Blue Jays acquire Daulton Varsho for Moreno and Gurriel

[Carlos Danger]

Not if Jansen is going to continue spiking low strikes. Given the fact that our three best SP utilize the bottom of the strike zone with great sink, i think we see the superior low ball framer in Kirk catching more than you think.

 

Easier to frame the low strike when you are only a few inches off the ground...

[wilko]

Easier to frame the low strike when you are only a few inches off the ground...

 

[43211234]

In the good old days they might have been able to land Varsho for Gurriel straight up. A .230 hitter for a near .300 pro that racks up the outfield assists.

[Stangstag]

In the good old days they might have been able to land Varsho for Gurriel straight up. A .230 hitter for a near .300 pro that racks up the outfield assists.

 

Its easy to see why the twitter casuals are up in arms about this trade.

 

“Can’t believe we traded a .300 hitter and our best prospect who’s gonna be an absolute stud for some loser that can barely hit above .200”

[Deadpool]

 

I'm allowed to be racist against short people, my wife is 4'9"

[wilko]

Its easy to see why the twitter casuals are up in arms about this trade.

 

“Can’t believe we traded a .300 hitter and our best prospect who’s gonna be an absolute stud for some loser that can barely hit above .200”

 

Since you put it that way. I'm now disgruntled!

[Stottlemyres_Bloody_Chin]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but some interesting stuff in this article where they interviewed Arizona GM Mike Hazen about the deal.

 

Looks like Moreno is going to split time with Carson Kelly, and the two teams were in trade discussions for a while.

 

https://www.azsnakepit.com/2022/12/24/23525111/mike-hazen-on-trading-for-c-gabriel-moreno-and-of-dh-loudes-gurriel-jr

[BigCecil]

Its easy to see why the twitter casuals are up in arms about this trade.

 

“Can’t believe we traded a .300 hitter and our best prospect who’s gonna be an absolute stud for some loser that can barely hit above .200”

 

This trade is legit debatable which is a sign of a pretty good trade. My bud in Scottsdale thinks we for the best of it lol.

 

The Moreno control length & current cost, and the reasonable probability that he is a stud on O and D matters. LGJ is not legit much of a factor for all the reasons mentioned. But its easy to see why FO made the move for us for LHH and improved D . Not hard to muse that both Moreno and Varsho both have upside in their games from what we have seen. I also wouldn't be surprised if LGJ sees some power resurgence in '23 and is a 2 WAR player. Not bad for his cost.

[Jimcanuck]

I'm thinking the Jays calculus is that defense is generally undervalued by MLB teams - and they are exploiting this inefficiency.

 

Runs saved is one thing, reducing the number of pitches and generally reducing the burden on a team's pitching staff is probably not well accounted for.

[Carlos Danger]

I'm thinking the Jays calculus is that defense is generally undervalued by MLB teams - and they are exploiting this inefficiency.

 

Runs saved is one thing, reducing the number of pitches and generally reducing the burden on a team's pitching staff is probably not well accounted for.

 

We also have a heavy fly ball pitching staff..... I believe it is accounted for.... Just teams need to act on the data or decide to prioritize over offence or other factors..

[Captain_Obvious]

We also have a heavy fly ball pitching staff..... I believe it is accounted for.... Just teams need to act on the data or decide to prioritize over offence or other factors..

 

The lower the runs allowed, the bigger the return on run surplus. If two teams have a +100 run difference, the team with the least runs allowed will likely have the most wins. So, if a team with a positive run difference is presented with the opportunity to trade a certain amount of runs produced for an equal amount of runs prevented, they should always go for it.

[Brownie19]

The lower the runs allowed, the bigger the return on run surplus. If two teams have a +100 run difference, the team with the least runs allowed will likely have the most wins. So, if a team with a positive run difference is presented with the opportunity to trade a certain amount of runs produced for an equal amount of runs prevented, they should always go for it.

 

Is this true? Is there data to back this up?

[Krylian]

Is this true? Is there data to back this up?

 

Isn't it obvious? The Captain said so.

[Laika]

Is this true? Is there data to back this up?

 

It's common sense. Think of extreme examples.

 

If you score 100 runs and give up 0 runs, you will never lose.

 

If you score 10100 runs but give up 10000 you will be almost .500

[Captain_Obvious]

Is this true? Is there data to back this up?

 

Yes. It is simple math. It might not always pan out like this, but overtime it works out this way. Mathematically speaking, you can start with extreme cases. A team that produced 162 runs and allowed 62 runs will likely outperform a team that produced 1000 runs and allowed 900 runs. As a a matter of fact, the former team can only lose 62 games in the worst case scenario.

 

For actual real-life data, you can check expected W-L records in MLB standings for teams with similar run diff but different runs allowed.

[connorp]

It's common sense. Think of extreme examples.

 

If you score 100 runs and give up 0 runs, you will never lose.

 

If you score 10100 runs but give up 10000 you will be almost .500

 

Common sense says it’s a wash. If a team is a +100 and trades say 10 runs produced for 10 runs saved, they’re back where they started lol.

[connorp]

I think it’s fair to say offense is valued more than defense by mlb clubs. Considering they’re billion dollar companies handing out 9 figure contracts in some cases, they probably have an idea of what’s going on. The market “inefficiency” is really teams that can’t devote the resources and seek alternative means of improving the team.

 

UZR and the like are really fickle and they’re still making adjustments all the time. “Scouting”, while old school, doesn’t seem like it’s much worse. wRC+ and such is much more straight forward.

[Laika]

Common sense says it’s a wash. If a team is a +100 and trades say 10 runs produced for 10 runs saved, they’re back where they started lol.

 

common sense says your mom dropped you on your head multiple times

[Terminator]

I see what you guys are saying but if you've got to use extreme and impossible examples to prove the point then it's probably negligible to the point that you should just acquire the most cost effective players, regardless of whether they are offensive or defensive oriented.

[connorp]

common sense says your mom dropped you on your head multiple times

 

When are you going to make a mail order bride joke and keep it personal?

[Captain_Obvious]

Common sense says it’s a wash. If a team is a +100 and trades say 10 runs produced for 10 runs saved, they’re back where they started lol.

 

https://captaincalculator.com/sports/baseball/pythagorean-expectation-calculator/

 

You can play around with numbers here. Start with 500 runs produced and 400 runs allowed and trade 50-100 runs at a time to see meaningful changes in expected win-loss

[Terminator]

https://captaincalculator.com/sports/baseball/pythagorean-expectation-calculator/

 

You can play around with numbers here. Start with 500 runs produced and 400 runs allowed and trade 50-100 runs at a time to see meaningful changes in expected win-loss

 

That's pretty interesting. So a team that scores 800 and gives up 700 will be about one win worse than a team that scores 700 and gives up 600.

[Laika]

There is also a consistency argument

 

Which I don't think is a particularly strong argument

 

But it goes something like - offense comes in bunches (against bad teams/pitchers) but defense is consistent.

[Captain_Obvious]

I see what you guys are saying but if you've got to use extreme and impossible examples to prove the point then it's probably negligible to the point that you should just acquire the most cost effective players, regardless of whether they are offensive or defensive oriented.

 

The extreme examples are for demonstration purposes. Real expected W-L can be calculated using real numbers but these usually result in 1-3 wins difference. Now if you want to discuss impact of runs produced vs runs allowed on actual W-L records, then we need to also discuss a new topic: runs per game distribution and allocation. Here is a hint: The 23 runs difference Toronto produced in a single game vs Boston was fun and had a large impact on expected wins-loss for the season, but was mostly useless for producing actual wins.

[Laika]

I see what you guys are saying but if you've got to use extreme and impossible examples to prove the point then it's probably negligible to the point that you should just acquire the most cost effective players, regardless of whether they are offensive or defensive oriented.

 

It's just another one of this tiny little considerations in baseball. But baseball is full of things like that.

[John_Havok]

There is also a consistency argument

 

Which I don't think is a particularly strong argument

 

But it goes something like - offense comes in bunches (against bad teams/pitchers) but defense is consistent.

 

Yeah, it's not somethign that really makes sense with really small sample sizes and total runs scored/allowed over 162 games is not even really that big of a sample size.

 

There's any number of ways to present the game to game #'s ... if you blow a team out 10-0 one game then lose 2-1 the next... you outscored your opponents 11-2 but only went 1-1.

 

If someone was not looking at W/L and just a 2 game run total it would be natural to assume the team that scored 11 runs and only gave up 2 would be far more likely to have won both games.

[Jimcanuck]

I recall this was a topic of discussion several years ago, and there was a chart that used actual MLB data and showed a non-linear relationship between W-L and runs/run differential. There was a skew at the ends. It arose out of a debate over the Jays performance and W-L record in 2015.

 

Essentially all else being equal the wins increment from additional offense is lower than the wins increment from additional defense/pitching.

 

edit - the real world difference is fairly minimal, but more pronounced at the extreme ends, such as the 2015 Jays

[wilko]

There is also a consistency argument

 

Which I don't think is a particularly strong argument

 

But it goes something like - offense comes in bunches (against bad teams/pitchers) but defense is consistent.

 

[Captain_Obvious]

 

He is very consistent according to OOA. Other defensive metrics saw a huge drop in 2022 but I wonder if that's because of the Jays excessive shifting.

[Laika]

there is a measurement issue with defensive metrics

 

but that does not necessarily mean player talent is inconsistent