Eminor3rd

Wow

I bectha it's got Michelczewski

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 05:39 PM) Technically, outside of this past year, wasn't Gordon Beckham pretty close to a league average 2B (when factoring in his defense)? Slightly below average, but close? By fWAR, the answer is no. League average is right around 2 WAR. Gordon's rookie year was the only time he even eclipsed 1 WAR: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=2B

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) Sure I'm not the only one to find humor in the bizarro Coop'll Fix 'Im scenario in play here. Lol, nope. It is funny. It's not often we hear that a guy may benefit from getting away from Don Cooper.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) Makes senseand that could be true as defense is a big part of 3B so good hitters who can't play good D (carlos Lee) aren't kept at third. But I still see it as a major deficiency in WAR because it really doesn't take defense into consideration. So the best that WAR does is compare offense at the same position. No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that defense isn't factored into WAR -- it IS factored into WAR. It's just that the "positional adjustment" piece of WAR is based on offense. UZR/DRS are converted to runs saved and factored into WAR separately from total offense.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) Please!

I like the idea of a Masterson-type of guy, but he lost so much velocity, it's harder see him bouncing back.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:26 PM) I think that is deficiency in the WAR calculation then. It is not as rare to find a good defensive 2B as a good 3B. They may be equal as far as run prevention as the 2B is more instrumental in double plays as such but finding a good #B is harder. Well, the positional adjustments aren't based on defense, they're based on mean offensive value. So really what it's saying is that it's just as hard to find a good hitting 3B as it is to find a good hitting 2B, which "feels" weird because 3Bs were all like Vinny Castilla during the steroid era, but when you look around the league, seems more normal. The defensive contributions are then thrown on top, and those vary greatly because of the different types of plays each makes, as you alluded to.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) IMO, every position is important. 2B happens to be where the Sox have some depth. This is the main point.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) People keep claiming that 2B is one that is the least impactful or least important. Why? I'd like to understand the reasoning behind that because I sure don't understand it. And then I'd point out that Robinson Cano signed a 10 year, $240 million deal. I believe the Mariners overpaid, but that was a franchise that surely felt that 2B was not the least important position on the field and they almost clinched a Wild Card spot last year and are in great position to do so this year. A lot of people don't realize that the WAR positional adjustment for 2B is identical to 3B. I know a lot people don't see any value in WAR, but I do think it's interesting that the sabermetric community considers those positions equally important and the talent equally rare.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 04:03 PM) The dream is over. Eminor will go cry into his humongous pillow It's so soaked with hippopotamus tears already... :'( My profile pic is actually from when I found out we didn't sign Saltalamacchia last year. I was bawling in the river behind my apt.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 02:57 PM) I like LaRoche better. Moss has really only had 3 full seasons for various reasons with OPS at 668,859 and 772. LaRoche has many more seasons and his last 3 were 853, 735 and 817. For the next 2 years I like LaRoche better. We could have used them both, though, I think.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Meh, if we were going with a weak stick at backup C, would've preferred a good framer

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:18 AM) But I still think he'd be a big upgrade for us, and I think when we see what the Indians give up, it'll be less than we expected. See?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) That's why I think the deal will involve Rameirez if it's done. The A's need a shortstop this season. They have top SS prospects. That could make sense. Hahn could argue that we need a 3-win RHP more than we need a 3-win SS because of our respective replacement options.

I think he'd be a great buy-low guy to see if he could bounce back. We do need his skillset pretty desperately, and it would put another left handed bat down in the order to break up all the righties. I'd much rather give him a shot than play Viciedo every day.

QUOTE (Real @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) why wouldn't oakland allow a negotiation window? i just woke up, so rational thinking hasn't kicked in yet wouldn't this up the value to their team by netting them more/better players in return? I have no inside info (obviously), but I'm guessing they aren't granting a window because they don't think he'll sign and they don't want their deal to be contingent on something that isn't likely to happen and is out of their control.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) Is there a scenario where Beane "gets something rather than loses him for nothing at the end of the year" and acquires another pitcher by another means? Yeah, I think that's what he'll probably do regardless. But when you look at our system, it seems like it's either Anderson or an underpay, IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) I can't come up with parameters of any deal that makes sense for the White Sox to my eyes unless Samardzija gives the White Sox a large hometown discount that he wouldn't give the Cubs. Otherwise, moving anyone of even minor value from the White Sox's system for Samardzija seems silly to me and a much worse option than going and spending that huge, 9 figure money on someone like Shields or Scherzer. This is what I think, too. I just can't see this deal happening without it being nonsensical for one of the two sides. Either we give up way too much for a short term gain, or the A's take way too little for a good #2 starter.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:37 AM) Only he's not Papelbon and we have seen how a closer by committee works along with trying to find an in house one. You say "closer by committee" like that was actually the plan, but it never is. That's a term that gets thrown around when the bullpen sucks and the manager can't consistently go to anyone to hold a lead at the end of the game. If there's ever a "committee," it means something has already gone horribly wrong. Just because we don't have a $50m commitment to a reliever doesn't mean we can't have a closer.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 07:05 AM) If they are willing to go $9+ mill on a closer, I thimk that means they are willing to let the payroll go to about $115 mill I would certainly hope so. Or at least they had better make sure it goes high enough to accommodate a LF and a mid-rotation starter. I'd have a lot of trouble getting down with the Sox giving out a Papelbon contract.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 09:21 PM) I fully understand McCracken's interpretation and have read plenty on it. And despite that I still choose not to put heavy stock into FIP. What I think you're not understanding is that isn't NOT fact, it's merely 1 man's interpretation that gained traction. As you said, there is no way to factor in pitcher's influence...yet. Will you honestly be surprised if FIP is irrelevant in 5 years? Look, if the stat works for you then go ahead and use, I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. All I'm saying is that a stat that interprets the skill of keeping hitters off balance and missing the barrel of the bat as "luck" or "random" isn't for me. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. The last line just isn't correct, and I think that's what I'm having trouble with. It doesn't claim or "interpret" that as luck -- it just can't isolate the effect so it isn't included. But nothing else can isolate the effect either. The "fact" part of the situation is that, even without being able to factor the "off-balance-ness" in, it's still mathematically more stable and a better predictor of future performance, so it's an objectively better tool for player evaluation than anything else out there right now. And so that's why most people put more stock in FIP-based WAR than they do in ERA-based WAR. And that's the argument that Quintana was better than Hamels last year. When I'm saying it is "factually" the best, I'm not making any sort of claim based on philosophy or comfort or intuition, and I'm not saying that its assumptions are infallible, I'm just saying it provides the most accurate results right now. That's what the studies have shown. Basically, FIP based WAR is more accurate because it strips away factors that don't belong to the pitcher, but is an incomplete model because it also strips away the ability to limit or allow hard contact. bWAR is a complete model which catches everything, but it is an inaccurate one because it gives the pitcher credit for things he cannot control. Mentally, we have to make concessions when using both, such as "yeah well he played in front of a crappy defense" or "yeah, but he's shown a consistent ability to repress homeruns throughout his career" and make the appropriate subjective adjustment in our valuations. But at the end of the day, the one that does a better job predicting future outcomes is the more useful one, and that is currently FIP-based WAR. You're right though, that it almost certainly won't be in five years.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 07:12 PM) You saying that things are fact doesn't make it so....hate to break this news to you. Of course not. The decade and a half of research that is freely available for you and anyone else to read, though, DOES make it fact. I'm just telling you what I've read. My opinion has nothing to do with it. I mean, if you're interested in this stuff, I can point out some stuff for you to read so you can see it for yourself. I know that some random dude just SAYING something is true isn't convincing, but you can look and scrutinize these studies yourself and see how it works and that it's real. I don't have any reason to lie to you, I have no vested interest in making sure Voros McCracken's legacy lives on. I'd change my tune TOMORROW if some new study came out that proved all of this wrong.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) Try reading the exchange again....he bolded a specific part of my post and then said that there is "actual data" saying that a pitcher doesn't have any affect on the type of contact a hitter makes, and I informed him that there isn't data that confirms anything. Something you yourself have stated. So maybe you should brush up on your own reading skills before you question mine. I've read every word you've said, and I respect your opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You keep stating your opinion as if its fact. FIP isn't nearly as widely accepted as you're making it out to be. There are tons of people and tons of articles that question FIP. If it works for you, and you want to you use it that's fine, but don't act like I'm wrong and you're right just because I don't agree with your view. The fact that people question FIP and that there are imperfections in FIP does NOT mean it still isn't the most accurate model we have to isolate pitcher performance from the "noise" of defense and randomness. That is a fact, not my opinion. It's not really something that can be "disagreed with" unless you want to argue that all of the research is fake. And that's exactly why FIP IS as widely accepted as I'm making it out to be -- because it works better than anything else, even if we know there's a better mousetrap that will hopefully eventually be built.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Did you even bother to read the post I responded to? shysocks's? Yes. He's saying that studies have shown FIP to be more accurate, despite its flaws. That's really the crux of the argument. I think that if you were to argue against it, you'd need data showing that bWAR/ERA is a better true talent estimator, not simply data showing FIP as imperfect.