Eminor3rd

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) Jays, eh? Didn't know they were in on it. The Jays have a reputation of being more secretive than the CIA though. So much so that some think it's actually a detriment to fans. The thing with them is you just never know what they are doing until they do it.

Another way to think about bWAR vs. fWAR: bWAR prioritizes completeness fWAR prioritizes accuracy fWAR includes only components that "we" are most confident are both precise and accurate. If there's a subject with which no one has been able to find strong correlations to suggest properly isolated variables, fWAR just leaves it out (for example, the effect of defense in pitching performance). In this way, fWAR is saying, "there are some important things going on that we cannot include in this number, but we have most of it in this number, and we are extremely confident that everything we are including is right on the money." bWAR operates under the assumption that if WAR doesn't include every measurable thing on the field, it isn't a useful statistic. So it gives pitchers credit for ERA rather than DIPS numbers, for example. In doing so, it comes up with a value that includes every possible thing a player adds, but it also includes a lot of noise in the calculations, so it's more realistic to expect the bWAR number to assign positive or negative credit improperly. For example, a pitcher may get more bWAR that really should be considered benefit from playing in front of an excellent defense or benefiting from a lot of batted ball luck. This can be problematic because players are more likely to have outlier seasons that don't predict future performance. The difference between these metrics are most pronounced on the pitching side, as isolating and measuring defense remains a much more difficult problem than with offense. The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle. But the midpoint is different for different types of players. Currently, fWAR and bWAR represent the best we can do while erring on either side of the priorities listed above.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) So a catcher essentially has a 2.5 WAR head start over a 1st baseman? (Assuming 162 games, which obviously catchers dont play) That's true in a sense, but that's the wrong way to look at it. The positional adjustments are a way to create a common denominator so that you can have a quantitative way to judge player value across separate roles. The idea is that when a team makes an acquisition, it is replacing an incumbent player, whether that's a current major leaguer or a "replacement" level player available in AAA. X number of offensive value added needs to be compared to the alternative -- since C is a much more demanding defensive position than 1B, the pool of players that can play C effectively is smaller. Since the pool of players is smaller, average offensive performance is lower. Therefore, a given stat line is more valuable coming from C as opposed to 1B because the difference between that level of production and what else is available is much larger. If you could have a player that hit .300/.400/.500, but had to choose if he was a C or a 1B, you would choose C because you will presumably have to choose a lesser player to fill the other position, and a replacement level 1B hits much better than a replacement level C. So your overall production is higher with the good hitting C, thus the positional adjustment in value.

Was just coming to post this. Very good read.

Minor league deal? Sure. Then again, there may be literally no one on Earth that would make me upset on a minor league deal.

1. E. Johnson 2. Davidson 3. Semien 4. Hawkins 5. Anderson 6. Danish 7. Sanchez 8. M. Johnson 9. Beck 10. Bassit 11. Thompson 12. Webb 13. Rienzo 14. Engel 15. Snodgress Lower-ceilinged but close to the Majors guys like Webb/Rienzo would be MUCH higher in seasons past. The system depth has definitely improved.

QUOTE (dayan024 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Phil Rogers ‏@philgrogers 1h Here's the thing about @Dodgers and Masahiro Tanaka. They've gotten every player they wanted in Mark Walter era. Always bet the streak. That is some really bad gambling advice.

Sox outbidding NYY/SEA on this would be a bad move. Could work out, but too risky for this team, IMO.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2918333:date=Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:39 PM:name=pettie4sox)-->QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) <!--quotec-->Source? She can live wherever she likes

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) Just a hunch based on the guys numbers, if he disappoints, it will be in the power area, and not the average or OBP areas. I'm actually mostly afraid of the OBP, because I've heard lots of internet guys say that the Cuban league standard for control is very low. It's one thing to be willing to take your walks when the pitchers are tossing up garbage, but entirely another when they're able to paint the corners.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:53 PM) That would be horrific for so many reasons. Unless the OBP was .340+ and he hit 32 doubles too. AVG + HR just isn't enough detail.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) I'm in the wrong business

I'll be very pleased with 150 games of .250/.350/.450, and I'd expect that he won't reach his ceiling the first year.

I asked Jason Parks via Twitter if he thought Danish could stick as a starter: Jason Parks ‏@ProfessorParks 3m @hipposategod Absolutely. Time and development will prove it true or false, but I like it despite the delivery/release being unorthodox. Collapse

There's nothing wrong with a rebuilding team acquiring assets that help them win now, but they need to (a) also help them win in 3-5 years and (b) provide surplus value financially. If Tanaka's price is $20m over 6-8 years like TUC suggested, that doesn't satisfy part b, because that is, at best, market rate for those services. When rebuilding, there are a LOT of moving parts -- players that may or may not develop at variable rates -- and it behooves a team to maintain as much flexibility with its money as possible so that it can spend the money to shore up areas that need shored up after it sees what it has with its core. JDA and Tanaka both have the upside to be worth $20m/year in market value. The JDA signing at 6/$68m (~$11m/yr) was really smart for Hahn because he purchased an asset with potential surplus value. Tanaka at 7/$140 ($20m) would not be smart for Hahn because he has then purchased a very expensive asset with no surplus value -- he has tied his hands over the next 7 years by committing a substantial portion of his resources, at top dollar rate, to something he doesn't know he'll need when it matters.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 12, 2014 -> 02:36 AM) Past, present, and future: Frank, Paulie, and Abreu

QUOTE (timbo @ Jan 10, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/news/art...rticle_66472334 what the hell is going on who to trust or not to trust? It's just rumor mongering. It's no different than how Hahn said he had talks "exploratory in nature" and some writer headlined an article WHITE SOX IN HOT PURSUIT OF TANAKA

I don't think there's any way the Yankees don't end up with him, unless he has some deep-seeded personal distaste for the franchise. To me, this is an exact mirror of the WS/Abreu situation -- no one needs him more, and they've got the money to outbid everyone if they want. On paper, he's really a perfect fit for them. They need high-ceiling youth extra badly, and they need a #2 starter extra badly. Maybe the Dodgers could spend as much, but they don't need him nearly as much.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 10, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) It's wrong on just the basic premise of voting. He didn't vote for who he wanted, he voted for who others wanted. People may have a dumb rational for why they voted but at least it was for who they thought deserved it. If everyone is allowed to "vote however they damn well please," how is taking a poll for your vote any sort of infraction? Gurick decided he wanted his vote to make some asinine personal statement, Le Batard decided he wanted his vote to reflect the opinion of the fans.

Danks is already bought and paid for. He's a mid to back end rotation piece. At this point, he will cost us more money to get rid of. So we just have to use whatever productivity we bought from him.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 10, 2014 -> 11:42 AM) NONE of those guys were ever ranked or touted like Garcia, Eaton and Davidson. You just think that because you're a white sox fan. If you weren't you'd have never heard of any of those guys. Flowers and Fields were both very highly touted. Castro's star had already fallen when we got him.

Gurick voted disapprove because he didn't believe Hahn should be a unanimous selection

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 9, 2014 -> 07:59 PM) "Ok, so we're on Google Maps. Let's explore housing options for you."

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jan 8, 2014 -> 05:43 PM) who could forget these lol I had those, haha. It was the first pair of name brand shoes I was able to talk my parents into buying for me