Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 05:32 PM) Give me DOB, OBP, and SLG, K's and BB's for a hitter along with his historical numbers and I will make as reasonable a judgement on a hitter as any Sabermetrician using advanced metrics. I'm assuming since you ignored everything in my post, you're going to continue having no clue what you're talking about. Which is fine because you aren't fooling anyone.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 21, 2014 -> 02:19 PM) On paper, bet the under and the Royals. Odds are Sox will not sweep this series. It'd be nice to get seven out of Q and score a few runs off Sox killer Guthrie. What do you mean by, "on paper?"

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) I don't hate Sabremetrics. I have issues with how they are applied and the importance placed on bootleg stats. Then make an intelligent argument about which ones are misapplied and why it's wrong. You can't do that if you don't take the time to understand what they are. Like, if WAR is messed up, why? How can you even think is IS or ISN'T messed up if you don't have at least a basic understanding of linear weights? If you hate the defensive metric component, what is it about the defensive metrics that you think are wrong? Too often people think advanced metrics are wrong simply because they don't always confirm that person's per-conceived notion. And, like I said, there's NOTHING wrong with not caring enough about them to learn about them. Really. It's just impossible to have an intelligent opinion on them if you don't know about them.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) What statistics are showing these players as underrated? It varies, but generally speaking: RBI, batting average, and an incorrect assessment of the value of defense.

QUOTE (almagest @ May 21, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) There's a thread for SABR questions. Marty34 should go here to ask questions. Don't feed him anymore. He's gotten fat and bloated off troll food. You can't direct him anywhere, he refuses to read anything that may educate him on things he's already decided to hate.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 02:22 PM) He gut lucky. Sabremetricians know all about that. Lol, whooosh

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) What players have Sabremetrics discovered? I could tell you Mike Trout is an elite player. Here's a list of the first ten players I can think of who have been underrated by traditional statistics, but that sabermetrics have identified as very good (most of which have been paid accordingly): 1. Ben Zobrist 2. Brett Gardner 3. Alex Gordon 4. Michael Bourn 5. Howie Kendrick 6. Nike Napoli 7. JJ Hardy 8. Russell Martin 9. Angel Pagan 10. Andres Torres

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:53 PM) I just have to ask what people think is the long term solution at SS if Alexei is traded? We have several middle infield prospects that are good with the glove, but I don't see any that have the potential to regularly put up an OPS above .750, which is what Alexei seems to be on track for this year. When Alexei was struggling to get his OPS over .650, yes he was expendable, but I think the Sox really need to wait and see if the new Alexei is the real thing. Abreu-Eaton-Alexei and maybe Viciedo and/or AGarcia figure to be the core of this offense for several years. Finding a catcher and some left handed power (beyond this season) for LF, 1B, or DH are all this team lacks to having a really, really good lineup. Well, I can totally see Semien with a .350/.400 OBP and SLG. I don't think that's pie in the sky, but it's also not assured. Certainly we can try to see if he can do it while we wait for Anderson to take a another stab. Worst case, you give Sanchez a shot, and if s*** really hits the fan, Leury can play decent defense there. Alexxei's present value is high, but there's a lot of reason to believe he won't continue to produce at this pace, so he's harder to replace this year than next years, methinks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) Does anyone want to do the "what contending teams could seriously use an upgrade at short" exercise? I'll go on record as saying that the Yankees will be an excellent candidate for Alexei this offseason.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Has to be Carroll's that will get sent down. I would be shocked if it was anything else.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Sabermetrics is largely a gimmick. Riiiiiight. Reams of statistical studies and behavioral patterns of actual baseball front offices claim otherwise. Wait, did you just post something false? Isn't that against board regulations?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) Maybe while trying to make someone look a fool next time your saber buddy starts adding up individual WAR coming up with team win totals, you can point this out. Are you referring to witesoxfan in this thread? Because you're the only one who is trying to use adding WAR totals to win totals to make a point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 21, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) I got a laugh out of that too. WAR is the last word in baseball arguments until it's not. The only people that claim it is or is intended to be the "be all, end all" of statistics are those who don't understand what they're talking about. EDIT: Like you.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) I thought sabermetrics took care of all that for us. Didn't you tell us it will let us know if player A is better than player B far better than our eyes or traditional numbers will tell us? Yes. There is a difference between how a player is and how good player has played. From a FO perspective, you're almost always trying to predict the future, and so you're more interested in a player's true talent than his contributions that had more to do with his team and/or game situations. So, generally speaking, when evaluating players as canddates for your team, you want to use numbers that you think reflect true talent. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) If you are going to say AJPs 3 WAR season takes the Sox from 63 to 66 wins, then don't say Adam Dunn's 0.3 WAR season takes the Sox from 22 wins down to 19 or 20 without him, or WAR numbers are ridiculous. If a 3 WAR doesn't mean making a 63 win team a 66 win team, then it shouldn't be used as an argument against when someone is saying a certain player would have a bigger impact. That's all I am saying. I personally don't feel adding a 5 WAR player while dumping a 1 WAR player means 4 extra wins. All I am saying it that was used when they didn't like the argument, so when they actually like the player, perhaps they should use the same standard. Yeah I think you misunderstand my last post. Probably my fault for not being clear. Let's keep the poker analogy going: What is the value of a hand with a 2 of Clubs and a 5 of Diamonds? It's not high. If you had to choose which hand you wanted, you'd rather have, say, an Ace of diamonds and Queen of Hearts. This decision is clear and it is context neutral. The latter hand is better because it will win in more situations. This is like WAR. We can add up all Dunn's homers and singles and walks and strikeouts and tell you exactly how much better or worse that total is than anyone else's by using linear weights. It's essentially a total of likely valuations assigned to a list of actual events. His homers typically add x runs, which result in y wins. You can compare these numbers with a common denominator and find out who does the things that lead to wins more often. Now, to the actual game. The flop happens and it is a 2 of Hearts, 2 of Spades, and a 7 of Spades. All of a sudden, in the context of the game, the former hand that we agreed was worse in a context neutral environment is a much better hand now that context is introduced. You'd now choose the former hand every time because it is now way more likely to win. It has performed for you better than the latter hand did. Yet, if you have the chance to choose from the same two hands next game, you'll still choose the latter hand because it's still more likely to win for you before you have the benefit of analyzing the context in which it will play. Similarly, Adam Dunn's homers can all come at crucial parts of the game with runners on base, and all of a sudden the actual value of his contribution is much higher than the likely value that we chose from before. Adam Dunn may wins us 8 games this year through a WAR of 1.0 if all the cards fall right. And if I thought he'd be the same player next year, I'd still not think he was worth $14m, because it's not likely the cards are going to fall right again. Basically, you can't expect a context-neutral number to make sense in a context dependent environment. That doesn't make the context neutral number useless though, because most of the important decisions that have to be made are made in context-neutral environments.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2014 -> 09:04 AM) LMAO. You often use a guy's WAR and add it to the team win total to tell us what difference he would have made. You did it with AJ last year, laughing at Greg thinking he would have made more than a couple of games difference. Now, a quarter way through the season, Adam Dunn could have already made 2 or 3 games difference? At least be consistent. The good news is Dunn's production this season isn't all that much better than his production the last calendar year. He might be able to maintain it or at least come pretty close. When you don't have the benefit of choosing the situations that a guy's production happens, your best guess in wins added is WAR. The true value of those contributions is affected by context later, but you can't predict that context, so WAR represents essentially an average. Add up all the things he did, good and bad, and in the average effect of those things is his WAR and the best guess you have. It isn't the most likely outcome against the field, but of all possible individual outcomes, it is the most likely. So comparing Dunn's value in context with AJP's value out of context is apples to oranges. It's kind of the difference between the questions, "What has Dunn done for the team?" and "what would Dunn likely contribute if we added him to the team?" One can, for example, believe that Dunn has been a huge difference maker this year and simultaneously think that the right decision would have been to cut him in the previous offseason. If I bet my entire life savings on a 3/6 offsuited hand pre-flop, and end up winning on a full house, there's no question that I ended up with a great hand. But the hand was only great in context. It's s*** on average, which means it's s*** in a context neutral environment, which is all I have to go on when I decide to go all-in pre-flop.

You people are so fickle. You would have stabbed the guy just two months ago. Sox will move on from him -- if he keeps hitting this well he'll be more valuable as a trade chip. If he regresses to his normal 110ish wRC+ (which is more likely), Viciedo can keep the spot warm for Ravelo/Abreu.

Bah, just moved away or I'd be there for sure. Dayn Perry is a maniac.

1. M. Johnson 2. Davidson 3. Hawkins 4. T. Anderson 5. Danish 6. Sanchez 7. Beck 8. Ravelo 9. T. Thompson 10. Engel Our first pick this year is instantly number one, and our second pick probably slots under Anderson.

QUOTE (Bruce_Blixton @ May 20, 2014 -> 04:45 PM) My custom teams were always all Mcycles with Laser Guns, and I would always win by getting all their guys to low HP and then killing them by beaning them with pitches until they didn't have enough men to field a team and had to forfeit.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 20, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) I'm sorry but this is another time when analysis is leading to paralysis. When looking at a first baseman especially this one, it hasn't once occurred to me "gee he would be more valuable if his defense was a little better." Of course his value is tied to his hitting. If he keeps hitting like he has he will be worth mentioning in the HOF category like Pujols. If he doesn't he will most likely still be a valuable piece to a team's offense. Obviously if "he keeps hitting like he has" he'll be great, but the whole point of this was to analyze whether or not it looks like he actually can. Elite hitters with his K and BB rates are rare, the analysis is totally justified.

Yordano is legit.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 20, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) And after 46 games in 2008, they were 25-21. That's a difference of a whole 3 games. That year they won 89 games and the AL Central. Saying the White Sox are going to lose 90 games because they were at a similar point last year is a very poor, flawed argument. The Astros were 15 games below .500 at one point in 2005 and made it to the World Series. If you want to say they'll lose 90 games because of talent or the rash of injuries, I can understand that, but I will also disagree strongly with it. I don't think they'll compete, but I think it will be close enough that it's going to be difficult dealing a lot of players. I don't believe that means they won't deal anyone. Especially considering they will be getting talent BACK from the DL. Realistically, they've overacheived with Sale/Eaton/etc. gone, but those wins are in the books. It's not likely, but it ain't over yet.

Excellent article. I believe that he will improve his K/BB ratio as he matures and he will drop his liner percentage just from chance. I think his SLG will drop but his AVG/OBP will rise and we'll end up with a .265/.340/.540 guy that we love. Defensively, best case is that he gains skill as he loses quickness and remains average-ish for a while.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 16, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) Tyler Kolek = Johnathan Broxton. He looks more like Gavin Floyd to me. Mechanics-wise

QUOTE (southside hitman @ May 16, 2014 -> 11:12 AM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rticle_75655476 Mocks are coming in hot and heavy. MLB's has us getting Aiken too. Now I am convinced we won't. Mayo has Beede at 6. No one else has him earlier than the late teens.