Eminor3rd

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 01:03 PM) No there's not. It's an interpretation, there's no tangible evidence either way. I've already posted 2 articles in this thread with supporting evidence that contradicts what FIP says about the pitchers influence on contact. We'll agree to disagree on this because I'm honestly tired of arguing about it at this point. I don't think you're reading what people are writing. Are my posts too long? Serious question No one thinks that FIP is complete. Everyone knows there's an element of soft/hard contact that no one has been able to isolate from any model. Those articles you're linking are attempts to try to find what's missing and add it to the model. But FIP is mathematically a better estimator of future performance than is ERA. The truth is in the middle of the two, but it's closer to FIP, and so FIP is better. There's more research to be done, but until the next breakthrough, fWAR is a better indicator of true talent pitcher performance than bWAR. To put it another way: You're bringing up gaps in the model that everyone agrees are there, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the best model we have right now.

I like the idea of Melky in a vacuum, but to pay free agent price for a good-not-great LF seems (at this point) like a poor use of limited resources, because the team is still so short on pitching and still so mediocre in other positions. It seems like if we're going to spend that much cash, we need to get a major upgrade, or, alternatively, we need to make a Melky-sized upgrade without spending that much cash.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) Jamie Moyer 1996- 3.98 ERA and a 4.95 FIP 2001- 3.43 ERA and a 4.17 FIP 2002- 3.32 ERA and a 4.03 FIP 2003- 3.27 ERA and a 4.01 FIP 2008- 3.71 ERA and a 4.32 FIP Basically a huge part of Jamie Moyer's success is considered "lucky" according to FIP was my point. Look at Garland's '05 season for a point of reference...4.24 FIP and a 3.5 ERA. Now was he lucky that year or maybe was he perhaps spotting his sinker well and inducing weak ground ball outs? Either way I can assure you that it wasn't Juan Uribe's fantastic defense at SS that made him good that year. So you picked 5 non-consecutive years out of a 25+ year career where those numbers didn't align, and you call that evidence that the system is wrong? Because that seems like evidence that the system is right. What I was trying to explain was that we currently do not know how much of any given pitcher's success or failure can be attributed to luck/good defense specifically, but we CAN tell you how much of it came from the pitcher -- with one notable exception, which is the effect of limiting hard contact. But that factor appears to vary from year to year across every pitcher's career (which you illustrated nicely with the Moyer example), which makes it not predictable, which implies either that it isn't a skill that pitchers can control or that it doesn't make enough difference to ensure sustained success or failure. As wite said, NO one thinks that limiting hard contact isn't a factor, but none of the numbers in existence currently capture it, and FIP is closer to the truth than ERA. Time will give us an even better model if we're patient.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) I don't think any of it is dumb luck, that was sarcasm. Jamie Moyer was a magician who got guys to swing at pitches they couldn't hit hard. That's what made him good, same with Buehrle. There is an art to throwing pitches in spots guys can't square up and even more so to getting guys to swing out in front of the ball by changing speeds. You can't just dismiss these things as luck when there is an actual skill to it. Roy Halladay is another pitcher who has some crazy ERA/FIP years because he's a guy that often pitched to contact. My overall point is that the stat is flawed and it, along with most sabermetric stats, should be used as part of the picture, not the entire thing. Such as Jose Quintana was not better than Cole Hamels last year just because his FIP was better. Then make a case that Hamels was better. You say it should only be "part of the picture," yet you're making the exact same type of absolute claim the opposite direction, with less evidence to back it up.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:51 PM) You can give them Johnson without giving them Semien. That's what condoms are for. Ha. Oh man...

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) So you're telling me that you honestly don't believe a pitcher has a lot of control over what kind of contact a batter makes? Basically, studies have shown that if you document and classify all the "types of contact" a batter makes, in terms of how hard it is, where it falls, etc., there is little to correlation year over year. So if a guy has an awesome season where no one made "good contact," it isn't likely to carry over. It is concluded that if there is skill that plays into HR/FB rate, for example, then pitchers would either be consistently good or consistently bad at it. But they aren't. It goes all over the place, and so whether the cause is luck or focus or anything else, it isn't a reliable predictor of itself, and so it is treated as randomness. Again, that doesn't mean it IS random, but that it cannot be predicted and thus cannot be controlled, so for the purposes of evaluating a player's performance going forward, it isn't considered something that should be credited. (I should clarify that GB and FB rates ARE fairly predictive and can be used to make inferences to BABIP and regressed HR/FB rate, which is where ERA predictors like xFIP come along, but that's a whole different discussion) There are a few exceptions to this at any given time -- guys that have seemingly defied the DIPS model for several years, either positively or negatively -- but it almost always seems to come crashing down eventually. It's tough (impossible) sometimes to tell whether that's simply the "luck" regressing as we predicted or if it's related to the pitcher changing by either losing stuff or changing pitch mix or whatever. I think that the newest technological tools that are coming out are going to shed a ton of light on the "black box" of good/bad contact for pitchers by giving us ball velocities/trajectories/spin rates that we can attach to different pitches and situations. I think that at some point, these measurements are going to lead us to being able to quantify a pitcher's ability to limit hard contact. But, any attempt we'd make now would simply be a wild, intuitive guess, and that's a silly way to make an argument and a sillier way to make a multi-million dollar investment. For now, the DIPS model is, objectively, the most accurate way we have to isolate a pitcher's performance from the other things that affect whether a guy is out or not. And it wasn't created based on someone's ideas of what should be important, it was created by performing studies to see which factors are actually stable/predictive. So that is the lense through which you can look and see Quintana as better than (or at least as good as) Cole Hamels. When you factor age, Quintana clearly comes out as the more valuable asset going forward.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) NO GIVE THEM SANCHEZ OR JOHNSON, NOT MY SEMIEN (this does not read well out of context) Haha. Micah Johnson and some unknown live arms for Brandon Moss. Would you do that? I think I would.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) In Blengino's article yesterday about Donaldson, he made a really interesting point when talking about Felix: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/some-belate...donaldson-deal/ Where I am going with that is basically that I think elite prospects, which we can safely assume Montas is at least on the precipice of being if not already there, are even MORE valuable then their semi-less talented contemporaries based solely on that talent alone due to the roster crunch. Given that, I think you want to save that added value to trade him for an elite or semi-elite player, and I don't think we can safe Moss is that at this point in his career. I'd definitely give up some prospects for him, just not sure what yet, but I don't know that I'd give up anyone in the top 10. Maybe Beck/Bassitt and Ravelo? Not a lot, but they're legitimate prospects and should be MLB contributors even as soon as this season. I actually had that quotation in mind when I was thinking about what Moss might cost, haha. That was the only part of the article that stuck with me. Here's the other thing: forget about Montas. I bet that a big part of what the Indians send is a MI of some type, probably close to the MLB if not ready to take a shot. They're not giving up Lindor, so whoever they give up should theoretically be in the neighborhood, value-wise, of our own glut of 2B/SS types. I know you love Semien, but that sounds like a reasonable piece from us.

Dave Cameron has written a ton about this type of system, and is on record claiming that a tandem/multi-use system is where pitching will go in the long run. That said, he also clearly brings up the point that moving to this sort of system is a massive undertaking that has to take place from the bottom of the minors up to the Majors, and represents a severe issue when trading or acquiring players that are changing systems.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) I don't know that this is necessarily a good reason to trade him for Brandon Moss though. I think, given the helium in Montas's stock over the past 15 months, you want to capitalize on his ceiling as a starting pitcher rather than his projection as a reliever. I don't think you want to trade him unless it's for an elite or semi-elite kind of player, and I'm not sure that Moss fits that level. I'd have no problem dealing a couple legitimately decent prospects for him because he'd be a nice left handed bat in the middle of the lineup, but Montas seems a bit much at this point. Yeah I mean I'm not like EAGER to trade Montas for Moss, just saying that would be my ceiling. Also I have to admit that now that I'm less drunk, I don't like Moss QUITE as much. 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.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) FIP probably overrated Quintana last year, his HR/FB rate screams fluke Absolutely. That's going up this year. But if that means he was a flat 3 ERA, that's phenomenal.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) I think it's absolutely true that Hamel would be in more demand and don't think it's all that close. People like to use WAR as a standard and Hamels almost doubled Quintana's, 6.6 to 3.5, last year, and has been a 4+ WAR 6 of the past 7 years. Plus, Hamels is just a better pitcher. Q is good. He's just not at Hamels past or present level, yet. There's nothing wrong with that. Not too many pitchers are at that level. Industry consensus is pretty strong that fWAR is a better model for pitchers than is bWAR (which is what you're referencing). Quintana had 5.3 fWAR last year to Hamels' 3.8. The truth is in the middle, but most people believe it's much closer to fWAR. The gist of the difference is that a much larger amount of Hamels' success came from the ball being fielded by his defenders (which is assumed to be a combination of good fielding and lucky batted ball placement) and a presumedly unsustainably high strand rate that was much higher than both his career rates and league average. If you wanted to argue that Hamels deserves more credit, you'd have to make the argument that he is able to control the type of contact he allows (making it weak and/or making it go where he wants it to go) to a degree that very few, if any, pitchers have shown a consistent ability to be able to do. Most people believe that there IS a factor of this "weak contact" that exists, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's a strong enough effect to warrant the type of WAR evaluation that Baseball Reference uses. Basically, Hamels had a better year by the things that batters and fielders have the most control over, but Quintana had a better year by the things that pitchers have most control over (strikeouts, walks, homers). Most people believe that Quintana's brand of success is much closer to "true talent" success and, therefore, is more likely to continue going forward.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:52 AM) Put them both on the open market and Hamel's is going to get the better contract and be more in demand. Part of Q's value is tied to his team friendly contract. There's just no way that is true. Quintana is going into his age 26 season, Hamels is going into his age 31 season.

Age is also a factor. Quintana is SO good.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 08:35 PM) He was awful the second half this season. Next Dunn?lol Fortunately, half season splits have been exhaustively shown not to be predictive. QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:39 PM) You're going to give up one of the top pitching prospects in the system who projects as both a solid starter and closer for a stop gap LF? That's a bad move. I'm not sure how you see him as a stopgap. Is it because he only has two years of control? He would be a substantial upgrade to our lineup at a very affordable rate. He adds two wins over Viciedo, easily. Assuming he doesn't come with chronic health issues. Also, I believe pretty strongly that Montas is going to be a reliever. I like the idea of selling him at his peak value, when there's still a chance of him sticking at starter.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:06 AM) Please explain to me why Hamels is so much better than Q and you can't use stats cause those aren't your own words. lol

There, I said it. He's a perfect fit for our LF vacancy, and we still need a left handed bat, and he's still got two-years of control pre-free agency. I feel like we could get him without touching the top tier of our prospects. I would give Montas for him if I had to, though I'd try to aim lower. Anyone think there's any chance we're the #mysteryteam? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...;position=1B/OF

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 06:52 PM) Is Hamels' contract really huge in relative terms? 4 years 90 million is going to look dirt cheap to trade for after what Lester and Scherzer get as free agents. Hamels is a top 10 pitcher in baseball....Q is very good, but he's not on Hamels' level What? How do you figure?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) White Sox TV ratings are also among the lowest in baseball. 4 times as many people watch the Tigers on local TV than the White Sox. Half of MLB is #1 or #2 or #3 in local ratings when they are on in prime time. The White Sox rank #11th. To me, that is a much better argument for an unsupportive fanbase than the attendance numbers.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:39 AM) Quintana being nothing more than an honorable mention is puzzling to me, and a big miss on Keri's part. Same. Cameron nailed Quintana, i thought, on his. But there's just no way I can fathom Cole Hamels being more valuable than Quintana in a trade.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:07 AM) Probably 20. But that's not the reason I gave up my season tickets after a decade. Going to a game is pricey and sometimes annoying as hell. You will drop 50 bucks on food and beer at least these days and the game experience is ok for the price. However, sitting in front of my or a bars giant HD TV is sometimes just as nice if not better. And it's not like the Sox don't get paid a lot for their TV rights for this specific reason. And as long as people continue to prefer to watch that way, the compensation the Sox receive will continue to rise.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:31 AM) Reading an Andrew Miller speculation article, it was mentioned that the record contract for a non-closing reliever is held by Jeremy Affeldt at only 3 years $18 million. With Miller's new salary hitting the $40 million range, it's crazy to think how much more expensive it is nowadays just to acquire bullpen arms. Part of is inflation, but part of it is that the makeup of the bullpen is different than it used to be. Harold Reynolds can pay it as much lip service as he wants, it doesn't change the fact that GMs see greater value in leveraging splits/matchups with a diverse bullpen of specialists.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 09:12 PM) Their attendance has plummeted so much, there have been 4 seasons the White Sox drew more than the 2014 Cubs. 1991,1992,2006,2007. Think aboit it, no White Sox playoff team has ever outdrawn the 2014 Cubs. White Sox fans as a whole, suck. They always have some excuse. In 2012, the line was they didn't go to games when they were in first place for a few momths because they "knew" they would fall apart. I don't understand why anyone is surprised at this attendance disparity, lol. The north side of Chicago is a f***ing treat. It's a fantastic place to live and hang out. The South side of Chicago is the butt of all of America's murder jokes. The best argument anyone has to live in Bridgeport is "it's cheap" and "it's really not that bad anymore." People have way more money up north, they have way less money down south. There are cheaper, more effective, more convenient ways to follow the team. The Cell is a f***ing bore. There's nothing to see. Even if there was, they don't let you on the main concourse unless you have a ticket in the bottom bowl, lol. There's hardly even anything to buy in the team store. It's the worst team store of any major league sport I've ever seen. It's not 1965 where you had to either go to the game or listen on the radio. You can follow the action ten times better on the TV, and it's cheaper too! If you want people to spend $50 to come somewhere, you have to make that place worth $50 to go to. The Cubs have an entire neighborhood filled with dozens of bars, restaurants, dance clubs, and trendy retail amongst a culture of attractive, affluent people. The Sox have a f***ing highway and a huge parking lot. Oh, and Bacardi at the Park, lol. Is that even still open?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:59 PM) It is. It absolutely is. Cub fans go to games, when Sox fans won't. That is completely different. And Cubs attendance last year after something like six straight losing seasons is still higher than Sox attendance in every other year but 2 in their entire history. It even went up a tiny bit last year. And they are now reaping the benefits by getting to go after literally any free agent they want to go after. It's because it's fun to go to games there. It's easy to get there, you can hang out all day. Winning is only a component of what makes it fun to show up. When I lived in Chicago, I would go to 4-5 games per year, whether they were garbage or not. They could go undefeated and I'd still got o 4-5 games per year. Why? Because it's generally a lot more fun for me to watch them on TV ~100 games a year. Am I a bad fan? I'm consuming their product via a channel they made available to me which they get paid handsomely for. If they want me to choose a different way to consume the game, they need to make that way more attractive. And then they also have to deal with lesser revenues from the incumbent way. It's the same challenge every team faces.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:27 PM) This is exactly why the Cubs were able to do the rebuild they have done, and why we can't. We have to spend all of our revenues on major league players, because our fans don't have the patience to wait on prospects. Kenny Williams was the perfect GM for White Sox fans. No, Cubs fans go to games because it's a social event. It's a completely different situation. If you've spent any time in Bridgeport and Wrigleyville, it's very easy to see that. Also, Cubs attendance has declined substantially over the past few years.