Hurdle-4 more years!

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

Ugh. I know they didn't bring in anyone good or bring up anyone who was even average. That doesn't take away from the question at hand. The team would have been so much better with Kang and Marte.



Gosselin was brought in. He sucked. He was sent down and then cut.



Adams was traded for on May 20th. That doesn't mean he was available on April 18th. Kendricks was traded at the deadline. That doesn't mean he was available on April 18th. Players are rarely traded in April as every team is still in it. It was going to be very hard to find a decent replacement for Marte at that time. They thought Jaso, Osuna, and Frazier were better options. Then Frazier got hurt. Yeah, bad planning. I never denied the fact that no one was brought in. But we have no idea who was called, who was offered, and what they were offered for.



But do we know the team would be a lot better with Marte and Kang? I would think we do as their replacements didn't perform. Do we know the difference in wins-losses? We can all assume. I assume they would have been in the division lead and that is also with all the baseball injuries that occur over a season.

[Bobster21]

We'll never know how many games difference Kang and Marte would have made. But here's a few things to consider. The Pirates have lost 31 games so far by 3 runs or less. So maybe those would be the best chances for a different outcome. In 13 of those losses Marte was playing. In some of those games the players filling in for Kang and/or Marte did well. Kang and Marte aren't superstars and would have had their fair share of unproductive games. In their productive games, other factors could cause losses. Also, many of their productive games could have come in games that were won without them. And in a few of the Pirates wins in which their replacements played well, it might have been a different outcome if Kang and/or Marte had not had a good game. Lots of factors to consider. But reversing as many as 15 of those close losses and not losing out on any wins in which their replacements contributed seems to be a stretch.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

496469787F6E79393A0B0 wrote: We'll never know how many games difference Kang and Marte would have made. But here's a few things to consider. The Pirates have lost 31 games so far by 3 runs or less. So maybe those would be the best chances for a different outcome. In 13 of those losses Marte was playing. In some of those games the players filling in for Kang and/or Marte did well. Kang and Marte aren't superstars and would have had their fair share of unproductive games. In their productive games, other factors could cause losses. Also, many of their productive games could have come in games that were won without them. And in a few of the Pirates wins in which their replacements played well, it might have been a different outcome if Kang and/or Marte had not had a good game. Lots of factors to consider. But reversing as many as 15 of those close losses and not losing out on any wins in which their replacements contributed seems to be a stretch.


I understand that. It's not like I am saying they would be undefeated with both Kang and Marte. It was still a huge blow. There would still be a difference for the better if they were all around all year. Do you agree with that?



What number of games do you estimate? Even five to seven game difference puts them in the Wild Card race. But some say they wouldn't be in contention at all with those two. That's what I don't understand.



Taking that into consideration, I think they have a pretty good team going forward. They could finish with the same record as last year without those two. That would show me as an improvement from last year. Some think they are getting worse. Pointing this out is me saying they are actual getting better.

[johnfluharty]

Has anyone got to the pains to figure out the projected WAR of Marte and Kang as compared to those that replaced them? That, at least, might give an idea of how many extra wins we might have had, assuming the projections were accurate (a big assumption).

[SammyKhalifa]

3D383F39313B223F3625232E570 wrote: Has anyone got to the pains to figure out the projected WAR of Marte and Kang as compared to those that replaced them?  That, at least, might give an idea of how many extra wins we might have had, assuming the projections were accurate (a big assumption).


I don't know/think that WAR is totally accurate, and there are of course factors from missing guys that might indirectly change the performance of the team as a whole (shuffling the lineup to account for them missing, players that would have been protected in the lineup, etc.). But still it's hard to believe that any two players on most teams will account for 15 WAR.



1. Altuve • HOU 7.3

2. Stanton • MIA 6.6

3. Votto • CIN 6.5

4. Simmons • LAA 6.4

5. Goldschmidt • ARI 6.3

6. Trout • LAA 6.0

7. Judge • NYY 5.8

8. Blackmon • COL 5.8

9. Arenado • COL 5.8

10. Rendon • WSN 5.6



I doubt those two guys in the lineup would equal Mike Stanton and Mike Trout combined.

[notes34]

What 6368606C6968733630477E666F6868296468070 wrote: Ugh.  I know they didn't bring in anyone good or bring up anyone who was even average.  That doesn't take away from the question at hand.  The team would have been so much better with Kang and Marte.



Gosselin was brought in.  He sucked.  He was sent down and then cut. 



Adams was traded for on May 20th.  That doesn't mean he was available on April 18th.  Kendricks was traded at the deadline.  That doesn't mean he was available on April 18th.  Players are rarely traded in April as every team is still in it.  It was going to be very hard to find a decent replacement for Marte at that time.  They thought Jaso, Osuna, and Frazier were better options.  Then Frazier got hurt.  Yeah, bad planning.  I never denied the fact that no one was brought in.  But we have no idea who was called, who was offered, and what they were offered for. 



But do we know the team would be a lot better with Marte and Kang?  I would think we do as their replacements didn't perform.  Do we know the difference in wins-losses?  We can all assume.  I assume they would have been in the division lead and that is also with all the baseball injuries that occur over a season.
What does it matter when players were traded? Was the season over on May 20th? Yes the team would've been much better with a full season of Marte and Kang no question. The bigger question is why didn't the FO do something to help when there was an obvious need and the division was still within reach? How can you say they thought Jaso, Osuna, and Frazier were better options to play in the OF when none of them were OF's. There is no free pass here. The FO played the cheaper options.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

If you take Marte's and Kang's previous WAR numbers, you would be between 7-8 combined.



They would be right next to the Cubs according to WAR. I don't like that stat at all since it is an estimate. If you take Blackmon and Arenado off the Rockies, do you think the Rockies are where they are today? What if you take Simmons and Trout off the Angels?

[notes34]

58535B575253480D0B7C455D545353125F533C0 wrote: If you take Marte's and Kang's previous WAR numbers, you would be between 7-8 combined. 



They would be right next to the Cubs according to WAR.  I don't like that stat at all since it is an estimate.  If you take Blackmon and Arenado off the Rockies, do you think the Rockies are where they are today?  What if you take Simmons and Trout off the Angels?
Marte and Kang aren't nearly as valuable as Arenado and Blackmon. Trout is the best all around player in the game. Those aren't great comparisons. Trout has missed some time and the Angels are right in the hunt for a WC.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

61607B6A7C3C3B0F0 wrote:

What does it matter when players were traded? Was the season over on May 20th? Yes the team would've been much better with a full season of Marte and Kang no question. The bigger question is why didn't the FO do something to help when there was an obvious need and the division was still within reach? How can you say they thought Jaso, Osuna, and Frazier were better options to play in the OF when none of them were OF's. There is no free pass here. The FO played the cheaper options.


It is very rare for a team to trade a starting player in April. Every team is in it. Trading a starting outfielder in April for prospects is giving up on that current season. Of course it matters when a player was/is traded. The players who were available weren't worth it or were just as good as who they already had on the team.

[SammyKhalifa]

But the player didn't need to be a starter for the team that traded him away, just better than John Jaso and a real OF