The team gets a F for FAILURES for not making the playoffs, but in all seriouness..

 

C. Won 80 games. 80-82. Last year's team which was 87 wins I say was a B or B-.

 

I be happy with 87 wins next year at least. But Playoffs in 2011 I like. Depends on this off season though.

A little down on Nolasco aren't you?

 

 

At times he was worse than Volstad. He was barely better than him all season. And, if you read my actual post, I made a disclaimer before posting it.

Nolasco was supposed to be a #2 pitcher. The quality of pitching he gave this team on almost 2/3rds of his starts were less than or equal to a #4 pitcher.

 

I should've failed him.

 

Nate gets a C+ and Ricky gets a D-....I would say so

 

 

I cant tell if that's sarcasm... but again. Disclaimer. Ricky was supposed to be a #2. Nate? #4 or #5.

 

Nate came out and pitched much better than I'd imagined for quite a few games. Sure he fell apart, but he gave more than was asked from him in the beginning.

 

 

That's a faulty way of grading them. You grade both on the way they pitched, not how you expected them to pitch. Nolasco was better than both Volstad and Robertson, so I don't see how he gets a worse grade.

 

 

So... at first you comment on how bad my grading is... because you didnt read the full post...

 

and then once you read the next post... you realize why they got certain grades... and you criticize it?

 

A player deserves his grade based upon how he performed as opposed to how he was expected to perform. The way YOU want to grade them is faulty. It doesnt account for underperformance/exceeding expectations.

 

The Marlins were a relative .500 team. You'd have a typical bell curve if you asked to grade them solely based on their statistics. Do you think Hanley was an A+? He put up A+ numbers for a SS? I'm pretty sure everybody expected more out of him. He doesnt deserve an A+.

 

Nolasco pitched at the same level as Chris Volstad. He was expected to pitch at or around the level that Anibal Sanchez pitched at this season. Anibal Sanchez was expected to pitch at a slightly less level than he did. If C = Average, that explains everything.

 

This has been discussed by Rab and Nny already. It's stupid to grade someone based on how you expected them to pitch or play. What they did THIS season is what counts. And this season, he out performed both. Therefore, he deserves a higher grade.

This has been discussed by Rab and Nny already. It's stupid to grade someone based on how you expected them to pitch or play. What they did THIS season is what counts. And this season, he out performed both. Therefore, he deserves a higher grade.

 

 

Ah, so because they've debated it.... end of story?

 

Fine, you want it that way? Ricky Nolasco was in a different position. He played Starting Pitcher #2. He performed like Starting Pitcher #5. Chris Volstad played Starting pitcher #4. He performed like starting pitcher #5. Different positions. What can I say?

 

It's completely fair to judge them on how they should've performed. We NEEDED them to perform at a specific level to make the playoffs. And some did. Most didnt.

 

Please, bring Rab and Nny down here. I'd love to talk about it again.

This has been discussed by Rab and Nny already. It's stupid to grade someone based on how you expected them to pitch or play. What they did THIS season is what counts. And this season, he out performed both. Therefore, he deserves a higher grade.

 

 

Ah, so because they've debated it.... end of story?

 

Fine, you want it that way? Ricky Nolasco was in a different position. He played Starting Pitcher #2. He performed like Starting Pitcher #5. Chris Volstad played Starting pitcher #4. He performed like starting pitcher #5. Different positions. What can I say?

 

It's completely fair to judge them on how they should've performed. We NEEDED them to perform at a specific level to make the playoffs. And some did. Most didnt.

 

Please, bring Rab and Nny down here. I'd love to talk about it again.

You rang?

 

I'll just quote myself:

We're grading a player's performance. Imagine if when you were in school you and someone else both got 23 out of 25 problems right on a test. If you were a good student and he was a bad student, should the teacher give you an 85% and the other student a 95%? Of course not.

 

I have nothing more to say, especially to you because quite frankly you won't care what any of my posts say.

Infielders

Gaby Sanchez: C

Dan Uggla: B+

Jorge Cantu: F

Hanley Ramirez: B+

Wes Helms: F

 

Catchers

Ronny Paulino: C

 

Outfielders

Cody Ross: C

Chris Coghlan: C

Cameron Maybin: D

Logan Morrison: B

Mike Stanton: A

 

Starters

Josh Johnson: A-

Ricky Nolasco: C

Anibal Sanchez: B

Chris Volstad: C

 

Relievers

Leo Nunez: B

Clay Hensley: A

Burke Badenhop: C

Brian Sanches: B

Jose Veras: B

Nolasco pitched better than a #5. The same can be said for Volstad, as well, when you look at the overall #'s.

#5 was Nate Robertson.

We're grading a player's performance. Imagine if when you were in school you and someone else both got 23 out of 25 problems right on a test. If you were a good student and he was a bad student, should the teacher give you an 85% and the other student a 95%? Of course not.

 

 

I agree with you here, but I still don't think it's been clearly established what pool of players we're comparing each individual to. For the starting rotation, for instance, it seems like some of us are using just the members of our starting rotation as the standard for the grading. Establishing JJ as the A and Nate Robertson as the F, and giving the rest of the starters grades based off of those standards is just as faulty as grading them on pre-season expectations. While this is fine for the rotation and pen, you can't use this same system to assign grades to position players. Who on our roster are you going to compare Uggla to, or Gaby? Throw all position players into a "hitters" group? Well then what about defense? You can't compare the defense of an OF to an IF very fairly. It needs to be a positional comparison.

 

As posted earlier, I think there are three legitimate ways to assign grades, there just needs to be clarification as to which system people are using. Until then, there will be confusion.

 

Personally, I think the most cut and dry way is to compare each individual's performance to the average major league performance at that specific position. I have yet to see major league averages posted for any position on this thread. It would still allow for some debate as a player may have performed at the average in one aspect of his game, yet below average in another aspect.

This has been discussed by Rab and Nny already. It's stupid to grade someone based on how you expected them to pitch or play. What they did THIS season is what counts. And this season, he out performed both. Therefore, he deserves a higher grade.

 

 

Ah, so because they've debated it.... end of story?

 

Fine, you want it that way? Ricky Nolasco was in a different position. He played Starting Pitcher #2. He performed like Starting Pitcher #5. Chris Volstad played Starting pitcher #4. He performed like starting pitcher #5. Different positions. What can I say?

 

It's completely fair to judge them on how they should've performed. We NEEDED them to perform at a specific level to make the playoffs. And some did. Most didnt.

 

Please, bring Rab and Nny down here. I'd love to talk about it again.

You rang?

 

I'll just quote myself:

We're grading a player's performance. Imagine if when you were in school you and someone else both got 23 out of 25 problems right on a test. If you were a good student and he was a bad student, should the teacher give you an 85% and the other student a 95%? Of course not.

 

I have nothing more to say, especially to you because quite frankly you won't care what any of my posts say.

 

Yeah but here's just that. We're not in school. These players arent taking the same test. They're specialized. It's the big people world each of them is expected to contribute in a certain aspect.

 

They're a band. Each player is playing a different instrument. I expect a different sound from each of them.

You grade them based on what they did this season. It sucks that they didn't perform up to your expectation, but you can't grade them that way. It isn't fair, because you probably set expectations to high for Nolasco. The only fair way to grade them is based on what they did this season, and Nolasco out performed Volstad and Robertson, thus deserving a higher grade than both.

There were 138 major league pitchers this season, who pitched 100.0 or more innings, with 60% of those innings being as a starting pitcher. I assigned the top 20% an A, 2nd 20% a B, 3rd 20% a C, etc. This puts pitchers ranked 1-27 as an A, ranked 28-55 as a B, 56-82 as a C, 83-110 as a D, and 111-138 as an F. I then sorted them by WAR and here's how our rotation stacked up by WAR / rank / grade.

 

 

JJ: 6.4 / #3 / A

Anibal: 3.0 / #44 / B

Ricky: 1.5 / #84 / C

Volstad: 1.4 / #86 / C

Robertson: -1.0 / #131 / F

 

If you wanted, you could take the A's, 1-27, and divide that into thirds to get your A+, A, and A-, do the same with the B's, C's, etc. That would put them as this:

JJ: A+

Anibal: B

Ricky: C+

Volstad: C+

Robertson: haha, F- if there is such a thing

 

one other note....for those of you who were interested in James Shields, his slash line from this group was: -1.3 / #135 / F- ...yikes!

There were 138 major league pitchers this season, who pitched 100.0 or more innings, with 60% of those innings being as a starting pitcher. I assigned the top 20% an A, 2nd 20% a B, 3rd 20% a C, etc. This puts pitchers ranked 1-27 as an A, ranked 28-55 as a B, 56-82 as a C, 83-110 as a D, and 111-138 as an F. I then sorted them by WAR and here's how our rotation stacked up by WAR / rank / grade.

 

 

JJ: 6.4 / #3 / A

Anibal: 3.0 / #44 / B

Ricky: 1.5 / #84 / C

Volstad: 1.4 / #86 / C

Robertson: -1.0 / #131 / F

 

If you wanted, you could take the A's, 1-27, and divide that into thirds to get your A+, A, and A-, do the same with the B's, C's, etc. That would put them as this:

JJ: A+

Anibal: B

Ricky: C+

Volstad: C+

Robertson: haha, F- if there is such a thing

 

one other note....for those of you who were interested in James Shields, his slash line from this group was: -1.3 / #135 / F- ...yikes!

 

 

I agree with this.

Here's a similar scale for hitters, and the grades will change depending on the parameters you use. I used a minimum 100 games played, with 60% being at said position. This may have been too harsh, as we didn't have eligible candidates at a few positions, but I didn't know how else to separate those players with too small of a sample size from the full time players. Here they are, again ranked by WAR and graded against the rest of the qualifying MLB players at their respective positions:

 

1B, Gaby: D

2B, Uggla: A-

SS, Hanley: A

3B, Cantu: F+

3B, Helms: F

C, none qualified

LF, none qualified

CF, none qualified

RF, Stanton: C (don't kill me, I'm just a messenger)

 

Again, this is how they ranked by WAR using the parameters I chose. These could change alot depending on your preference in parameters.

RF, Stanton: C (don't kill me, I'm just a messenger)

 

I bet that's because you're comparing him with players that played in a lot more games than he did. If you did a WAR per game he would get a "B" or higher.

RF, Stanton: C (don't kill me, I'm just a messenger)

 

I bet that's because you're comparing him with players that played in a lot more games than he did. If you did a WAR per game he would get a "B" or higher.

 

 

Yeah, like I said, it's comparing all RF's with a minimum 100 games played. I just looked and he was right at 100 G and he had 200-300 fewer PA's than some of those guys he was compared to.

You grade them based on what they did this season. It sucks that they didn't perform up to your expectation, but you can't grade them that way. It isn't fair, because you probably set expectations to high for Nolasco. The only fair way to grade them is based on what they did this season, and Nolasco out performed Volstad and Robertson, thus deserving a higher grade than both.

 

 

Then every single person's vote in here is purely biased. You go into the season telling yourself 'this is what we need for a playoff team, for you, you, you, and you.'

 

Anyways... at the very least you're still refusing to take into consideration that of a pitchers position in the rotation. A #2 SP is different from a #5. A lefty is different from a righty. The closer is different than the setup man. I mean... you'll see Nunez's grade low from quite a bit of people despite better statistics than last season... why? Because people expected him to be a closer this year. And he wasnt. Nobody expected Clay Hensley to be the closer. And he was. Thus he's getting higher grades from people. Yeah, same applies for Nolasco vs. Volstad and Robertson. You're gonna tell me if Volstad posted a 3.25 and JJ posted a 4.51 that Volstad wouldnt get an A and JJ wouldnt get an F (assuming nobody assumed the role as the ace)?

 

Baseball is a team sport. Each player contributes in their own way. Each player is making an individual salary based upon what they bring to the table. They're not on the same grading scale.

 

And FYI... I'd like to know where it says written in stone that that's the way it has to be? Did you write the grading rubric? Who says I cant grade them how I want to grade them?

You grade them based on what they did this season. It sucks that they didn't perform up to your expectation, but you can't grade them that way. It isn't fair, because you probably set expectations to high for Nolasco. The only fair way to grade them is based on what they did this season, and Nolasco out performed Volstad and Robertson, thus deserving a higher grade than both.

 

 

Then every single person's vote in here is purely biased. You go into the season telling yourself 'this is what we need for a playoff team, for you, you, you, and you.'

 

Anyways... at the very least you're still refusing to take into consideration that of a pitchers position in the rotation. A #2 SP is different from a #5. A lefty is different from a righty. The closer is different than the setup man. I mean... you'll see Nunez's grade low from quite a bit of people despite better statistics than last season... why? Because people expected him to be a closer this year. And he wasnt. Nobody expected Clay Hensley to be the closer. And he was. Thus he's getting higher grades from people. Yeah, same applies for Nolasco vs. Volstad and Robertson. You're gonna tell me if Volstad posted a 3.25 and JJ posted a 4.51 that Volstad wouldnt get an A and JJ wouldnt get an F (assuming nobody assumed the role as the ace)?

 

Baseball is a team sport. Each player contributes in their own way. Each player is making an individual salary based upon what they bring to the table. They're not on the same grading scale.

 

And FYI... I'd like to know where it says written in stone that that's the way it has to be? Did you write the grading rubric? Who says I cant grade them how I want to grade them?

 

People gave Hensley a higher grade than Nunez because he pitched better than Nunez. That was a bad example.

 

And if Volstad somehow puts up a 3.25 ERA, and JJ puts up a 4.51 ERA, then Volstad does deserve a high grade while JJ deserves a low grade. Not because Volstad is a number 5 pitcher and JJ is our ace, but because Volstad pitched great and JJ didn't.

 

You can, but it's too flawed. You had such low expectations for Robertson and such high expectations for Nolasco that it didn't matter than Nolasco out pitched him. You gave him a low grade because he didn't blow him out the water, which is stupid. At the end of the day, Nolasco was better so he deserved a higher grade.

People gave Hensley a higher grade than Nunez because he pitched better than Nunez. That was a bad example.

 

And if Volstad somehow puts up a 3.25 ERA, and JJ puts up a 4.51 ERA, then Volstad does deserve a high grade while JJ deserves a low grade. Not because Volstad is a number 5 pitcher and JJ is our ace, but because Volstad pitched great and JJ didn't.

 

You can, but it's too flawed. You had such low expectations for Robertson and such high expectations for Nolasco that it didn't matter than Nolasco out pitched him. You gave him a low grade because he didn't blow him out the water, which is stupid. At the end of the day, Nolasco was better so he deserved a higher grade.

 

 

It's not a bad example at all. People are giving Nunez a lot more sh*t than he 'statistically' deserves. None the less, it's warranted.

 

 

Yeah, but dont tell me you wouldnt see a bunch of "F"s next to Josh Johnson.

 

I love how you claim that's flawed... yet you're the one who wants to grade a team objectively. When building a playoff team, or champion team, you need to be completely subjective. Ask yourself, how is this player contributing to the team? What does he bring to the table? Go ahead. Try and build a team solely off objective grading. That means we can randomly assign every single player to your team solely based off of the letter grade you gave them. Or... if you do it subjectively... you can pick players (and see their names) with lesser or greater grades based on what you think they can do.

 

It's completely flawed to grade players objectively.

Yeah but here's just that. We're not in school. These players arent taking the same test. They're specialized. It's the big people world each of them is expected to contribute in a certain aspect.

 

They're a band. Each player is playing a different instrument. I expect a different sound from each of them.

 

They are taking the same test; they are using the same instrument.

Yes, but it's like an "A" student jumping up and down getting a "C" on a test while the "C" student just shrugs if they get an "A". It just doesn't work like that. Expectations are part of the game. Rotations are built around specific players performing and putting up certain numbers. I don't think we put JJ in the ace role to put up #3 starter numbers.

 

Nolasco was put in the #2 spot in the rotation and put up #4-5 numbers. In essence, he was a major contributor to us missing the playoffs.

Yes, but it's like an "A" student jumping up and down getting a "C" on a test while the "C" student just shrugs if they get an "A". It just doesn't work like that. Expectations are part of the game. Rotations are built around specific players performing and putting up certain numbers. I don't think we put JJ in the ace role to put up #3 starter numbers.

 

Nolasco was put in the #2 spot in the rotation and put up #4-5 numbers. In essence, he was a major contributor to us missing the playoffs.

 

No it isn't. That's not what you're doing. What you're doing is giving one guy an A and another guy a C for the same thing.

Yeah but here's just that. We're not in school. These players arent taking the same test. They're specialized. It's the big people world each of them is expected to contribute in a certain aspect.

 

They're a band. Each player is playing a different instrument. I expect a different sound from each of them.

 

They are taking the same test; they are using the same instrument.

 

That's funny because they're in different classes; a band needs more than one instrument to play.

Yeah but here's just that. We're not in school. These players arent taking the same test. They're specialized. It's the big people world each of them is expected to contribute in a certain aspect.

 

They're a band. Each player is playing a different instrument. I expect a different sound from each of them.

 

They are taking the same test; they are using the same instrument.

 

That's funny because they're in different classes; a band needs more than one instrument to play.

Good thing this isn't a band?

 

This is getting ridiculous! You're giving guys different scores based on expectations!

That's funny because they're in different classes; a band needs more than one instrument to play.

 

Good thing this isn't a band?

 

This is getting ridiculous! You're giving guys different scores based on expectations!

 

 

How are you supposed to build a team if you have no expectations from any of the players?!!?

That's funny because they're in different classes; a band needs more than one instrument to play.

 

Good thing this isn't a band?

 

This is getting ridiculous! You're giving guys different scores based on expectations!

 

 

How are you supposed to build a team if you have no expectations from any of the players?!!?

I'm not exactly sure what that sentence is supposed to mean plus I'm not sure what building the team has anything to do with this.

 

Gah, I want nothing to do with this, I'm just biding my time til Panthers Hockey in an hour.

I see both sides of the argument; I think Dr.Beinfest has a point. There are expectations; the players aren't necessarily taking the same test because not every player has the same salary. If a player with a long-term contract making millions does not do well, it hurts the organization more than a guy making the minimum not doing well.