Eminor3rd

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ May 7, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) It depends who their options are at #3. If they refuse to take a HS pitcher, I am not sure that anyone in that area is any less of a risk than an injured Hoffman. There are plenty of guys with mid-first round talent that could slide to 44, where the Sox could pay them top 10 money to skip college and could still pick a few spots to pull a Michealewski (sp?) from last season. If the HS guys are off the table and Rodon is gone, I would rather have an injured Hoffman than a healthy Beede. Why would they do that? I get they may have a "preference" for college arms, but when the talent gap is so huge, it would be insane to ignore Kolek/Aiken in favor of TJ Hoffman or Nola or whatever.

WAY too much risk at #3 guys. Tommy John is NOT an automatic 100% recovery like a lot of people think, and having it this early increases the chance of a second one in his 20's. The track record for a second TJ comeback is not good at all. Even if you signed him way underslot, you're saving money for the 44th pick. No one available at 44 is worth punting on a healthy #3.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) Correct. But we knew that by watching each of the players, so the numbers really didn't help either way. Maybe YOU did, but the RBI total lied to you about it, and many mainstream media pundits and fans were calling for a huge contract extension for Brandon Phillips now that he had "evolved his game to become a run producer." Further, Phillips himself famously lambasted fan pressure to improve his game citing that his RBI totals spoke for themselves, as if better productivity wouldn't lead to more RBIs as a by-product. I guess what I'm saying is that if you have to ignore a stat in certain situations because you "just know better," what use does that stat have? If it's right except when it's wrong, and you already know when it's right or wrong, you really don't need the stat. It's not telling you anything in terms of player evaluation.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 12:50 PM) This is true. However a few points. I'm not sure that saying someone who was better this year will be better next year. You will need a pattern of 5 years or so to determine this and I bet I could look at the "basic" stats and tell this as well. Even with those numbers did you really think that Phillips was better than Trout. I don't need any numbers to tell me that. Also if you use the runs scored +RBI -HR formula Trout winds up with 179 and Phillips 165, so even that shows Trout had a better year. Also, in the dawning age of non- (or decreased) PED usage, not all players will be able to put up great numbers across the board. So I think players will need to be separated out. It's kind of like comparing a WR to an RB in football. Players are going to sort themselves into the OBP specialists and others in the SLG groups and there will only be the select few that can do both and this will be obvious. Regarding the first sentence bolded: yes, you're right, past performance only goes so far in predicting future performance. However, the closer said performance can be tied to matters of skill rather than matters of context, the more likely that performance is to be repeatable. Regarding the second sentence bolded: I don't think that's true. In fact, one of the big reasons these stats are chosen for this purpose is because they are more stable and predictive than anything else. For example, someone didn't decide that the elements that go into FIP intuitively make sense there, rather Voros McCracken did a bunch of studies to determine which components of pitching are most consistent year-to-year and are most highly correlated with success. EDIT: I think the central theme is that it doesn't come down to "which stat is the best stat," but rather "which stat best answers the question at hand." When that question comes down to comparing players across context or quantifying degrees of contribution, linear weights are the way to go (fWAR, wOBA, et al.). When it comes down to who made the most important play in a game or game situation, traditional context-dependent stats (typically traditional ones) are the only tool for the job.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Correct. However, that is the game of baseball. You cannot control everything to win the game. So why make up a stat that doesn't use it. It came about so agents can get more money for their client because "he did what he could control" nothing else really matters. Linear weights-based stats exist for the purpose of trying to compare players with a common denominator. For example, Brandon Phillips had 103 RBI in 2013. Mike Trout had 97. Does that make them the same class of hitter? If not, then how can we tell who is better and, by extension, likely to produce more in the future? Well, Brandon Phillips had a wRC+ of 91 that year, and Trout had an insano-pants 176. So there you go. Anyway, that's the purpose. Obviously things like RBI are critical when the game is being played, it's how you win, after all. I'd never want a coach to tell a player not to worry about driving in runs, for example. They just aren't good for evaluating ability. Or, better put, there are many other numbers that serve as much, much better proxies for evaluating ability than RBI and other context-based metrics.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 7, 2014 -> 02:09 AM) Jeff Passan's attack on the Super 2/Gregory Polanco/low-balling players by giving them an opportunity to play right away if they'll accept a below-market deal situation http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source--pirat...-232433631.html Tanget: I watched him in spring training this year on mlb.tv a lot -- this kid is an absolute MONSTER. Like holy s***. He's huge and just oozes tools.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) Nobody is telling you how to enjoy the game of baseball. We're just saying what he's doing wasn't sustainable. There's a huge difference. This

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) He actually mentioned White Sox and salary cap in an article last year when he was saying they would be doing things the new way in baseball. Having teams give up bad contracts, and giving the Sox prospects to take on the contracts. Yeah that was classic.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) Interesting article. It's a shame that Bernstein gets off on being such a douche. Exactly. His points are spot on, but they're delivered in a package of "screw you for being happy about something, idiots." Having moved from Chicago fairly recently (February), I've been away from the local hype train. All of what he's saying has been pretty obvious through the lense of the indifferent NY media. Is everyone really freaking out in Chicago over Abreu enough to warrant this kind of article?

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 7, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) Very interesting especially with the elbow concern. I guess he does not take that into consideration when ranking. "I'll post something later about the decision that Houston has at #1, but it's fair to say the industry would have Rodon 2nd and Hoffman 3rd or 4th right now. Hoffman is expected to return not this weekend but next from elbow soreness and he could still make or lose millions based on how crisp he looks in those final few starts."

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) I wonder what's causing him to suck so much the past 3 years. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) Velocity is way down. He averaged about 92 during his and it's below 90 this year. He's also changed from a straight over the top curve to more of a slurve, and his changeup usage is way up, which I'm guessing he leaves up too often. His HR/FB was at about 5-6% during his Cy Young seasons, and it's been 14%, 12%, and 18% the last 3 seasons. Indeed, and this looks like it's a pretty natural thing: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-agi...s-introduction/

Kylie's got Hoffman ranked #2. Interesting.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ May 6, 2014 -> 01:26 AM) You're Rick Hahn and Aiken and Kolek are off the board, who do you take at pick #3? I do everything I can to make sure I can sign Rodon, and then pick Rodon.

It looked like it was freezing

Another ugly save.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 5, 2014 -> 05:20 PM) I think the expanded playoffs have hurt interest in MLB's regular season. Go back to division winners only making the playoffs. Teams with the best record in each league get a buy to the championship series and plays the winner of a best of three series between the second and third seeded teams. Championship series goes from 7 games to 5 games. That's an interesting take because the whole point was to INCREASE interest in the regular season by having more teams in contention, and, by extension, encouraging players to not trade veterans at the deadline.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 5, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) Of course you can do that, but sitting at a ballpark for three hours with kids and not buying them anything makes for an unpleasant experience for all involved in most cases. One that you do once and don't do again. Ok so spend $20 more. Is $60-70 really that crazy for a night out for four people these days? Food at the movie is just as overpriced as food at the ballpark. Same thing at Chuck E Cheese or wherever the hello else kids want to go.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 5, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) He definitely deserved the AL ROTM over Tanaka. I'm not sure about Player of the Month though. Abreu was 12th in the AL in wRC+, behind both Adam Dunn and Dayan Viciedo. Black ink though

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ May 5, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) I think it's pointless as a tool to rank superstars or even good players, and should never be used as an end-all for determining value. We already know good players are good, because they produce. You can't say player A is "better" than every other player with a lower WAR because players have different jobs. I think it's an excellent tool for finding value in non-superstar players when constructing a team but I doubt front offices give one hoot about WAR. I don't think you understand what WAR attempts to do. I'm not saying that patronizingly. It's all about removing bias and context. It's all about being objective. Player X may be an elite baserunner while Player Y is just an above average hitter, but if hitting is more valuable (objectively) than baserunning, Player Y is the better player. The mechanism from where this value is derived is based on linear weights, and this is the part of WAR that is most solidly correct and doesn't need work -- valuing offensive events precisely and accurately in relation to themselves. The whole point is NOT to give a guy a subjective bump for something -- it's to strip away all the BS and see who contributes the most to a team winning, no matter what is more exciting or hard to find or whatever. EDIT: It is precisely that challenge of ranking players across their different "jobs" that makes it useful.

As soon as both teams are good again, this will be a big deal again.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 5, 2014 -> 11:21 AM) Is it wrong to assume that the Walkers and Mitchells were a heavy favorite of KW, the type of player he looked to develop? All around athletes who showed promise at baseball? Seems like it is/was. Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying that I disagree with it, or at least have learned from him being wrong about/our system being bad at it.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ May 3, 2014 -> 11:24 PM) I am going to bump this. I would like to hear opinions.. There were at least 4 scouts at the game today video taping his at bats, 2 of which were home runs batting Right handed.. And he has more power left handed. Both were hit at least 390 feet. Generally speaking, I am ALL for drafting positionless, one tool guys that can hit in the later rounds. I think the hit tool is the most important and that our team has been a case study on it being harder to teach than people want it to be. After about round 4, give me Dan Vogelbachs and the other teams can have the Kennyn Walkers.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 3, 2014 -> 07:24 PM) The Angels did. The Mariners picking 2nd were torn, and they were wrong.the Yankees thought he was the best player in the draft. His point is that Trout didn't fall because of signability, he fell because people were wrong about him.

The reality is that MLB, like any successful business that relies on media, has been evolving its channels of consumption with the development of technology. Fewer people are showing up, but more and more are watching on TV and on mlb.tv. All that "new TV money" stuff that everyone is talking about didn't just fall out of the sky. The contracts are bigger than ever because consumption is being redistributed across several channels. This is the nature of media. The teams will be just fine if they facilitate this constant distribution; if they continue to make their product available via the channels that fans are demanding. They need to build these changes into their budgets. Expect fewer through the gates, more through digital, and maximize the yield from all channels.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 3, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) Masterson is the mid-rotation starter that people are clamoring not to sign. How much are you willing to spend on him? It's unbelievable that you still don't understand the difference between a 32-year old trainwreck-turned-bounceback free agent this past offseason, and a 29 year-old consistently solid free agent next offseason. We don't hate free agents, Marty, we hate s***ty players.