Update: HOLLIDAY A CARD 7yr/120 million, p178

[Eephus Speed]

Is Bay (at your past amount) really that much of a downgrade (monetarily vs offense/defense)?

Bay isn't even worth considering, IMO. I'd rather go with Craig or DeRosa or Cameron than sign Bay. Bay is worth 2-3 wins above replacement (6.3 over the last 2 seasons and 6.4 over the last 3 seasons). I don't know how much he'll get, but $75 million over 5 years wouldn't surprise me.

Holliday is an elite player worth about 6 WAR.

Bay will be paid like an elite player when he's no better than alternatives who are much less expensive.

[Popeye_Card]

Bay and Holliday are nearly equal with the bat. Holliday's edge in WAR is almost completely due to his UZR vs. Bay's. So really it comes down to how much you trust UZR for OF's. Holliday ranks as a very above average OF, where Bay is really awful. IMO, they are both below average. So to me, flip a coin if what you want is a LF who can hit but can't field.

[InvincibleCakeEater]

You really think Holliday is bad in left? That's odd.

[haltz]

Maybe compared to CFers or Carl Crawford, but compared to most LFers he's obviously (I thought) better. Gets good jumps, runs well = good range.

There's a good ten runs of difference on offense as well.

[Popeye_Card]

Is it that odd? I don't have access to many advanced defensive stats, but IIRC when we first discussed trading for him last winter, then did trade for him this summer, UZR was the only metric that liked him much. There were several plays (not just THE play) during his time here where I wondered why he wasn't able to get to a ball, or why it took him 45 minutes to dig the ball out of the corner.

Bay is really terrible, and the Cardinals know that (they used to take advantage of him every time they could against the Pirates). Worse than Holliday. But I don't think the gap between them defensively is 20 runs per season.

[Popeye_Card]

There's a good ten runs of difference on offense as well.

In a true statistical analysis, you usually throw out the highest value and the lowest value. Throwing out Bay's terrible, awful, no good, very bad 2007 (.247/.327/.418), they're pretty similar. Holliday hits for a bit better average, Bay walks a bit more, the ISO is about the same.

EDIT: Eyeballing an average offensive RAA throwing out the peak and valley, Holliday is around 37 and Bay is around 35. 2 runs per year.

[cards2468]

if you go by baseball-reference's defensive metrics, Holliday appears to be a terrible defender, however I've learned that b-r's defensive metrics are almost useless, and according to UZR, Holliday is definitely a decent defender.

[haltz]

If it's ten runs on offense and ten on defense, that's fairly significant. As Dan S at BTF said, Bay's projection makes him look like a below average player in 4 years. Holliday will most likely be about as valuable as Bay is now (3 WAR instead of 5.5 or whatever). That's why he'll get paid maybe twice as much.

Dave Cameron agrees with withAloe about Mike Cameron (geez) over on fangraphs. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bay-vs-cameron

[haltz]

EDIT: Eyeballing an average offensive RAA throwing out the peak and valley, Holliday is around 37 and Bay is around 35. 2 runs per year.

you really shouldn't toss out 2007 though.

[Popeye_Card]

if you go by baseball-reference's defensive metrics, Holliday appears to be a terrible defender, however I've learned that b-r's defensive metrics are almost useless, and according to UZR, Holliday is definitely a decent defender.

That was my basic point--how much do you trust UZR. It's a fine tool for informational purposes. But using it as the *major* factor between Holliday being valued as a $25MM/yr. player vs. Bay being valued as a $15MM/yr. player, I think it's worth questioning it's value, since it is still a somewhat subjective measure of defense.