Dam8610

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Feb 26, 2018 -> 04:54 PM) Recovery from this type of injury is good. Six months and he will be back on the field That's late August. Could potentially catch the end of a minor league season and play fall/winter ball and not even lose much development time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 24, 2018 -> 10:39 AM) Yes. I edited my post, when I realized it. Still, if makes sense if 2019 is the year you expect to start contending. If not then the opt out after year 2would be a deal breaker, the fact remains that there are terms where this makes a lot of sense to the White Sox. I don’t think it will get that far, but like the White Sox actually signing Manny Machado, chances aren’t zero. Where did anyone get the idea that 2019 was part of the window? The only way this team is even competing for a WC spot in 2019 is with a mega signing like Machado, which is why signing Moustakas now makes no sense.

QUOTE (GenericUserName @ Feb 24, 2018 -> 10:29 AM) Is adding the cutter an organizational thing that they do in the minors too or is that just a Coop thing for the big league guys? I'm not sure and I think I've seen them add a cutter to a pitcher both in MLB and in the minors. So...yes?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 23, 2018 -> 11:13 PM) Ulnar Collateral Ligament Sprain. This type of sprain most commonly occurs in throwing activities. The injury is characterized by the insidious onset of vague medial elbow pain that becomes worse with activity. The pain is typically relieved with rest but returns on resumption of throwing at over 70 percent of normal velocity. An ulnar collateral ligament sprain can be demonstrated by pain or instability on valgus stress testing. Radiographs may show loose bodies, traction spurs or heterotropic ossification of the ligament itself. MRI can identify partial and complete tears, but this study is not usually necessary. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0201/p691.html From everything you can find online, it looks like a combination of 2-4 months of rest and rehab. Basically, he would miss three out of five months of the minor league season (end of June/early July return), then could theoretically play in the AFL or winter ball. Otherwise, out for a full season but possibly with a stronger elbow upon return...1 1/2 years down the line. Since a lot of his value comes from his arm and power, it’s a pretty important decision. Keston Hiura just had this injury and DH'd through it. Why can't Micker do the same? That way he doesn't entirely lose the development time.

QUOTE (GermanSock @ Feb 24, 2018 -> 01:24 AM) I'm a believer in Giolito's curve and also the slider but not sure I believe into his fastball. Maybe he can get it back into the mid 90s which would be good but they still say it is a flat pitch without a ton of movement. I think at 94 it is ok even if not really good but at 91 it could be really batting practice. Maybe he can be a pitcher type like kluber who also doesn't have a good FB but uses a great curve like a third of the time (although kluber does have a pretty solid cutter he uses as his second fastball). Maybe something like 40% FB 20% slider, 25% curve, 15% change can work for him. The White Sox add cutters to most pitchers' repertoires. If Giolito needs a cutter, Coop will add it. If that turns him into Kluber or something similar, that's one less problem for the rebuild.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 05:39 PM) If you draft Madrigal, where do you slot him eventually? Normally I wouldn’t ask the question, but he should come relatively quick. I'd have him playing SS all the way up to the bigs (unless he just really shows he can't hack the position defensively) and start him there if he forces the issue. I don't see Anderson as a long term lock at SS, so if Madrigal comes in and destroys pitching while playing a good SS all the way up, trade Anderson if necessary, or make him your UTIL, his contract is okay for that. Regardless, never turn down an all-star bat that can play SS defense.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 12:54 PM) That means that all AL teams didn't claim him, right? That rule only applies in season I believe.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 02:00 PM) Heres' where I got it. 107 is Yolmer Sanchez. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d He's right, Moustakas is the 62nd best hitter by wRC+.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 01:52 PM) You wait a year? Yes. Competing in 2019 is a year early unless they sign Machado. To make the rebuild work, the team is going to need to have patience and strike on the right opportunities. Signing Donaldson is a panic move for a win now team that lost out on Machado. Signing Arenado is reallocating the money you had for Machado who you lost out on to another "face of the franchise" type player who also happens to play 3B. If the team is patient and operates similarly to how the Astros have, they'll have quite possibly the best team in baseball in the early 2020s. If they squander opportunities and panic away their budget, we'll be looking at trying to recreate the 2016/2017 off-season again by the end of 2022.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 10:33 AM) A lot of other stuff would go into a Machado signing. The PR alone is probably worth something. But they have to be realistic. It isn't like they will be up against the Padres and Braves to sign him. It's going to be the big guys. And it may even be a team that loses out on Harper thinking well we did allocate these funds, why don't we just add him, and make him fit on their team. I know the White Sox are not operating like they used to. But I still fail to see how anyone can be optimistic about their chances of signing him. And then you move on to Donaldson, who is a heck of a player, but will be older, more expensive, and does have some personality issues. If Moustakas' price drops to where it makes sense to have him on the roster for a worthless season, you can re-allocate all that money on other, sure to be there, holes. If you strike out on Machado you move on to Arenado, not Donaldson.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 09:52 PM) Moustakas sounds like a good addition. You'd have an infield ready for contending status in Moustakas, Anderson, Moncada and Abreu. Then you can trade Burger/Davidson if you want. Or let Davidson DH. Folks, I really don't see why the Sox didn't target a good closer this offseason. Nate coulda been setup with Soria the third reliever. We're not that far from contention in a horrible division, folks. But nobody agrees with me. I'd say sign Mous. Moustakas is a stopgap that would take playing time from a young player who put up a 2 WAR season last year on a rebuilding team. It just makes zero sense to sign him unless you're doing it for 2020, and there are two much more attractive 3B options hitting the market between now and then.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 01:18 PM) This whole "criminals don't follow the laws anyway" argument is a red herring. Yes, because, by that logic, why have any laws? Murderers, Rapists, assaulters, batterers, drug dealers, thieves, fraudsters, embezzlers, conspirators, etc. don't follow the law by definition, because we've made those things crimes. If we're not going to have a law about a thing just because people will do it anyway, why have laws at all?

If the Yankees don't want Andujar, I wouldn't mind him coming to the Sox. This move makes some sense for the DBacks and Rays, but why did the Yankees do this?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 04:56 PM) It is zero if you don’t try. And signing him probably takes you out of Machado, but if you were really in on Machado, everyone else except Harper is still on the table. If they sign Moustakas, they will be signaling to us that they're never going to do what it takes to have a legitimate, consistent contender, rather than lightning in a bottle and hope, which was their strategy for most of the 2010s. Getting one of Machado or Arenado is not just a boost to the team, it's a statement to the fans and the league that this franchise is ready to do what it takes to compete and hang with the Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, Cubs, et al. Signing Moustakas would be a slap in the face to everyone who supported the idea of a rebuild.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 04:48 PM) I for one, am not asserting that the Sox "can't afford" to sign a free agent, who would complete the rebuild. However, if they are going to spend the kind of money required to sign Machado, I'd prefer B. Harper, who would provide that middle of the order, LH bat, along with a much better OBP. I'd like Harper, too, but he's going to cost Machado + Allen (+ Miller?) money, not just Machado money, and he plays a position the team is already very deep at, whereas Machado is a 3B, and the org has maybe 1 of those in A ball.

QUOTE (iWin4Ron @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 04:13 PM) Why do you say that? The argument would be: There's no chance of us signing Machado for $$$$$$$$$$$$$, and Donaldson vs. Mike Mous is iffy due to age + Donaldson would command much more $$$. If the White Sox can't afford the type of free agents that will actually supplement this rebuild, they might as well just give up now and say they're not planning on competing in the foreseeable future.

Those projections on stats seems more like a 65 win team to me. That said, they're low on everyone on the team IMO.

One thing that article points out to me is the systemic biases projection systems have. First and foremost, the ERA-FIP spreads are almost non-existent in the projections, which almost never happens. Then, it projects each young pitcher to perform poorly and worse than last year. This is likely due to the lack of data on them (objects with less observed data are tougher to predict because of the lack of data) and filling in with averages of some sort. People tend to take these projection systems very seriously, and I don't understand why. They're typically a conservative prediction of future performance based on past data. This will inherently make predicting positive development and breakouts of young stars nearly impossible. So why would anyone take what ZiPS or Steamer has to say about anyone who's been in the league for less than 3 seasons seriously?

Isn't draft pick compensation for a contract over $50 million?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2018 -> 02:42 PM) Ah, I see. Have you read up on "win curve" research? https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/rethinking-the-win-curve/ https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/win-curves-...player-pricing/ http://grantland.com/the-triangle/what-is-...n-curve-anyway/ That first article is fascinating, and solved the surplus value issue I was having, though with a HUGE level of uncertainty to it. I think what the information in that article would address is the team variance component of the matter. But there are still other factors at play, I think, in coming up with a value for WAR. When a team has a prospect develop into a superstar, for example, that commodity is valuable and will be a big draw whether the team was projected to win 60, 80, or 100 games without that player. Obviously of those three, that development would affect the projected 80 win team the most, but the other two would still likely get a boost from it (the 100 win team likely minimally due to the law of diminishing marginal utility). I still think the intrinsic value of WAR is nonlinear, this research strongly suggests team win projection as a dependent variable, individual player value seems to also be a fairly obvious dependent variable...it seems like further research is likely the most productive next step.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2018 -> 08:19 AM) Two things to add: 1) $/WAR is constantly misused; its only purpose is as a descriptive statistic that refers to what the free agent market is actually paying per WAR in a given time frame. It is not intended to, nor was it ever intended to, nor has anyone ever made an argument that it should or could be used to claim what WAR should be worth in dollars. They sound like the same thing, but they aren't because half or more of all WAR is tied up in non-free agent eligible players, so the economics break down entirely. 2) The linearity of WAR value was a hot topic many years go. Essentially, "is a 4 WAR player worth more, less, or the same as two 2 WAR players?" There are a ton of really attractive hypotheses and logical reasons to think one way or the other, but studies occurred, and everyone concluded that despite what seems like it makes sense, WAR IS essentially linear. I cannot tell you why, as it's been a long time since I've read anything on it, but know that it has been studied and consensus reached. 1) This is what I learned from this exercise, that the "surplus value" Fangraphs publishes measures a different thing than what I'm looking to measure, namely, as you put it, what WAR should be worth, essentially the intrinsic value of WAR. Since figuring out the difference, I've been thinking of ways to attempt to measure and quantify this. If I come up with anything, I'll share the results. 2) For market valuation purposes, I totally understand why that conclusion makes sense. It's because teams will replace a star player with several quality players, hoping that works in their favor. That is what makes the market value of WAR linear. That said, I feel that the intrinsic value is likely nonlinear. I'm certain, for example, the incremental WAR that puts a team in the postseason is more valuable than most, as is the one that wins a divisional championship, as is the one that provides home field advantage throughout the playoffs. The question then becomes how to quantify and measure this? I don't think I have the answer to that question, nor do I think anyone does at this time.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 17, 2018 -> 11:57 PM) https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/blac...d-race-fantasy/ http://time.com/black-panther/ Counterpoint Having now watched the movie, it‘s impossible to discuss it purely from a cinematic perspective. For all the positive images and hopefulness, there's the fact that it’s glossing over a lot of the real world problems like gangs, access to quality education/digital divide, drugs, cyclical poverty, single parent upbringing, unemployment, etc. Of course, super hero movies are made to help us escape reality...to uplift, entertain and inspire. In that sense, it largely succeeds. While ultimately an action-adventure, Black Panther also serves as an intelligent if broad debate between revolutionary rhetoric and the responsibilities of leadership. That said, it’s also the first movie with basically an all-black cast made for mainstream America since Roots, and that is progress in and of itself. And surely a good number of viewers will enjoy rooting for Michael B. Jordan (and his perspective, not unlike Malcolm X pre-1965) to win. That’s kind of cool, too. I don't know if that's your assessment or the article's, but I have to disagree with the point that they "glossed over" those things. Spoilers below:

He likes to create strawmen and then "destroy" them. See it in his YouTube videos, saw it in his debate with Cenk Uygur, see it in clips that I occasionally run across on Facebook. He typically will take an argument that someone makes, extend it well beyond the bounds of logic, using only his viewpoint as a basis for that extension, and then, based on his extension of the argument, he chides the original viewpoint as ridiculous. The biggest problem with trying to debate him is that once you've made an argument and he's gone off on his tangent, he refuses to accept anyone disagreeing with any of the myriad of additional premises he places in his counterargument.

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 01:16 PM) You are misinterpreting what that means. When they say difficulty of position they referring to scarcity (the lack of quality defensive and offensive players) and the amount remains fluid. Say for example all of sudden the market gets flooded with catchers who are hitting .900 the amount of runs added to the positional adjustment would change. You can read more here: https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wa..._position.shtml CTRL + F : Rpos, Positional Adjustment Runs As far as the rest goes I can't disprove your theory mainly because I don't want to do the work for an internet argument. You are just going to have to put two and two together from the numbers I posted earlier. Like I said there were 135 players who had 2 WAR or less with 300 PA. 89 with 1 WAR or less. That is without going into starting pitching. There are certainly outliers of teams with relatively full lineups the Yankees situation comes to mind but for the vast majority of teams when you look at their lineups they'd be better off with using the cheaper $/WAR figure I provided earlier on two three players rather then overspending on a single elite FA. That's before even getting into the weeds of regression and length We're saying the same thing on the "difficulty" concept, just looking at it different ways. You're saying the positional adjustment is based on scarcity of quality hitters at the position, whereas I'm saying that teams are willing to put up with poorer hitters at those positions because they're harder to play defensively. It's a philosophical difference of source that leads to the same conclusion that defensive adjustments are (and should be) made based on the difficulty of the position. I can understand your point about an influx of .900 OPS catchers, my argument is the likelihood of that happening is nearly zero because catcher is a hard position to play good defense. Apparently, this is also a point of contention between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference, as well. ETA: My argument is not and was never about the market price of WAR. Based on the example I gave in my original post, it's clear that I agree with you on what the common practice of teams is when trying to replace a player, and how they might be best served. The point I'm actually trying to discern is what the VALUE of WAR is, not the market price. I'd also contend that without a true value of WAR, you can't really know what the surplus value of a contract is, just how well you negotiated a contract relative to the market. That's a good thing for GMs to know, but I don't think it provides much information beyond that, and certainly not the information it purports to provide.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 10:13 AM) So couple thoughts: I don't think people are paying on a linear $/WAR basis. I think that number is largely shorthand and also recall it is backed into, it's an average. Two examples: Wellington Castillo was worth 2.1 WAR last year at a scarce position. Making 8mill/year. That's only 4 mill/WAR, half the 8. Cashner just got the same deal. K, probably unlikely to get the 4 bWAR season again, honestly he's likely to get 0, but he got 8 million. Darvish, let's pencil him in for 3 WAR and say last year was aberration. He is getting 7 mill / WAR. Lorenzo Cain! Okay so maybe project less than 5 WAR, let's go 4. He's getting? $4 mill/WAR. So anyway my point is, I agree that the "surplus value" stuff for trades is frivilous because it's based on a backed into number that isn't that illustrative. But it's a model and there is some consistency, so it's better than nothing. However, I also just brought up the above because I don't think teams actually do use $/WAR linearly. And I think pitchers and position players are valued different on a $/WAR basis. In heart of hearts, I see pitchers viewed closer to 6-7 mill /WAR and position players $4 mil/WAR, with hitters seeing that escalator when you hit a predictive 3 WAR and above. Maybe they are predicting both Castillo and Cashner are 1 WAR players in each year, and thus their contract, but I doubt it. Now, Carlos Santana got 20 mill a year, and is a more likely 3.5 WAR player. He got 5.7 mill/WAR. Incremental improvement. Darvish It is backed into using the actual data to determine what teams are actually paying per WAR, which makes the "surplus value" they present nothing more than an indexing stat like OPS+, ERA+, wRC+, etc. because the data of each contract is in the average they calculate. It says nothing about the actual value of WAR, just what teams are paying for it. Any good business makes more off of their product than what they pay for it, though.