- This topic has 79 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
there was hope that he would hit better last year, as well. Just because he didn’t doesn’t mean he couldn’t.
I guess you could say the same of any player that had one good season. C’mon running Fowler out there everyday must have embarrassed him as well as Mozeliak. “Hope he would hit better” never came into play Fowler was experiencing one of the greatest fall-offs that I can remember. And don’t forget that contract of his.
ps… Forsch, I know that you’ve been around the block. Heck your name would suggest that.
I’m with forsch31 on this one. People are often too quick to dismiss the vets in favor of what’s new, which sometimes can burn the team. Fwiw it can be a positive too but as we’ve seen from this very outfield, sometimes the team moves on from good players too quickly (Pham, Piscotty, etc). This isn’t a 2014 situation where you have a potential star like Taveras sitting there on the bench for a clearly lame Craig.
Players past their rookie deals are paid based on past production. Fowler got his deal because he had been a good ball player for many years and the Cards felt he would improve the team. It’s not crazy to think that he’s a better option than Thomas or Arozarena at this point (and I say that as someone who would really like to see those both starting, but I understand that’s my curiosity with the new more than hard data that says they will improve the team).
It’s the same reasoning I have for being firmly in the “don’t trade Matt Carpenter” camp. Dexter raised his wRC+ by 39 points this year. We have no idea why Carp has struggled this year (injury, swing changes/mechanics, bat slowing down, etc) and whether he won’t have a similar improvement. Would it be that surprising if he did? If so, he’d have a 123 wRC+ in 2020 and be about a 3 WAR player.
I’ll also add that my take on Fowler would be different if we had Dylan Carlson coming off a scorching campaign at Memphis and rotting on the bench in favor of a scuffling Fowler. I suspect that by late next year we may see an OF of O’Neill-Carlson-Fowler/Arozarena. It could be excellent or they could all be average or below. Hopefully it will be fun to find out.
Never judge the age of a poster by his posting name. I would venture a guess that no one has seen Rogers Hornsby or Dizzy Dean in their prime but their names have been used for posters on either this site or its prior incarnations. 😉
Ny, so you are saying that the Cardinals kept playing him last year SOLELY because of his contract? They didn’t think he would hit any better last year? Are you also saying that they were willing to lose games last year because Fowler had to play?
P.S. Fowler has had way more than “one good season”.
Brian Walton
Is anyone else tired of the same Fowler points we’ve been making for the last two years?
I am. But I really can’t believe that people think that the salary is the reason someone plays. They don’t seem to understand that a player is paid a salary based on what that player is capable of producing on the field.
gscott, you have very clearly stated that he is starting because of what he is paid. You haven’t used his statistics or any other argument on this thread. My point is that the Cardinals paid him a large salary because of the expectation that he CAN perform.
I could care less what Fowler is expected to do. I am more interested in what he actually does. We don’t get to petition MLB for more wins in the standings because our players were expected to produce more wins than they actually have.
For 2020 Fowler has been an average player. Nothing more nothing less. Like I said earlier, would one of the young guns be better than him? I think so but I don’t know for sure but I would like to find out. At a minimum I think he should be a platoon player in RF, not CF.
I am tired of talking about Fowler also but I expect we will be for the next 26 months.
I am. But I really can’t believe that people think that the salary is the reason someone plays. They don’t seem to understand that a player is paid a salary based on what that player is capable of producing on the field.
That is one of the weirdest arguments I have seen on on this board and that is saying something. Yes, I understand that the Cardinals gave Fowler an $82.5M contract because they expected him to play at a certain level. Well unless I am missing something he hasn’t played to that level in most of the three years he has been here, maybe in spurts. Therefore, according to your logic, the team should continue to play him because they feel he will start producing at the desired level just any day now. Something about that just doesn’t seem logical to me.
Players 100% absolutely play based on their salary, it happens all the time in lots of sports. The cards were for some stupid reason the Cards were 100% ok with losing games last year by keep running Fowler out there last year.
gscottar
I could care less what Fowler is expected to do. I am more interested in what he actually does.
The lineup is made out based on what Fowler is expected to do. The team can’t go back in time and change the lineup based on what he actually does in a game. If you always wait for the results before you make your argument, you will always be right. However, the team can’t make out a lineup based on the results. It has to make it out based on what it expects.
So you guys REALLY believe that the Cardinals were willing to lose more games because they HAD to play Fowler based SOLELY on his salary? If so, why did they release Holland?
think so but I don’t know for sure but I would like to find out.
At least you are willing to admit that your desire is based on emotion and not fact. It’s ok to be that way…you’re a fan and not working in the front office.
The executives and coaches have more to base decisions on than simply the whims of the fan base. For example, if Fowler had been DFA’ed last year, how would that affect future free agent prospects? Would the fan base take it out on them if he rebounded in 2019, much like it has with Tommy Pham? Are the current players likely to lose or gain motivation in a pure “how are you playing lately” system or playing time (like we saw with Matheny so many times)? That’s just three factors of probably dozens that go far beyond the simple “I’m tired of player A and want to see what player B can do, and then in a couple years what player C can do, etc” mindset of most of the fan base.
So you guys REALLY believe that the Cardinals were willing to lose more games because they HAD to play Fowler based SOLELY on his salary? If so, why did they release Holland?
One player was on a one year contract and the other is on a five year contract. Big difference.
BTW, I am not saying that Fowler is worth his $82 million contract. I think the Cardinals overpaid. I am saying that he has earned the right to start over most of the OF prospects, no matter what he is paid, based on his past performance. He has proven that he is able to produce in the major leagues. As of this time, he has not shown that he is washed up.
But he better not start over Carlson when Carlson is ready for the majors. Carlson is not ready, yet.
At least you are willing to admit that your desire is based on emotion and not fact. It’s ok to be that way…you’re a fan and not working in the front office.
The executives and coaches have more to base decisions on than simply the whims of the fan base. For example, if Fowler had been DFA’ed last year, how would that affect future free agent prospects? Would the fan base take it out on them if he rebounded in 2019, much like it has with Tommy Pham? Are the current players likely to lose or gain motivation in a pure “how are you playing lately” system or playing time (like we saw with Matheny so many times)? That’s just three factors of probably dozens that go far beyond the simple “I’m tired of player A and want to see what player B can do, and then in a couple years what player C can do, etc” mindset of most of the fan base.
People that know me well would tell you that I do not make emotional decisions. Fowler is beyond small sample size now. I think we have a pretty good idea as to what he brings to the table. I am certainly not advocating a DFA. I think he could be a decent platoon player in RF but he gets exposed in CF and gets exposed everyday in the lineup. The same could be said for a lot of players on this team which is why going with the hot hand make sense sometimes.
So where is the line drawn? Obviously, there must be some magical formula to determine that player A deserves to play based on his contract while player B can be let go despite eating a large amount of money to just go away.
The Cardinals ate $17.5 million of Mike Leake’s contract to make him go away. So they are no opposed to eating salary to make a mistake go away.
gscottar
I think he could be a decent platoon player in RF but he gets exposed in CF and gets exposed everyday in the lineup.
Fowler has started 94 of 119 games. That’s about 80%. 80 of those starts have been against a RH starting pitcher. That’s pretty close to a platoon, IMO. The problem becomes: who do they start in CF? Bader hasn’t got it done this year.
BTW, in 2018, Fowler played his last game on August 3 and played in a total of 90 games. He was paid $16.5 million. In 2019, Bader played his last game in the majors on July 28 and played in a total of 90 games. He was paid $578,300.
Does this still mean that Fowler played ONLY because of his salary? Bader made about 4% of Fowler’s salary and played in just as many games this year as Fowler did last year.
I am. But I really can’t believe that people think that the salary is the reason someone plays.
It’s called sunk cost fallacy. It’s a very real, well-documented, well-studied mistake, often made by business decision makers. In fact, millionaires and billionaires have more capacity to make this mistake than those with less resources. Emotional commitments to past investments can often lead generally smart people to foolish decisions. It’s human nature. I’m not saying this is the case with Fowler, or to what degree, but to say that no baseball executives are ever guilty of sunk cost fallacy by waiting too long to move on from a player with whom they’ve made a previous huge investment (not just $$, but time and effort also) is just wrong.
Euro, I will admit that a sunk cost will sometimes delay the realization that it is time to move on. I have never said in any of my arguments that an executive would not be guilty of it. However, to say that the ONLY reason a player is playing is due to his salary, is also wrong. The executive still believes that the player CAN be productive and that is why he is playing. It is only after the fact that it can be proven that the player wasn’t able to be productive.
Fowler has been productive this year. Therefore, the team’s faith that he would be able to turn the season around in 2018 was warranted.
Should then Carpenter play because of his contract and past performance and the hope that he will get better? How about Cecil (if we ever see him again). Same damn argument. At some point past performance peters out…. do do still play him because you have high hopes that he’ll get better. Fowler will never be what some folks here hope he will be again.
We lost games we could have won last year because the FO said that Fowler had to play. Try being realistic. If a rookie came up and played at that level (maybe you forgot how poorly Fowler played). He’d be back where he came from, tout suite. No hoping that he’d get better.
Forsch, I think your response to me is reasonable, i.e., this is a multivariate issue.
It seemed to me your comment that I quoted was taking the opposite extreme that you were debating against. I thought it did not further your main point or serve to be convincing to anyone who disagrees, i.e, it came across to me you did not believe it was possible for the sunk cost fallacy to every apply. Thanks for the explanation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.