Prince Fielder, Tigers Agree to Nine Year Deal
Scott Boras is laughing at all of us.
4 months ago
WholeCamels
266 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Damn, that’s a lot of man.
Might as well just hand them over.
by All ur Aces R Belong to Us on Jan 24, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I wasn’t going to say anything, but now that you put that out there…
by Wet Luzinski on Jan 24, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
WOW
That’s a lot of pasta.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
9/214. Um… wow.
Scott Boras is some kind of evil genius with these big contracts.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
the notable exception this season being Madson
by Boundforbeach on Jan 24, 2012 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Are the Tigers giving Cabrera the “Gas Face”?
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
#FireRoseman
@boknows71
I would say DH, but then what happens to Martinez? I hope they aren’t thinking of moving Cabrera to third (where they have an enormous, gaping hole).
Martinez is gone for the year.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
#FireRoseman
@boknows71
I know that, but he ain’t gone forever. The Tigers are my AL team for close to 30 years, so I’m looking at the future log jam.
I’m curious how tradeable Miggy is? He’s had some personal issues which reduce his value.
Cot’s doesn’t seem to be working right now. Compared to the bat shit contract we’re discussing here Cabrera’s contract is awesome, from what I recall. Any trade would carry significant risk, so I don’t think the return would be as good as it should be for his skills (which is a shame, ’cause the Tigers system is pretty meh)
Why would they? It has nothing to do with Tim Tebow.
All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
by Veni Vidi Vici on Jan 24, 2012 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Am I missing something?
Don’t they already have a better first baseman? Is Prince going to be the DH?
Yeah, Victor Martinez had an ACL injury, and he’ll be replacing him, at least for this year.
by phillies0100 on Jan 24, 2012 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Damn. A 9 year deal to replace an injured player for one year? Glad Ruben didn’t find out you can do that.
by topherstarr on Jan 24, 2012 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Interesting
Following in Daddy’s footsteps…
Howards contract doesn’t look so bad in comparison… although it’s still pretty bad.
If only Howard was still 27.
Might as well just hand them over.
by All ur Aces R Belong to Us on Jan 24, 2012 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
RAJ knew fielder and Pujols would make crazy cash. He got Howard for practically half price compared to those 2.
I’d rather pay more for fewer years, but maybe that’s just me.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Frankly, it would be better to have none of those guys. Then we could have signed Cuddyer and put him at first and then used the rest of the money for other needs. Your dollar goes further at positions other than 1B, I think.
Howard signed for 5/25 at age 31. Fielder turns 28 in May. His contract also takes him to age 36. RAJ didn’t get a discount with Howard.
by Boundforbeach on Jan 24, 2012 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
There’s also the fact that the two guys aren’t starting from the same baseline. I’m relatively bullish on Howard rebounding from his last two seasons, but Fielder is a much better player than Howard is. Fielder could decline a lot relative to Howard and still be the better player and the better value.
even with his injury?
All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
by Veni Vidi Vici on Jan 24, 2012 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
How is it rediculous? If their bodies start breaking down in the early 30s, it doesn’t matter than the Son had a better peak.
As I understand it, Cecil Fielder was a degenerate piece of shit who couldn’t be bothered to stay in shape because he was too busy pissing all of his money away in every casino on earth. I don’t see his son doing the same thing.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 24, 2012 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
You know who was an even worse player at the same age? Ryan Howard’s dad.
by taco pal on Jan 24, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
“Prince Fielder is likely to age quickly in his early 30s because his father aged quickly in his early 30s.” What is not clear?
It is an argument, it’s just not backed up very well.
I happen to agree with it, but won’t claim to have any evidence Prince’s height-weight ratio.
It’s actually kind of fair to say it’s not an argument, given that you can’t really disagree with it on its own terms. It’s a supposition, a guess. I guess there’s a way to make it a firmer sort of thing, but it seems to me that predictive genetics are always a bit sketchy, such that actually pinning anything stronger than a caprice on them becomes difficult.
Genetics have a hell of a way of predicting things like cancer, its certainly fair to extrapolate that to other things.
I suppose.
And I guess I shouldn’t say I agree, at least not fully. I think he’s gonna age poorly, but more because of his size. I expect his dad’s genes to have a role, but not being an expert, I can’t claim how much.
in any event, I already said that you don’t know why Cecil “aged quickly”, you don’t know how he took care of himself, nor do we know how Prince takes care of himself… it’s easy to look at his big body and assume he doesn’t, but we don’t actually know. In addition, while Cecil Fielder is his biological father, in fact genetics is not a simple matter of who provided the sperm/egg combo. Environment does play a part in how that genetic heritage plays out, even in how it is mapped. Prince lived without Cecil, in a different time and place, and is in any case a much better player.
No, I’m not. You started this debate with a strong assertion, that “genetics” make Fielder “much more likely” to decline early than Howard. All I’ve done is dispute your assertion.
Five-second lesson in logic: When you say “X” and somebody else says “I dispute X”, that doesn’t mean that that person is taking the position “Opposite of X”. But you knew that.
To spell this out further, one’s dad’s genes are only one data point in a pretty complex stew of causative factors. For instance, you also have your mom’s genes, you have your environment, you have your choices in life, etc. Basing your entire conclusion on one guy’s dad is especially problematic when you’re doing a comparative analysis in which you know nothing about the other guy’s dad’s genes.
For the record, I do think that Fielder’s weight is a rather significant risk factor for Detroit. But not because his dad declined at X age.
It would be like me saying I’m going to live into my nineties because my mother’s parents both lived into their nineties. It ignores every other aspect that could play into how long my life span ends up being. My dad’s parents died in their sixties, mostly due to heart issues and poor body weight control. My dad’s overweight as well, and I share the same body type with him. And there’s more than just genetics to look at, too. I used to smoke pretty regularly (and still do on occasion). I live a relatively sedentary lifestyle being in college. I might get hit by a bus crossing the street tomorrow. I can’t just point to one factor and conclusively make a statement on my life span based on that one factor.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
there is no shade of grey in this argument. Either Genetics play a part in an athlete’s aging pattern or they do not. My assertion is that they do. Yours is that they do not. Don’t try to make this out to be more than that.
No that wasn’t your assertion, and that wasn’t my assertion. You’re intentionally mischaracterizing what both of our arguments were.
In reality the whole aging process is a complex combination of genetics and enviromental factors
"We are the Borg. Resistance is futile."
there is no shade of grey in this argument
Let’s walk through this step by step.
Is it your position that Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is? Yes or no.
Great. So, is it your position that the only other possible view that one can hold about this issue is “Cecil Fielder’s genes play no role in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is?”
Have you ever considered the following alternative viewpoints? Do you believe that these viewpoints are logically impossible? If so, why?
1. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder somewhat more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
2. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder slightly more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
3. It is impossible to know how large of a role Cecil Fielder’s genes play in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
No, because we DO NOT KNOW the other factors and thus they are kept at a constant in this equation. We don’t know how Howard’s father aged, thus we cannot use it for or against him. We DO know how Fielder’s father aged, thus we CAN use it against him.
That and the fact that Fielder has a much worse body type (in terms of baseball aging) makes it valid to say that Howard is likely to age better than Fielder.
What he’s saying, Nikk.m, is that we cannot compare Fielder’s genetics to Howard’s genetics, unless you use the “all else being equal” tag, which I don’t believe you’ve used.
One could also argue that genetics are in Fielder’s favor, given that Howard’s dad apparently never played baseball.
We sure can, even without the “all else being equal” caveat. The genetics is a factor in the argument and one that is pretty clear that is in Howard’s favor.
No you can't!
You don’t know anything about Howard’s genetics! Therefore you cannot compare them to anything!
What you’re saying is that X > F, where X is unknown and F is the “quality” of Fielder’s genetic material.
The real problem is that you cannot know if B sucks relative to the regular population in your equation, that is what you would need to be able to make some claim about the predictability of genetics in this case (even if this contribution is small relative to the interaction between genes and the enviroment). Therefore, even a declining Cecil might be better than the average joe on the street and hence you have no ground to win this argument. Because you do not know where Cecil’s health at age 31 falls on the bell curve of human experience you have no argument.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 7:27 PM EST up reply actions
But why can’t we say B sucks? Fielder’s father was Howard’s age when he dropped off the face of the earth (.2 WAR after age 31). If you believe in ‘like father like son’ even a little bit, that’s some strong evidence.
Dammit, I was going to make this joke.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, the age difference is a big deal. Also, Howard’s deal was a five year extension, but in effect it was a 7 year commitment. Fielder’s contract is insane if the reports are true, but it doesn’t make Howard’s look any less insane in my mind. In fact, Howard’s might have been more insane considering he wasn’t even close to being a free agent when he signed it.
I think all the contracts are insane. Can we say that?
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Are we just talking first basemen? Because the Phillies are getting a hell of a deal on Halladay, relative to the market. But the recent first base contracts have been pretty crazy. If I was a GM, that is not where I’d be investing, put it that way.
I mean Howard, Fielder, Pujols.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Yes. Completely insane. Just for fun, though…which would you choose if you had to pick one? And does that change if you get Howard where he was when he actually signed the extension. In other words:
1) Pujols 10/$250, Fielder 9/$214, or Injured Howard 5/$125
2) Pujols 10/$250, Fielder 9/$214, or 29 year old Howard 7/$161 (ish)
Can I reply with “none of the above” or is that verboten?
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
On the other hand, damn. Those are some high-risk contracts. My first thought was
1) Howard, Pujols, Fielder
2) Pujols, Fielder, Howard.
But I’m biased because I’ve spent a lot more time thinking about Howard’s contract. And when I type it out, the idea that a ten year contract could ever be a better plan than anything just looks wrong.
That said, Pujols needs to be better than Fielder by < 1 WAR/year over the life of their contracts. So in my way of thinking, the Pujols deal is always better than the Fielder deal. I’m not sure how to fit the Howard deal in because of the complicating factors that 1) he is the worst player of the three and 2) he was signed so early that there should be an obvious discount. So where Howard gets placed in the order has less to do with how productive he is and more to do do with how badly you want to get out from under the contract so you get value during the 3, 4, or 5 years when somebody else (Singleton. Wait, they traded him?) is playing that position.
oh sweet mother
Editor at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Boras wins again. Asshole that he may be, he is apparently amazing at his job.
Bad contract for Detroit but whatever, not my money and not my team.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
He’s sort of a high risk, high reward kind of guy. I don’t know if he necessarily does a better job than other agents on average, these days. But his successes are more successful, that’s for sure.
You are absolutely right. He cashes in because he has the better players. Which says something I suppose. But I guess if you were going to break it down to a level of how well his FA’s do relative to what they deserve compared to another big Agent and their success I bet he would be better but not by much.
For every success like Fielder there is a failure(at least this year) with Madson.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I really dislike Boras. I thought maybe – just MAYBE – this was the year his bullshit wouldn’t stick and he’d end up with a stable full of clients who would have to settle. Thanks, Tigers, you weak-willed bastards.
That being said, No Prince in NL (let alone NL EAST) = Happy Dance.
by Chutley's Impressed by Mac's Speed on Jan 24, 2012 3:57 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I don’t know if I’m just being contrary, but I think I like Boras. He gets players money. Better them than the owners. He’s obviously a very good agent.
It makes no sense for sports fans to hate Scott Boras. His job is to make sure his clients get paid. End of story. That there are a good number of stupid GMs out there is not his problem.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 24, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Just because he is simply doing his job and is very good at it doesn’t mean we can’t still hate him. Hate is an irrational thing. What have the Mets ever done to us?
Fare thee well, JM. In my book, you were the Greatest.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7890127&c_id=mlb
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Jan 24, 2012 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I never said it was a rational dislike.
The guy’s the best at what he does. Look, I don’t like smugness. But I really dislike warranted smugness. If you look at a successful, but pompous douche that everyone touts as this god-like savant, you can – at the very least – latch onto the occasional failure to smile at and think, “good… knock him down a peg or two.” If those failures never occur, then it almost validates that pomposity and you’re forced to admit, “God, that guy’s a self-satisfied prick… but he’s right, if not humble…”
It’s like the with the Yankees… I’ve always disliked them, but I’ve never engaged in the oft-parroted criticism that they “buy championships” and the like. I’ve never blasted them – or any team for that matter – for being big spenders, even when the Phils were wasting away in the division basement, pretending they were a small-market team. I’ll never begrudge ownership for putting the money back on the field, just like I won’t begrudge representation for going after the best deal possible for their client.
It’s just a time-honored American pastime to want to see those at the top fail every now and again – a pastime I admittedly partake in from time to time. It’s petty and small undignified, but there it is. My Don’t-Like-Boras meter would have dropped well below the red line had he missed the mark this year. He didn’t, though. He came through with a mother of a contract in the eleventh hour – like he always does – and I’m left hoping next year he gets burned and has to eat a little crow.
It’s not going to consume my every waking thought from now until then, it just is what it is.
by Chutley's Impressed by Mac's Speed on Jan 24, 2012 9:06 PM EST up reply actions
Well articulated, and I agree with your points. Most of the basis for my own hatred for Scott Boras is exactly what you mention. The rest is—and I know I’m treading on dangerous ground here—his unparalleled contributions to a system that I think pays professional athletes too much.
Fare thee well, JM. In my book, you were the Greatest.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7890127&c_id=mlb
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Jan 25, 2012 3:49 AM EST up reply actions
I’m on board with the petty and undignified wishing for people at the top to fail every now and again. Lord knows I derived a good bit of schadenfreude from watching A-Rod tank over the last couple years.
his unparalleled contributions to a system that I think pays professional athletes too much.
Yeah, I’m gonna partially disagree with you here for the simple reason that most professional athletes make practically no money. $214 million is probably too much, but that’s only going to the guys at the very top of the ladder. If you play in the minors, the best you can hope for is that you can pay the bills and have a little left over in a savings account.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 25, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
I agree in that I have no problem with the amounts. Don’t much like the distribution and the process, though.
In the end, “too much” is an entirely subjective judgment, unless you are talking about the market self-correcting when some overpaid player becomes old and busted.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 25, 2012 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
agreed on the distribution problem
the deals the players have made with owners has not been in the best interests of the greater body of players
it is completely twisted, now, so that players get massively underpaid when they’re at their best, and if they’re lucky, get a couple big paydays while still good; some few get massively overpaid in decline phases… but (some) teams have gotten smarter, and have gradually figured out how to game the system so that they underpay a lot (again, this is relative to the money that exists in baseball, which is clearly insane).
If the players were smarter, they’d do more for the minors, you wouldn’t have dudes arguing against large draft bonuses, etc.
The thrust of my thinking here is that if we essentially take the view of athletes as entertainers, the ones at the top of the pay scale are paid disproportionately to their value to society. I totally agree that minor leaguers are not paid enough relative to the rest of the industry.
The problem is, of course, how the market has worked itself out. Fans are simply willing to pay X amount of dollars on tickets and concessions, Y amount of dollars on merchandise, networks are willing to pay Z amount of dollars for broadcasting rights, and so on right down the line. I think the whole industry is worth too much money, and it’s not the fault of any individual or group.
In my idealistic world, baseball would not be something that would generate such a large economy, given how small many other economies in our society are. But that’s the way it goes.
Fare thee well, JM. In my book, you were the Greatest.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7890127&c_id=mlb
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Jan 25, 2012 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
These contracts are becoming borderline offensive. I guess the league is more sabermetrically-challenged then I thought and the RBI is king. My definitely making my kid a power-hitting 1B, he doesn’t have a choice in the matter.
background
Is it your position that Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is? Yes or no.
Yes that and his body type.
Great. So, is it your position that the only other possible view that one can hold about this issue is "Cecil Fielder’s genes play no role in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is?"
Correct. Either they DO or they DO NOT.
Have you ever considered the following alternative viewpoints? Do you believe that these viewpoints are logically impossible? If so, why?
1. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder somewhat more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
2. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder slightly more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
3. It is impossible to know how large of a role Cecil Fielder’s genes play in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
No, because we DO NOT KNOW the other factors and thus they are kept at a constant in this equation. We don’t know how Howard’s father aged, thus we cannot use it for or against him. We DO know how Fielder’s father aged, thus we CAN use it against him.
That and the fact that Fielder has a much worse body type (in terms of baseball aging) makes it valid to say that Howard is likely to age better than Fielder.
I agree with the premise, just not with how he got there. And even if Prince doesn’t “age” well, there’s steps he can take to make sure he staves off those negative effects for a certain period of time.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
So, maybe you’re just confused here.
Here are the facts that you’ve agreed to.
1. There is one data point (Cecil’s genes) that suggests Fielder will age more poorly than Howard will.
2. There are many other data points that are relevant to the analysis.
3. We don’t know what most of those other data points say on who’s more likely to age more poorly.
You think those facts leave us with only two choices: “Cecil’s genes make Prince much more likely to age poorly” vs. “Cecil’s genes play no role at all” – and that it’s logically impossible to say “Cecil’s genes make Prince more likely to age poorly, but not much more likely.”
That’s simply wrong. The absence of other data points does not mean that your existing data point is either conclusive or irrelevant. Let’s say somebody’s being prosecuted for a crime and the only evidence they have against him is from an unreliable eyewitness, but there’s no evidence at all that exonerates him. By your logic, because the unreliable eyewitness’s testimony is the only data point we have, the testimony makes it “much more likely” that the person committed the crime. But it obviously doesn’t. It still only makes it a little bit more likely that he committed the crime.
When you’re trying to answer a question and you know there’s a lot of relevant data out there that you don’t have, you don’t just say “I’m going to act as if all that other data doesn’t even exist.” What you do is acknowledge that the absence of that relevant data makes the answer to your question very uncertain. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to choose between two options, then you may base your choice on the limited data you have, but you do so with reservations, knowing that your conclusion is very tentative. Making that choice does NOT mean that it’s “much more likely” than the alternative.
by taco pal on Jan 24, 2012 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Don’t compare my point about Prince likely aging more rapidly than Howard (I’m sure that wasn’t a novel notion to you as its been bandied about by many people), based on 2 quantifiable factors (Genes and Weight) in any way equals to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is extreme.
You’re missing the point. Just because evidence hasn’t been found to clear the defendant’s name doesn’t mean it won’t be found. Consequently, you can’t regard the lack of evidence that Fielder isn’t going to break down as proof that he will. It’s a logical fallacy to do so.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
You work with the information you got and since we have more negative factors that we know about weighing against Fielder, the balance in the equation points towards Howard.
Fine, I’ll work with what I’ve got. But I’m not going to make any definitive claims about the deterioration of Fielder’s baseball skills relative to Howard’s because I don’t know the following:
a) Whether or not Howard’s genetic makeup and ancestry indicates a breakdown of baseball skills
b) How much of Cecil Fielder’s breakdown was caused by genetics
c) How Prince Fielder may or may not be attempting to stave off the negative effects of his genetic disposition
d) How Howard is going to recover from his current injury
e) What injuries unrelated to genetic breakdown the two might sustain going forward that seriously hinder their abilities to play baseball.
Until I know all this stuff, I’m not going to claim for certain that Howard will age better than Fielder.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
Essentially, the problem here is that your inability to grasp that
“the balance in the equation points towards Howard” ≠ “Prince Fielder [is] much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is”
The fallacy is that if the balance in the equation only points slightly towards Howard, then Prince Fielder is not much more likely to decline with age than Howard is. He’s only a little bit more likely to decline with age than Howard is. I have a hard time believing that you couldn’t figure that one out on your own.
Ah so you’re hung up on “little” vs “much”. I knew it, you’re like to hang on every word even when the overall point is correct. You know there is that whole “Super Fat” thing that Fielder has going, that tips the scales a bit more, dontchathink? when I said “much more likely” that included the Weight as well.
The overall point isn’t correct. The ENTIRE POINT that I and yolacrary and Phrozen and everybody else here have been trying to make to you over and over and over again is that genetics are a small factor that shouldn’t push the needle strongly toward Howard in this analysis – that they’re only a slight factor that’s very uncertain and that therefore shouldn’t affect our view of their contracts very much. I can’t believe you would characterize that as some sort of nitpick. That’s a major issue and it’s the central point of disagreement in their whole debate.
Try this.
In absence of any other data, you presume there’s a 50-50 chance that Fielder will age more poorly than Howard.
Given what we know about Cecil Fielder, your assertion seems to be that the chance Fielder will age more poorly than Howard is >>50%, and it sounds like you think it’s near 100%.
Taco Pal et al., and forgive me if I’m incorrect, are asserting that, assuming all we know about the two players is the body type of one of their fathers, the odds are much closer to 50%, and that it’s impossible to be as certain about this as you make yourself.
This is just basic conditional probability.
Of course, we know a lot more about these two players than just the profile of Cecil Fielder’s career, so this whole argument is really moot anyway.
by The Howling Fantods on Jan 24, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Even if you grant his premise (Nike) there is no reason to think the data from Cecil’s health is less than the average person at age 31. I said this above but it’s an important point in this discussion. In order to make the point that gene X in theory could have some negative effect you have to have reason to think that first person has gene X (that’s a stretch, but let’s just stipulate it) and that gene X has a negative effect (i.e. that is would cause someone to be less than the average person). We don’t even know if Cecil is less than the average person so the argument can’t hold even if you stipulate that the effect of gene’s only pushes Fielder from 50% to 51%. You know what % of people play badly enough that they suck at pro-ball at age 31… 99.9%.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
The thing is, if you know for certainty that one factor (say genetics) favors player A over player B and everything else is equal or unknown, you can definitively say that player A is more likely to age better than player B.
In our case, even if you dismiss the genetic factor altogether, you can still look at the body type factor which has a boatload of data as to which type will age better.
Are you moving the goalposts on purpose or do you just not incapable of following the argument? The first statement that you endorsed up above was “Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.” Then you said it was logically impossible to take the position that “Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder somewhat more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.” Now, you’re basically endorsing the position that you claimed was logically impossible, even though my entire point all along has been that that claim is not logically impossible.
I’m not sure if it’s more charitable to assume that someone is deliberately devious or incapable of following logic. I guess it depends on the person. In this case, I suspect it’s sort of a hybrid though. If you don’t have the firmest grasp on the meaning of words and phrases, and you combine that with an “I’m always right even if I’m proven wrong” attitude, then you can shift your positions fluidly without feeling constrained by anything you’ve said before.
On what basis can you say that Cecil Fielder has genes that make him less good than the average person at playing baseball because of decline due to age? Answer that question please. Do you have stats that Cecil Fielder was worse at age 31 than your average joe (not the average baseball player)? Please answer that question.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
Never said it anywhere near 100% certainty, but with the factors that we know of my assertion is that the chances of Howard aging better are > 50%.
If all you’re saying is that the odds of Howard are better than 50%, then why did you make the claim that it is logically impossible to take the position that "Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder [only] somewhat more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is"? Aren’t you just conceding that you’ve been wrong all along since the beginning of this debate?
Umm no. Now you’re twisting the argument.
You asked if there can be only one alternative view to the fact that “genes are a factor” Obviously the answer yes, there is only one other view on this issue and that is “genes are not a factor”.
I never said that there a multitude of other factors known and unknon making it far from certain who will age better. Until those factors are identified and quantified, the data that we do have points me to the conclusion that Howard will age better.
I know you like to play wordsmith and try to catch people ‘in lies’, but everything I’ve said is consistent.
You asked if there can be only one alternative view to the fact that "genes are a factor"
No, I didn’t. That’s another lie.
If you don’t want to get called out for lying all the time, then stop lying all the time. You can call me a “wordsmith” if you want to, but you’re the only person around here who I have repeatedly had to call out for changing arguments in the middle of a debate. In contrast, I am not the only person who has objected to your tendency toward intellectual dishonesty. Maybe you should give some thought to whether the fault might lie in yourself.
Have you ever considered the following alternative viewpoints? …
1. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder somewhat more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
2. Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder slightly more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
3. It is impossible to know how large of a role Cecil Fielder’s genes play in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is.
Your answer: “No”
You asked if there can be only one alternative view to the fact that "genes are a factor" Obviously the answer yes, there is only one other view on this issue and that is "genes are not a factor".
No, I didn’t.
yeah you asked exactly that.
bq.
Is it your position that Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is? Yes or no.
Translation: “Are Fielder’s gene’s a factor in him aging faster”
bq.
Great. So, is it your position that the only other possible view that one can hold about this issue is “Cecil Fielder’s genes play no role in whether Prince Fielder is much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is?”
Translation: “Is there only one other possibility to the question above”
Either you did not frame your question correctly, or you tried to obfuscate it on purpose. Regardless, my response is clear as to which meaning I was responding to.
Is it your position that Cecil Fielder’s genes make Prince Fielder much more likely to decline with age than Ryan Howard is? Yes or no.
Translation: "Are Fielder’s gene’s a factor in him aging faster"
Wrong.
The fact that he’s translating a question that asks his position on a given conjecture to one that asks whether or not said conjecture is a statement of fact tells me that this argument is going nowhere. The way I see it, taco pal, this is quickly turning into a waste of your time. You’re not going to be able to convince him he’s wrong if he’s going to take liberties like that.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know if anybody’s linked to it already, but this is a fangraphs article on how “heavy” guys age.
1) Heavy players peak a few years earlier than average players
2) Heavy players fall off the map once they are on the wrong side of 30
Also, this is Dave Cameron’s take on the signing.
For Detroit’s sake, I hope they win a title in the next three years, because the franchise’s ability to compete long term just took a serious hit. Borrowing from the future to win in the present isn’t always a bad idea, but at these prices, the Tigers should have explored other options. The cost was simply too high.
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
The problem, Nikk, is that “the factors that we know of” do not include genetics, because we do not have any data points about Howard’s family.
so this is a good point frozen. But Nike could still be right about his argument if we knew in some real way that Cecil is actually worse than the average person (and had the extra leap that this difference was due to genes, which is obviously a huge leap. However, we have no reason to think either of those things is true, that Cecil was worse than the average person or that if there were to be this difference that it would be due to genes.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, if we knew that. But we don’t.
Also, it’s Phrozen, please. I don’t want to be reminded about the weather.
My B on your name. I totally agree we don’t know any of these things and his argument is terrible, I was saying that even if we grant every ridiculous premise, he’s still wrong.
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Since nikk.m seems to be having...
a hard time grasping the idea that this whole debate need not be framed in absolutes (i.e. genetics can produce a spectrum of effects depending on other relevant circumstances and are not confined to the absolutes of ‘have an effect’ or do not ‘have an effect’) let’s make a discussion of genetics actually about genetics and not logic by adding another wrinkle to the view point of nikk.m.
Consider the classical genetics example of flower color. A certain type of flower comes in two varieties: red or white, with the red gene dominant to that of white. Consider the heterozygous cross of two such red flowers (heterozygous means that each flower contains one red gene and one white gene). In this case most of the resulting progeny will be red (75%) like their parents, but a smaller, though not inconsequential, number of flowers will be white (25%). Thus, despite two red parents some will carry no trace of the red gene. Further consider that had one parent been white and the other heterozygous red, the ratio of red to white offspring would then be 50:50. Finally, consider the homozygous red with white flowers, where all the offspring are red.
Now apply this learning to the current conundrum with Prince Fielder. Assume for the time being that the “poor-aging” gene is analogous to the dominant red gene, and the “ages well” gene analogous to the recessive white gene. Given that Prince’s father is known to have had the “poor aging” gene, there are one of two scenarios for him: he is either homozygous for the “poor-aging” gene, in which case we can say with certainty that Prince will age poorly; or he is heterozygous, in which case we must consider the mother. Knowing nothing about his mother, we can only say conclusively that regardless of what genes she has, Prince has somewhere from 50-100% chance of aging poorly. That’s the best we can do.
Consider now the case where the “poor aging” gene is analogous to the white gene (i.e. recessive) in flowers and the “ages well” gene is analogous to the red color in flowers (i.e. dominant). Since Cecil is known to have aged poorly he must carry the homozygous recessive genes. Knowing nothing about his mother, we can only say conclusively that regardless of what genes she has, Prince has somewhere from 0-100% chance of aging poorly. That is the best we can do.
Essentially we have shown that being able to assume nothing about the mother and nothing about the nature of the aging genes (i.e. whether aging poorly is a dominant or recessive gene), the only thing we can conclude is that there is from 0-100% chance Prince will age poorly, which clearly is the same as concluding nothing. Admittedly, our calculations indicate that he is considerably more likely to age poorly in the first scenario, but we know nothing of how likely the first scenario is relative to the second.
None of this, however, that should mask the fact that our example here is highly simplistic and trivializes the problem to a large degree. In reality, these sorts of things depend on the interactions of several genes (not just the hypothetical, individual “aging” gene I concocted), whether the gene is sex-linked, whether the gene is linked to other easily observable genes, an individual’s diet and exercise routine, personal habits and behaviors, and interactions with the environment.
In the end, even assuming genetics does play a prominent role in the aging process (and as a doctor I currently shadow once said, “genetics matters in everything”), simply knowing his father aged poorly is not a reliable way to predict how Prince Fielder will age in the absence of a lot of other data. As we saw with the second scenario above, it doesn’t even make it more likely that he will age poorly. And this doesn’t even begin to tackle the comparison issues with Ryan Howard and his genetics…
by SabasTheHut on Jan 25, 2012 4:28 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
This is what I miss after being off the Internet for two and a half hours. I’m never leaving again.
Also, holy shit, what are the Tigers thinking?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
Also, can we talk about how Lincecum’s new contract has the potential to fuck us over in our negotiations with Hamels?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
Almost shot milk out my nose.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 5:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I’m sensing a new meme.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
That too.
Although for whatever reason, I have a hard time finding an appropriate time to use it.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Is that the Bob for TGP?
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Don’t we need a troll infestation for that?
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 24, 2012 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
Phrozen, you have consistently made me laugh throughout this entire thread. Thanks!
by raising phillie fans on Jan 25, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Some good times found here:
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/1/24/2730796/prince-fielder-tigers-contract-twitter
The end…. wait for it. Ouch.
I might need to stop commenting on this blog. My dad never made very good blog posts once he hit the age I am now.
All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
by Veni Vidi Vici on Jan 24, 2012 10:21 PM EST reply actions
Boooooooooooooooo!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
Booooooooourns
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
Ruben Amaro Jr. Delenda Est
by Jose and the Contrarians on Jan 24, 2012 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Are you booing his joke or him leaving?
by Cole_Hamels_Can on Jan 24, 2012 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
who said anything about a joke?
All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia
by Veni Vidi Vici on Jan 24, 2012 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
SOFT!!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I’M TIREDI AM SICK OF THIS NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FTFY
Fare thee well, JM. In my book, you were the Greatest.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7890127&c_id=mlb
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Jan 25, 2012 3:46 AM EST up reply actions
Well, at least there’s some accountability around here.
by Wet Luzinski on Jan 24, 2012 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
Any other TGP-memes we’d like to throw around?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
Pssssh
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 25, 2012 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Apparently Miggy’s moving to third
I seriously doubt he makes it out of spring training there…
Its all about the []_[]
#FirePaulHolmgren
by philiafan14364 on Jan 24, 2012 10:41 PM EST reply actions
They either go with Inge who’s all defense (and not what he used to be in that element of his game either) or with Miggy who’s all Offense.
Maybe he’ll put up a monster first half and Amaro can trade prospects for him!
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 24, 2012 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
Martinez in a wheelchair.
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
-Oscar Wilde
by VanceinmyPants on Jan 25, 2012 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
He’d still get around the bases faster than Fielder.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Jan 25, 2012 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
And by Jove, is he fat.
"I wouldn’t run if there was a fire. I wouldn’t run anywhere. I hate running." - O. Munn
Operative words:
for a fat man.
I would pay almost any sum of money to watch him run a 100m hurdle, just for the sheer theater of it.
Fare thee well, JM. In my book, you were the Greatest.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=7890127&c_id=mlb
by Missing Jamie Moyer on Jan 25, 2012 3:51 AM EST up reply actions
Thought experiment
Two things that I hear all the time are 1) teams like cost certainty, and 2) better to pay a higher AAV for fewer years.
The Phillies have Ryan Howard under contract for the next 5 years. The Tigers have Prince Fielder under contract for the next 9 years at a slightly lower AAV. Theoretically, the Phillies could pay less than $130 million for the first base position over the next 10 years (should of kept Singleton).
Obviously there is no reason for the player to do this. But just for fun, here is the question: would you trade Ryan Howard’s 5 year/$125 million contract for a 10 year/$130 million contract?
Remember, around the beginning of the 2015 season or so Howard will have 5/10 rights, so you can’t plan on being able to trade him, even though if lower AAVs make the contract theoretically movable.
I mean Howard. In other words, if you have to have Howard, would you rather 1) take him at roughly half the AAV, but you have to keep him until he is 41, or 2) have him on his current deal and be done with the contract in 5 years.
by topherstarr on Jan 25, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
Yeeesh. I’d probably take the 10/130 and hope to God he’ll accept a trade to an AL team in 3 or 4 years.
You’ve got take the 10/130. It’s actually less money because of time-value. And as long as he isn’t negative WAR in the last five years, you get more in return. It’s impossible to get less in return – if Howard is negative WAR, then you just cut him after five years (same result, less money). Also, luxury tax.
I guess my observation is that fans seem to think negotiations start with an AAV, and actually it appears GMs think that way too. But it seems to me that if you want to sign a big-time free agent, the proper way to value a player is to decide how many WAR you think he will put up for the rest of his career, and then try to stretch that contract out to the end of his career.
So Prince put up 5.5 WAR last year. If you could get him on a one year deal, maybe you would offer a little more than $4.5 million/WAR, or $25 million. But he wants a long term deal. So I’d approach it by projecting that he will put up 30 WAR for the rest of his career, and offering to pay a premium of $5 million/WAR, but I want him locked up for ten years.
If the negotiation starts with AAV, it’s like starting a car negotiation by figuring out the payment first. That’s what the salesman wants to do, because it obscures how much you are really paying for the car. Likewise, the agent wants you to begin by agreeing on an AAV based on present performance, and then “compromise” on the years.
I guess I wouldn’t end up signing too many Prince Fielder types. But I will say this—Andrew Friedman gives out some long-ass contracts. Obviously it’s different in that he gives them to young players, not free agents, but the Rays’ risk management philosophy is sure not going to sound anything like “we don’t give out more than 3 years to pitchers”.
by topherstarr on Jan 25, 2012 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
MGL at the The Book blog is not a fan: “Worst contract of the year? Maybe top 10 of all time? Top 50?” And:
I’m not proposing any equation. I am only commenting on the fact that they are paying him around 9 mil per win. Regardless of the sweetness of a team’s spot, no one needs to pay 9 mil per win.
There are lots of other players they could have signed or traded for in order to get 3.5-4 wins for a lot less money.
Again, regardless of how much a Lexus is worth to me, I don’t need to pay $200,000 for one.
Teams significantly overpay for players because they don’t have any idea how to value players in terms of marginal wins. Believe or not, there are still plenty of teams who have no idea what a marginal win is or how to attach that to a player, and know nothing about projecting players in terms of actual value (marginal wins). If you were a fly on a wall during the meetings that some GM’s have with other team personnel and owners when discussing players, you would fall off that wall. Have you ever heard Jim Bowden on MLB radio or TV? While he does not represent in any way shape or form the new breed of GM, there are still plenty of GM’s like him. In fact, there are still GM’s who are not as smart as he…
There are GMs who are stupider than Jim Bowden? That is terrifying. For all of Ruben’s flaws, he is at least smarter than Bowden (I think).
Fielder’s contract is just another piece of evidence that GMs think of signing players the same way that most people think about eating a Meat Lovers Supreme pizza. Yeah, it’s gonna kill you. But it’s not gonna kill you now, so fuck it. Have another slice/throw another $20 million in there.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 25, 2012 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
Smart: Anthopoulos, Friedman, Epstein, Daniels
Semi-smart: Beane, Alderson?, Wren, Rizzo?, Huntington, Jocketty, Shapiro, Jack Z?, Brewers guy, Cardinals guy, Towers, Byrnes?
Mediocre: Cashman, Amaro, Beinfest, Dombrowski, Dayton Moore, O’Dowd, Sabean
Dumb: Colletti, Williams, Dipoto
Don’t know: Cherington, new Astros guy, Orioles guy, Twins guy
I’d say that Alex Anthopoulos could retire right now on the grounds that he will never ever in a million years accomplish anything as incredible as jettisoning Vernon Wells, except that it was Tony Reagins who picked him up. Kind of depressing that the Angels got rid of Reagins only to wind up with Dipoto.
by ThinMountainAir on Jan 25, 2012 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Saturday, May 26, 2012, 7:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 95.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
