Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:40 AM) This is true, but I just can't say anybody that spent their entire career at SS is an awful defender. Like, Michael Young was not a good defensive player ever, but he's not an awful defender. Frank Thomas was an awful defender. Basically, put Frank Thomas at SS and see what happens. In the same light, put Derek Jeter at 1B and see what happens too. Troof

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) Don't forget The Ultimate Champion. Now we're at about 95%. The Ultimate GregMart Nah, TUC is a different person. I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before. TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) It was f***ing 2 paragraphs, how is that ever a teal deer? And no, not awful. A -25.7 career UZR over 17 years is -1.5 per season. That's below average, not "awful." If you want to see an awful defender, you look towards guys like Adam Dunn. It's not -25.7 UZR, of -25.7 Defensive Runs above average. The UZR is like -150. So I think it's most accurate to say "awful shortstop" while acknowledging that anyone who can even fake SS isn't an "awful defender." Being a bad SS is much better than being an average 1B, for example, and that is reflected in fWAR (although I personally have some issues with the accuracy of 'set in stone' positional adjustments).

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) I'm not the most active on this forum but it seems to me that roughly 70% of it seems to be people correcting silly things Marty34 says. Sometimes Marty signs on as greg775, so it's more like 85%

So what's your stance on it, wite? Is he a top 10 player or a top 50 player to you?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 10:20 PM) My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per. 1. They have to give their young pitchers innings in order to let them develop and "see what they have." Singing declining veterans hinders this. You are arguing this vehemently in another thread AS WE SPEAK regarding Adam Dunn taking PT away from young players. 2. $48m IS an albatross because it is $48m they would NOT be able to spend to patch something else up. It might not be much in a vacuum, but this ISN'T a vacuum and there are other players we have and pay and will want to get later. Again, see every argument you've ever made about Adam Dunn. He "only" makes $14m per year.

It's entirely possible (likely) that I'm hearing more hype than you guys here in NY. It's crazy to realize how much of the MAINSTREAM media is actually in NY. So maybe I'm overblowing it. Interesting component: when you look at his Defensive Runs at FG, you see Jeter with a career -25.7 (compared to Thomas' -267.4 LOL holy s***), and think, "Oh that's not so bad over an 18 year career." That is until you realize that number INCLUDES positional adjustment, which gives him +7.5 runs per year just for being at SS. Multiply that by 18 seasons, and you see that compared to other SS's, he is -160.7 runs below average. An astonishing -16 fWAR lost through bad defense alone. Which begs further analysis of Frank Thomas. If he would have been a scratch defender, either by being a good first baseman or an average, say, third baseman or RF or something, he would have nearly 27 more fWAR over the course of his career, making him a 99 fWAR player, which would put him ahead of guys like Cal Ripken, Joe Morgan, and Carl Yastrzemski.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 08:21 PM) Is there anyone here who wrote that Jimenez or Santana is the key to contending in 2014? Every time you say "they haven't filled the hole in the rotation" like you just did a couple posts ago, that is what you are implying.

Frank is a Hall of Famer. We all love him more than most. We all obviously think he should have gotten in. But there was legitimate question, maybe even worry, among us that he might not get in on the first ballot. We were all pleasantly surprised at 80%+. There's talk about Derek Jeter being the first ever unanimous, first ballot choice. Some people call him among the best ten players of alltime. No one on Earth questions his worthiness of the HOF, nor his chances to get in on the first ballot. People consider 95%+ a given. Yet, take a look at these charts: http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=255,826 By fWAR to date, thus implying total value added during regular seasons, Derek Jeter and Frank Thomas are almost identical, with 73.7 and 72.4 respectively over 18 seasons. By this measure, Jeter has been just one Connor Gillaspie season better than Thomas. So my topic titled rephrased: what makes Jeter a member of the baseball Mt. Rushmore? I think the voters evaluated Thomas very fairly, so I'm not going to argue that he should be up there too. But was Derek Jeter... gulp... overrated? The simple answer is playoff prowess. His playoff slash line is eerily similar to his career line to date -- a sexy 121 wRC+ over a staggering 158 games. But while 121 wRC+ is really nice, it isn't up to snuff with his peak seasons, nor really with the peak seasons of any HOFer of this era. So his playoff performance essentially adds up to one extra season of career-average Jetering. I'm not saying Jeter wasn't better than Frank. After this additional season and with the playoffs factored in, it's a clear case. But I think Jeter may really be more like a top 25-35 player, not a top ten guy. What say you?

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 04:32 PM) While I would love seeing that type of data, I wonder if teams would prefer to keep that info proprietary. Perhaps some are already using some version of this and not releasing the info? This is the key. Pitch F/X being released was a total accident, they won't make the same mistake with Hit F/X and Field F/X.

I'm not sure Gillaspie is much better than Ishikawa or Lambo. I wouldn't give up anything of value for Gillaspie if I'm the Pirates.

Relevant excerpts form a BP piece today:

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) Not a problem duderino! (that's a colloquialism I use for people, typically males, who I expect to be my age that I also share common beliefs with and generally have strong, positive feelings towards said person) We're going to need a scoreboard for uses of "colloquialism" this season. Salient vs. Colloquialism, starting today. 1-1

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:55 AM) A trick to improve range doesn't seem entirely accurate . I would call it more like position the defenders where certain players have proven to hit the ball more often. Correct, I'm saying that that achieves the same thing as extra range. As opposed to accuracy or any other component of defense.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) What's going to be the most frustrating is when Santana and Jimenez inevitably have good seasons and the people in this thread point to that. That's never been the point. Curtis Granderson could have a good season and anybody pointing that out would get the same response from me - would it have been enough production over the player the Sox used instead to win a division title? If that answer is no, then the Sox made the right call both from the developmental standpoint, from the financial standpoint, and from a draft position standpoint. Considering most have the Sox pegged anywhere from 75-78 wins, odds are going to be very, very good that guys who have been 2-4 WAR pitchers for the majority of their careers aren't suddenly going to boost the Sox into the 90 win range, which is very likely what it's going to take to win the division. No, the most important years of those deals are going to be in 2015 and 2016 or so. This is the most salient point. Thanks for giving me the chance to say "salient."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 08:52 AM) So perhaps the problem was that the White Sox were so focused on this that they didn't pay attention to the regular details like catching the ball? because that team just convinced me that shifts are the worst thing ever. Any chance they're just getting counted for extra "shifts" because Alexei plays off towards the 3b bag compared with some other SS's? Second FEWEST shifts

The reason they never used to look at the starting position of the fielder wasn't because it was overlooked, it was because they didn't have the technology/math to factor it in. What they did instead was simply throw out all plays where an abnormal shift was detected, and allow the fielder's instinct as to where to position himself get baked into the total number at the cost of precision. But with the frequency of extreme shifting continuing to increase, I'm glad they've found a way to start factoring it into defensive measurements. As far as the Sox go, I can't see any reason for them NOT to start using it, especially given the fact that, outside of Sale, our pitchers aren't exactly "high K" guys. I will say, however, that the shift seems to be primarily a trick to improve range, whereas a lot of what made the Sox defense bad last year was physical and mental errors.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 06:49 PM) The point was Bogaerts can be a monster but could just as easily flop. Of course, but then we wouldn't want him so bad, lol.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 08:17 PM) Sure, but as we have gone over before, next year the price goes up for a similar asset. It doesn't matter anyway because there will be another excuse not to spend money next offseason. If the team is garbage, then yes, there will be more "excuses." They'll be the same excuses, though, and they'll still make sense.

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 09:43 PM) Oh I have many questions but I'm down to my last baseball message board and would like to stay on this one. I have a long love affair with data going back to early childhood. I've read Bill James since before the Total Baseball Days. I have so many problems with sabermetrics I'd hardly know where to begin. You know if you are good at arithmetic it is relatively easy to compute BA, FA, ERA, winning Pct. etc and etc. You can argue what it means or how valid each stat is but there is no alchemic formula to it. Not so with WAR and all the variations that are constantly readjusted according to I'm just not sure what. It's not going to go away. I expect that someday in the maybe not too distant future baseball awards will be given on the basis of the latest computation of WAR. I wouldn't even be surprised if the standings are adjusted to be in perfect harmony with Pythagorean wins. The Indians are 2005 world champs. It's not that I'm a hidebound old fart who resists every change in life. I am alive to today because of a surgery first initiated in the 1970s and perfected when I needed it 14 years ago this month. So no, I'm hardly against change and innovation. I even would have voted for King Felix the year he won his Cy Young Award, and probably would have voted for Mike Trout for MVP this past season. I know its not good enough. Like religion you're either a believer or a blashphemer. I was going to leave this alone but I've read and reread the thread and like I said I've actually studied this. Welcome to the discussion! I have no idea what your stance is.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 04:34 PM) Same thing was said about Dominic Brown and Jason Heyward Well, yeah, ok, I mean maybe we can trade less for him two years from now if he is disappointing.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) An important topic of discussion that I don't think was brought up here as much as it should have was regression. I briefly mentioned the concept of regression earlier in the thread, but ultimately what does it mean? I think people get confused about the term regression because they assume it means "getting worse." That's not the case at all. Players regress toward their expected means all the time - Adam Dunn is a perfect example of that over the past 2 years. In 2011, he had one of the worst seasons of all time but people didn't worry because they expected him to regress in 2012, and he did just that. His overall numbers were a little worse last year, but I still expect him to be around a .775-800 OPS overall, and perhaps better than that if he is used exclusively against right handed pitching. What always confused me when I was initially learning about sabermetrics was the concept of this. Jake Drake is a .320/.380/.520 hitter in a neutral playing field, which is an incredibly good hitter, better than a 150+ wRC+. However, after May 31st, Jake is hitting only .280/.340/.460, still good overall but maybe closer to a 120-130 wRC+ hitter, a good player but not nearly as good. The question remains: what should we expect from him the rest of the way, for him to work towards his overall career averages of .320/.380/.520 or to hit closer towards his career averages of .320/.380/.520, thus perhaps nearing him towards some kind of middle ground (say a final line of .300/.360/.490)? And simply, the answer is: both. The point of regression is that there is some central production patterns that you've put up over the course of your career that we should expect out of you. At the same time, because of this production pattern Drake has established, we should also expect that he work back towards that overall line, so seeing him hit .340/.400/.550 the rest of the way will not be surprising either. The only thing theory dictates that we should not expect is for him to hit worse. Now, given other circumstances and the volatility of human nature, it's also perfectly reasonable for him to underperform. That .280/.340/.460 may ultimately represent his final line for the season. Depending upon other factors - age, development of bad habits, bad luck on the field, or anything else you can think of - it may be possible that we have a new expected overall talent for Jake Drake, or it may be that we expect him to hit closer to his previous career averages of .320/.380/.520, or perhaps it's somewhere in between at this point in time. The only thing that regression suggests is getting worse over time is the overall line, because conventional wisdom dictates that talent grows lesser over time. I want to see what you have to add to it, but the ultimate reason I wanted to go over this was to show the importance of what I'd like to talk about next, and that's projection based systems, how they come up with their numbers, and why they are NOT meaningless. This is a good topic, because getting to the bottom of it underscores the effect of a strong or weak "start" to a season, which is something that we always end up discussing at some point in May. There are two components of this: 1. Circumstance. How does cold weather/death of a family member/fatigue/etc. modify the expected performance 2. Mathematical regression As far as I can tell, number 1 is a very real but very unmeasurable factor. We will just have to live with guessing it. The second point is, I think, what you're getting at. The fallacy of this concept is that people expect extremes to balance one another. So, the answer to your initial question about Jake Drake is the latter, that he'll end up somewhere in between. The simple way to look at it is this: If we know that a player's true talent is x, then the most likely output to expect at any given time is x. Jake is a true talent 125 wRC+ hitter. He starts cold though, and is only putting out 100 wRC+ throughout the first couple months. While it is definitely possible that he will swing back and hit at 150 wRC+ for a while to match his true talent, it is not the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is that he regresses to his normal 125 wRC+ self and ends the season at 115 wRC+ or whatever. This is the value of stuff being "in the bank." You can apply the same principles to team wins. What is the true cost of a slow start? Team X is a true-talent 90 win team, and the look like they will need about 90 wins to get to the postseason. Team X starts slow though, going 10-20 over their first 30 games. From then on, it is reasonable to expect the 90 win team to regress to its true talent, which is a .555 winning percentage (90-72). Apply that percentage to the remaining 132 games, and you end up with an 83 win team instead. So the cost of that hole that Team X dug for themselves in April is that they now need to play 7 games BETTER than their true talent to reach their playoff goal of 90 wins. The fun in being a fan is, of course, hoping that your team gets hot and does something unlikely, defying the odds in your favor. This is always within the realm of possibility, but it's much less likely than it seems. Which is why we end up missing the playoffs more often than not, even when the team seems "better on paper" than it has played to a given point in the season.

I saw somewhere that Rodon got hammered. Anyone see the line?

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Feb 16, 2014 -> 05:39 PM) Alexi and Quintana for Bogarts and something else? Not sure I would do that but would be an interesting move... You wouldn't do that from the White Sox perspective? Are you kidding? Bogaerts is going to be a MONSTER. He's a consensus top 1-2 prospect in baseball. That's not nearly enough for him. The only reason I wouldn't make that deal is because the only way it would be on the table is if Bogaerts either severely injured himself or was about to go to jail for 20 years.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) Not only is this weird (I seriously don't get the context), but that would kill Hahn's future ability to make any deals. Because the Yankees released Q from the minors initially. I don't think TUC really wants Hahn to do this, though, lol.