Exactly. It would easily equate to the Astros losing Springer.. a pencilled-in for-sure starter for at least the next 5 years.
I'll admit I hate WAR in part because I have no idea how it's calculated and the results just don't seem to match all the other stats out there. I look at a player like Carlos Gomez, who's offensive stats are superior across the board last year in basically every single category and who's a pretty good defensive player, and somehow he has a noticably lower WAR. I appreciate it's theoretical value - it just doesn't make logical sense to me. I look at Heyward's offensive stats, and I see mediocrity and no real signs of improvement over 5 full seasons. From what I understand, he's looking for a monster deal. As good a defensive player as he might be, right field defense with mediocre offense just doesn't command $20MM a year or whatever he's looking to get, in my opinion. Meanwhile, Miller is under club control for 4 more seasons. He's only been in the majors for 2 years, so there's more likelihood of improvement there than a guy who's been static for 5 years. That said, both clubs have some unique history. STL is a place where both pitchers and hitters go to have their careers resurrected. ATL has the same type of history with pitchers. It will be interesting to see what each club can do to squeeze the most out of their newly acquired players.
No trade clause. U should probably be asking who will be the first to win their next World Series... The Marlins or the Yankees?
But that's exactly the purpose of war. To take all stats, even the meaningless/situational ones like RBI, and calculate a players true value to their team. It can sometimes be positional. You can also look at separate offensive and defensive WAR if a player seems to be one sided (all defense and little offense). It's still one of the best metrics to compare individual players to one another. In this case, Heywards still young age and still room to grow offensively has him to be very valuable, and he will get a huge contract from somebody (likely the Cardinals). Miller was the price to pay for that.
Not against their will... the post implies the Marlins will just dump him to the highest bidding team, as they've been known to do with previous free agent signings... but this signing is unique as they've never conceded a "no-trade" clause before in their long-term/big money signings (albeit, there haven't been a whole lot of them... but this dates back to the original World Series teams, and has been a hard-line negotiating stance by Loria). Sure, if the team is going nowhere, and Stanton is unhappy, he likely can waive that clause... but between the two teams, the Marlins have a helluva lot more young and existing prime talent than the Yankees have.
Players usually use their No-trade to force which team they are dealt to more than to stay where they aren't wanted.
Sure... and the Marlins used to not give a player a no-trade clause so they could trade them whenever they felt like cutting payroll or hitting reboot again. The fact that the Marlins gave him a no-trade clause means they're serious about him... not the "same old Marlins" schtick. That was what I was getting at. And again... is anybody actually paying attention to what the Marlins have vs. what the other big market teams have? I wouldn't be surprised to see a Royals-like pennant run for the Marlins, with the amount of young viable MLB talent they've accumulated. Lastly, players tend to get comfortable and tend to not want to be traded just when a club feels like hitting reboot... and by all accounts, Stanton loves being "the man" in Miami... and Miami actually loves him (which is surprising since Miami is hard pressed to get attached to anybody, baseball-wise).
Sure - I understand the logic and theory behind it. I just don't get how they come to the number, and I tend to disagree with the end results when I see them. For example, let's say I have a team with all replacement level players. According to WAR, 3 Jason Heywards would give me an additional 19 or so wins. 2 Mike Trouts would give me 16 more wins. But I would, without any hesitation, take 2 Mike Trouts over 3 Jason Heywards (even ignoring age). And I would bet a lot of money that the 2 Trout + 23 Replacement level players team would win more games than the 3 Heyward + 22 Replacement level players team. I may be wrong about that, but that's where I come from on WAR. I think it would fun to do an analysis over the last several years adding up the WARs of all the players on a team and seeing how well it actually correlated with team W-L records (or use their pythagorean W-L records to eliminate some of the randomness).
Its all about runs... as that's the basic currency of any of the various WAR equations. You can supplement WAR with Runs Created or Wins above average... but it tends to all even out. They've also done your historical analysis on historical players (Mantles, Ruth's, etc...) and it tends to hold up (and thus was used as verification of why you can use the metric to begin with). Its also not as simple as X player = Y wins, and if you have two of those players, you get twice the wins... their effectiveness at their position, where they bat in the batting order, and their ability to stay healthy all comes into play. So in your hypothetical situation, two Mike Trouts would not simply be his WAR x 2... as Mike Trout the CF may be more valuable (in wins) than Mike Trout the LF... and Mike Trout the #1 or #2 hitter, may be more valuable than Mike Trout the # 3 hitter. It is truly an individual statistic used to measure a singular player's impact on a given team (thus why some players seem to have a higher WAR on some teams, whereas other players with possibly more gaudy numbers could have a lower WAR, depending on which position they play, how well they run the bases, and what the given replacement level numbers are for a given year).
Interesting - thank you! Like I said, I haven't done much research on WAR - I had no idea it actually tried to replicate a player's role on a specific team (their batting order, etc). That's a really cool concept in terms of truly determining how "valuable" a player is in their current circumstance. Though it does seem like it would make it *less* useful as a statistic for, say, signing a free agent since the WAR was partially dependent on the other team's specifics that wouldn't apply to your team. But it does make it a more interesting statistic to me - thanks for the info.
seems like alot for Hanley, guess the Sox arent getting Panda <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>.<a href="https://twitter.com/HanleyRamirez">@HanleyRamirez</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RedSox">@RedSox</a> reportedly agree to 5-year, $90 million deal. Club has not confirmed: <a href="http://t.co/M1qf6hSe2y">http://t.co/M1qf6hSe2y</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HotStove?src=hash">#HotStove</a></p>— MLB (@MLB) <a href="https://twitter.com/MLB/status/536752149783252992">November 24, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
When you factor in the fact he'll only play 67 games in that 5 year span, it's not quite the bargain :grin:
Will Ramirez/Sandoval work out better than Crawford/Gonzalez? _______________________ <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Breaking: Kyle Seager, Mariners on the verge of a seven-year, $100M extension. News at Yahoo Sports: <a href="http://t.co/3BSDjeC4kq">http://t.co/3BSDjeC4kq</a></p>— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/536926743349559296">November 24, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Full trade: Josh Donaldson to Blue Jays, A's get Brett Lawrie, pitchers Kendall Graveman and Sean Nolin, SS Franklin Barreto. Deal done.</p>— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/538526696639856640">November 29, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
