $8 million first basemen a year from free agency aren't easy to get value for but I think the Brewers got a little bit. If they still have to trade another high contract to stay on budget though then the trade didn't really make sense for them either.

Don't get me wrong, Sexson's a pretty good hitter and 40 homeruns is nothing to sneeze at. I think Phelps can be such a hitter given an opportunity. But the only reason to trade for Sexson in his walk year is if you think you can compete this year. Do the D-Back honestly view that as a possibility or is this a move by the front office to try to save their own bacon for a largely GOOFY trade with the Red Sox?

Shag carpet, panelled rec rooms, vinyl barstools. Tab. Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. All In The Family. Everything's Bigger In Texas. "Apres-ski".

Hey, Phil! Hey, Rhonda! We're so glad you could come over! Rhonda, you sit by Ted--and Phil, why don't you sit by me.

You know how we play doubles in tennis? And sometimes we, you know, switch? Well, it's 1974 and all, and... oh, yes, it's a little forward of us, but... well, why don't you two try my Melon Mousse and think about it? Okay?

If I'm the Diamondbacks, what's the point of getting one year of Sexson if I had to trade Curt Schilling to do it?

There doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan here. Or am I just missing something?

It's not exactly a home run for the Brewers either, but I think it's fair to say the Lyle Overbay we saw this year isn't necessarily the Overbay he's capable of being:

Overbay
.258 GPA (NL)
.310 GPA (AAA)
.323 GPA (AA)
.304 GPA (A)

Granted, he'll be 27 next year, but I think he's a good bet to improve next year at the MLB level.

Who knows what to expect from Spivey next year? (Here's a hint: not a return to 2002.) And are Arizona going into Spring Training with Hairston in mind to take over at 2B?

But the jewel of this deal is De La Rosa. He was certainly impressive in AA this year: 2.80 ERA, 99.2 IP, 102 SO, 36 BB. He was a little shakier in AAA (3.75 ERA, 24 IP, 17 SO, 12 BB), but not so much so that I can believe Arizona was so willing to part with him. (I'm even somewhat amazed Boston parted with him... but Schilling is Schilling.)

Jurgen, nice use of GPA.

Thanks, Leigh. I love GPA. It's great for assessing a player's minor league stats.

Even a .270 GPA from a first baseman isn't that good. Arizona desperately needed offence and they have a lot of young pitching. If they re-sign Sexson then this deal look a lot better for them.

As a GPA naysayer, I ask the following:

Jurgen, did you calculate those GPA numbers in your head? One of the selling points of GPA is that it is easily calculated. If it's not so easy as to be calculated without spreadsheet or calculator, I say "Why bother?".

Robert, is a .270 batting average good or bad? Another selling point of GPA is that it is on a similar scale as batting average. Without further info, I say a first baseman with a .270 batting average can be anywhere from useless to great.

GPA is supposed to estimate overall offence, so a .270 GPA for a first baseman isn't particularly good. A guy with a low batting average can be a better offensive player than a guys with a much higher BA - that's why we use other stats (like GPA).

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
Robert:

I agree.

Craig calculated that a .276 GPA was average for 1B, and I don't expect Overbay to develop much better than that.

I was just saying that he's better than he looked in '03.

I'm just surprised that a) Arizona would bother trading for Sexson after trading away Schilling (and would trade away the best prospect they got from Boston to help get Sexson), and b) Milwaukee couldn't get more for Sexson than a bunch of league average position players and two "pitching prospects". It seems they went for quantity over quality, and I'm surprised Ash and Melvin couldn't get more in a deal with either Dan Evans or Brian Sabean.

Jonny:

Um.... yeah.... I calculated those in my head.... Honestly, even with a calculator, it's a damn quick calculation. Based on what I've read of Tangotiger's work, I ultimately think you're ending up with a much more meaningful number than OPS.

Robert:A guy with a low batting average can be a better offensive player than a guys with a much higher BA

Exactly. That's why it's not a good idea to try to relate to the batting average scale; the batting average scale is inconclusive.

Jurgen:Based on what I've read of Tangotiger's work, I ultimately think you're ending up with a much more meaningful number than OPS.

Agreed. But you're ending up with something less meaningful than OBP and SLG, both in the sense that GPA is telling you less about what type of hitter you're dealing with, and in the sense that GPA has no physical meaning.

Note that Tangotiger was not advocating any kind of OBP+SLG combination, he was just pointing out the problems with OPS.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
Yes, looking at OBP and SLG will tell you more about a player than GPA alone.

The problem is that most people (myself included) need another number along with OBP and SLG so that we can easily rank hitters. OPS is currently that number for most of us.

But for only a little more effort, GPA is much more meaningful.

Let's take three hitters from this season:

Player A .288 BA
Player B .272 BA
Player C .317 BA

If I asked you which player had the best year, most of us would probably check their OBP and SLG before answering that question. So, here they are:

Player A .288/.412/.515
Player B .272/.379/.548
Player C .317/.380/.546

Now, this does tell us a lot about the individual players. I can tell you Player B probably walks a lot more than Player C, but still not as much as Player A. And I can say Player A has more isolated power than Player C, but still not as much as Player B.

But who is better?

Personally, I'd calculated their OPS to find out:

Player A .927 OPS
Player B .927 OPS
Player C .926 OPS

OK, so I'm being cheeky. But are we to conclude that they are all the same?

GPA may not have any physical meaning, but it allows us to more precisely rank the total value of a player's OBP and SLG in determining his over all production average. As tangotiger says, GPA correlates extremely highly with the more advanced metrics (much more so than OPS). It allows us to balance 1 point of OBP vs. 1 point of SLG in a more meaningful way than OPS alone. So, with no further ado:

Player A .316 GPA
Player B .308 GPA
Player C .308 GPA

I'd now be tempted to say Player A was the best.

Cross checking with BP's EqA (which takes park factors into consideration) and ESPN's RC27 (which doesn't):

Player A .312 EqA, 7.84 RC27
Player B .308 EqA, 7.03 RC27
Player C .310 EqA, 7.15 RC27

And I think it's clear that Player A's advantage in GPA is real and significant.

So, who are these masked men?

A) Lance Berkman
B) Richie Sexson
C) Magglio Ordonez

GPA isn't perfect, and may not always pick the right winner, but 9 times out of 10 it's going to do a better job than OPS.

Rejoinders?

Btw, here are Baseball-Reference's 2003 Batting Park Factors: Houston--104, Milwaukee--102, Chicago--99.

Another example:

Berkman finished the year with 30 points less in OPS than his teammate, Richard Hildalgo:

Berkman .288/.412/.515 (.927)
Hidalgo .309/.385/.572 (.957)

Eyeballing those numbers, Hidalgo clearly had the better year, right?

Let's see what Gleeman (and tangotiger) have to say:

Berkman .316 GPA
Hidalgo .316 GPA

And to help give our findings some context, let's again compare to some more advanced numbers:

Berkman .312 EqA, 7.84 RC27
Hidalgo .310 EqA, 7.71 RC27

If anything, GPA isn't giving Berkman enough credit--although it's clearly miles better than OPS.

I'm sure you can find examples where GPA is "wrong", but those two example are honestly the first two I've tried. The fact that they both worked so beautifully (and that it's all backed by tangotiger's thorough research) makes me love GPA even more.

GPA is growing on me. However, it only serves to cement my frustration that there is a not a readily available stat (on the back of baseball cards, for example), which simply incorporates walks into slugging percentage. Count a walk as a total base in the calculation of slugging percentage. No, it wouldnt be as accurate as GPA, but it would require no calculation whatsoever. If we can just get the old school to give a walk the same consideration as a single...

I know that slugging percentage with walks incorporated is essentially a dumbed-down version of linear weights, but I think that it sufficiently dumbed-down that it could gain steam, if properly advocated.

A walk usually has 65% the value of a single, so it would create significant inaccuracy to give it equal weight to a single. Plus you'd have to add it in the denominator or else it would have a greater weight than a single.

Player A .288/.412/.515
Player B .272/.379/.548
Player C .317/.380/.546
...
But who is better?
Personally, I'd calculated their OPS to find out

This is extremely foreign to me, and may be the reason we disagree on the value of GPA. The time it takes for me to read those numbers is how long it takes for me to say Player A is a better hitter than Players B and C (not knowing park factors), I wouldn't even think of calculating OPS.

The only point you're getting across to me is that GPA is better than OPS. I'm not sure when I (or anybody else for that matter) implied that it isn't. It is better than OPS, absolutely. But it's not better than straight OBP and SLG, and it's not better than EqA or RC27. To me, it's an in between stat: Less information and more calculation than OBP and SLG, less accurate than EqA or RC27. This is a personal preference thing: a person who likes GPA probably flips this and says that it's less calculation than EqA or RC27 and easier to make player comparisons from than OBP and SLG. I don't buy those because the calculation is not simple enough for me to do in my head (so I may as well do a more sophisticated calculation), and because I don't find it difficult to compare players based on eyeballing OBP and SLG.

Berkman .288/.412/.515 (.927)
Hidalgo .309/.385/.572 (.957)
Eyeballing those numbers, Hidalgo clearly had the better year, right?

Only if you've been brainwashed into taking OPS too seriously. Presented with those four numbers, I ignore the OPS completely - who needs it when OBP and SLG are right there? I really did eyeball those particular numbers and I concluded Hidalgo was a little better. Like GPA, I didn't give Berkman enough credit, but I was a lot better than OPS. Yes, I really did make my assesment before reading the GPA/EqA/RC27 numbers.

Ironically enough, your GPA calculation is off. Berkman scores .314, Hidalgo .316.

A walk usually has 65% the value of a single, so it would create significant inaccuracy to give it equal weight to a single.

Right, I never thought of that.

Plus you'd have to add it in the denominator or else it would have a greater weight than a single.

That was my intention, but I forgot to make it explicit.

Ironically enough, your GPA calculation is off. Berkman scores .314, Hidalgo .316.

Yikes. Like rain on your wedding day. Actually, I wrote ".314" down on my little scrap of paper, but somehow it became ".316" when I typed it up.

Jonny, it's clear you're already eyeballin' at a GPA level. For the rest of us, GPA lets us quickly see what you already do.

When Craig Counsell was voted MVP for Diamondbacks, the heart of the D'Back team, was all over the field as SS, and a versatile player, at any position he played he did it with professionalism, and knowledge of the positions he played. I didn't see or hear these against him say anything good about him or his playing then, why now that Counsell's had severe injuries and is trying to be an asset to the game, are those against Craig, coming up with words like "He is not worth the money he's making", and "He will make a good bench warmer".Counsell was not given a chance to play this 2004 season with D'Backs, as he was only playing after his injuries 6 times out of the rest of season. Counsell wanted to play, but Brenly, wouldn,t let him play, wanted to use his heavier bats, which lead D'Backs to a giant loss big time, did not even with World Series, or Nationals.

When Craig Counsell was voted MVP for Diamondbacks, the heart of the D'Back team, was all over the field as SS, and a versatile player, at any position he played he did it with professionalism, and knowledge of the positions he played. I didn't see or hear these against him say anything good about him or his playing then, why now that Counsell's had severe injuries and is trying to be an asset to the game, are those against Craig, coming up with words like "He is not worth the money he's making", and "He will make a good bench warmer".Counsell was not given a chance to play this 2004 season with D'Backs, as he was only playing after his injuries 6 times out of the rest of season. Counsell wanted to play, but Brenly, wouldn,t let him play, wanted to use his heavier bats, which lead D'Backs to a giant loss big time, did not even with World Series, or Nationals.

When Craig Counsell was voted MVP for Diamondbacks, the heart of the D'Back team, was all over the field as SS, and a versatile player, at any position he played he did it with professionalism, and knowledge of the positions he played. I didn't see or hear these against him say anything good about him or his playing then, why now that Counsell's had severe injuries and is trying to be an asset to the game, are those against Craig, coming up with words like "He is not worth the money he's making", and "He will make a good bench warmer".Counsell was not given a chance to play this 2004 season with D'Backs, as he was only playing after his injuries 6 times out of the rest of season. Counsell wanted to play, but Brenly, wouldn,t let him play, wanted to use his heavier bats, which lead D'Backs to a giant loss big time, did not even with World Series, or Nationals.