Hi @Jocko87
Continuing the conversation, Carlos Correa did indeed fall in the Twins lap, but I personally would not call it miraculous.
https://twinsdaily.com/forums/topic/68717-what-was-the-point-of-signing-carlos-correa/?do=findComment&comment=1458277&_rid=2874
First, the Astros declined to extend Correa, choosing to show faith in Jeremy Pena instead. So, Correa went to free agency. Correa was passed over in the mad rush to sign players prior to the lockout in December 2021. The next March after the lockout, Correa signed with the Twins on a year to year deal, and bragged about getting outta here at the first opportunity (the “shopping at Dior” quote and all the rest).
(More parenthetically, there was that informal players poll this summer that showed Correa as the least popular MLB player after Jazz Chisholm, and I can see a pattern emerging.)
If I were to really go off the conspiratorial deep end, I would even suggest that when the Giants finally landed Correa for 13 years and $350 million, that San Fran had buyer’s remorse and someone in the organization said “oh Hell No” and thus the closer scrutiny and dispute around his medical records to get out from under it. Ditto with the Mets.
And here we are in the present.
How does this Correa story relate to using analytics responsibly? I see Carlos Correa’s dollar per WAR and am not impressed, that’s how. Lewis or Lee would have been better, as unimpressive as they were in 2024. When I factor in the intangibles, the Correa deal starts to look even worse to me.
Why pick on Correa or the decision to sign him? Why bring this up? I don’t know. I guess I just want to observe how two different people can look at the same data picture and in good faith see two completely different things. Which I know you know. So maybe this is just a reminder to myself.
Different people seeing things differently, a little like the dress illusion from 2015?