Eminor3rd

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) No, I'm saying baseball inflation and insanity pays Kemp 22 million a year. I happen to think he should be paid about 7-8 million a year in today's prices. You really need to Google like "basic macroeconomics" or something before you make these claims. 1. Charging the most people will pay for a product is not price gouging, it's capitalism. McDonald's does it too. So does Best Buy. 2. Kemp makes $22m because that's how much money they needed to pay for him to agree to sign him. Free agent contracts happen because they accept the highest bid (or near it). You can't just say "this guy is worth 8 mil" and expect to get him. You have to pay the price that the market sets, which equals the hihgest amount that SOME team is willing to pay. No one decides this arbitrarily, it becomes an auction.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) You say, 'then they invest the required money in players to keep their fans interested.' I'm saying fans would be more interested if they JUST SAY NO to mega, multi-year contracts for guys who fail miserably shortly after signing the contracts. When Adam Dunn is hitting about .160 and Rios is loafing after fly balls you start to wonder how much better life would be as a fan if they were not making all that money. Maybe I could park for 5 bucks and not spend 30 bucks on three beers in a nine-inning game. You say that like what is happening this season is going according to plan. Do you think the Yankees fans are okay with their 5 world championships over the past 15 years? Maybe not, they're currently experiencing the end part of some big contracts.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) I just want to keep repeating it over and over and over until somebody notices! But I'm saying there should NOT be the demand. I keep reading about guys who are "untradeable." These guys are the ones fans and owners were drooling over shortly before they became untradeable. JUST SAY NO. Don't sign guys to long-term deals and maybe I can go sit in a box seat for 20 f***ing dollars and not have to pay 20 bucks to park!!!! And not pay 15 bucks for an All American hot dog and beer! Baseball was not invented as an elitist game, folks. That's not how economics work, Greg. The owners don't set prices based on what it takes to pay their players. They set prices at the maximum level people will pay (maximize revenue), and then they invest the required money in players to keep their fans interested (minimize cost) and remain profitable.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) I just want to commend you on your patience and respect towards everyone in this thread. If all the proponents of advanced metrics handled these discussions the way you have, the chasm between the advanced metrics crowd and the old school folks would be far less contentious. Thanks! I heard Dave Cameron say once that when we criticize stats, we aren't criticizing the thought or intent behind them, just the way they measure it. We're all asking good questions, the hard part is finding the right way to answer those questions. Even RBI comes from a good idea -- who is the best run producer? It just is a very flawed way to measure run production if you want to ascertain true talent and likely performance going forward. So there's no reason to disrespect someone that wants to know about who the best run producers are -- I want to know that too! We're all on the same team here, lol

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) That's because HR are taken out of the equation in babip. I used the babip to mention if one makes more contact, they will get more hits. Chopping 40 or 50 ks off your total usually won't lead to the same amount of outs. Also, improving contact could lead to fouling pitches you would have missed off, making the pitcher work harder and lead to other things like walks and wild pitches or passed balls. Yes, good points, and you've reminded me of something that should probably be mentioned. Part of the idea of not trying to maximize contact at all costs is that while you gian strikeouts, you ALSO gain walks. Similar to how a K is a 100% out, a walk is a 100% base (obviously), so you theoretically optimize your on base percentage by taking the 70% chance of an out on contact away. But of course this does NOT work if you aren't taking walks, too. No one, not even saber guys, like hitter who are high-K, low on base guys Also, I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe guys that take pitches rather than make contact actually make the pitcher work harder on average, though intuitively I can see it going either way (with the fouling off and such).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) The main thing is a strikeout is an out 99.9% of the time. If you hit the ball, what is the average BABIP? Chances are if someone cuts down their K rate significantly, their batting average and all that goes with that will go up, unless they are deemed unlucky. Which is something that really surprised be about the total saber guys who said a strikeout is an out like any other out. They are aware that not striking out is either getting HBP, walked or putting the ball in play, which ultimately results in less outs, and they are aware that outs do occassional advance runners. I think the extra hits gained, plus the occassional advancement of runners, the occassional errors, far outweigh the DP. You can't just compare a strikeout to a regular out, because you don't make outs everytime you don't strikeout. Your hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and it is one held by many. However, when they went and actually looked at the expected runs from all of the base/out states and factored in how often each occurs, the difference (again, on average) was very small. So, bringing us back to the purpose of these stats, it makes perfect sense NOT to consider context when comparing two players that did not receive the same opportunities. League average BABIP tends to be around .300, though power hitters tend to have lower BABIPs because they hit a lot of fly balls. Ground balls have higher BABIPs than fly balls, liners have the highest. Dunn's BABIP this year is .233.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:38 AM) Owings is my top target. Idgaf what happens as long as he joins us. Would love to get him, would love Sardinas more.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:19 AM) Tulo needs to stop getting hurt. And if we do extend Kershaw it's gonna be for over $200 million, I'd rather keep Sale for a year or two less for $160 millions less. The thing about Tulo though, is that none of his injuries are nagging or project to be long-term. It's not completely unreasonable to assume a lot of it has been bad luck. Wrist broken by a pitch, for example. Kershaw is 25, has universally lauded mechanics, and is the best pitcher in the game. He's the type of guy you are fine paying market value for, especially in a mid-to-large market.

High-end positional talent.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) I'll be honest, I sort of selfishly wish we could keep Peavy...he's been one of the few bright spots on this lifeless team. I like him too, but it's time to make room for some new guys. This group just isn't working.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 12:44 AM) I never said anyone was an idiot. Strikeout with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs is really bad. Most other situations it does not hurt you anymore than a different kind of out would. There are many people on this board who know a hell of a lot more about advanced metrics than I do by the way but I'll be the saber god if you want me to be. Also, strikeout with 1 out and a runner on first is GOOD compared to anything on the ground when you're slow AND they are shifting on you. What's better and worse depends on the situation. The negative run values attached to outs are based on the average of all possible situations. Overall, on average, a strikeout is just slightly worse than a typical ball in play.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) Seriously, 7 innings of 2 hit shutout ball with 10 K's would be awesome. If nothing else, the K's should be there against the Braves.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/...o-be-jake-peavy

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 10:59 PM) Peavy is worth more than garza Not until he shows he is healthy.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) Unless they don't get Rios because they wont give him up. The system is desperate for LH bats and Rick needs to start holding out for some. Hanson is intriguing, but with Beckham holding down 2B for the forseeable future, he is a pretty big risk. If Texas and Pittsburgh are the two teams in it for Alex, which ever team gives up either Sardinas or Polanco first wins. Then they just get Schierholtz for way less and platoon him with the recently hot Tabata. Polanco is a top 25 prospect in the league, we'll be very lucky if we get him for Rios. They just aren't that desperate because they have other options.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) Not a single person in that group I'd trade Sale for straight-up. I'd take Tulo and/or Cabrera. And I'd take Kershaw if I thought I could extend him, which would be the case if you were trading for him.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) Alexei, Rios, and cash to PIttsburgh for something like: Hanson, Kingham, Tabata, and Mercer. Is that enough? Too much? Barrett Barnes is a guy that the Sox were rumored to be taking with the draft pick that they selected Keon Barnum with. Lambo is old I do believe but he is hitting a ton of homers in their system. Also, Stetson Allie is a guy I'd take a flyer on. He didn't work out as a pitcher but he is killing the ball in A Ball as a hitter. Pittsburgh has a ton of prospects. I would think Polanco, Taillon, and Glasnow are guys that they'd like to keep but other guys should be in play. I think that's a realistic trade.

I don't think anyone disagrees that you'd rather not give players huge money, long-term contracts because of all the risk involved. That said, individual teams don;t get to set the market -- this is simply the price of admission. These contracts get signed where supply meets demand.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 19, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) I think this might actually be one of the best fits out there. I agree and have been saying this for weeks. I'm bracing myself to be disappointed by the return, though. Polanco I think is untouchable in this type of deal, and Heredia scares me based on what I've heard BP guys report over the past year or so. That being said, I think we'd have to be satisfied if either Hanson or Glasnow is the centerpiece.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 11:54 PM) Rios and Alexei for Polonco, Hanson, Kingham and Herrera? Does that seem like a steep price? Yeah, that's too much, I think, unless the Sox pay all of the salary.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2013-trade-value-20-16/

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 02:52 PM) Good post, but I can't see him getting $10 million a season anytime in the future. You can blame age, but I'd blame production. Re. Dunn. It's the annual advanced stats people vs. normal stat people. When he goes 1-for-30 or strikes out 3-4 times in a game, I think that contributes to lineup lethargia and overall team s***tiness. Maybe he does have some value, but I think most people who do not follow advanced stats closely would disagree violently. To many people, Dunn is a lineup wrecker because of his Ks and long stretches of awful-ness. Greg, he isn't a superstar nor is he a lineup wrecker. He is a player very good at some things, very bad at others, and it all adds up to 10% above league average offensively, with no defensive value. He is a roughly average DH. That is his value. Overpaid or underpaid, he is not anything extreme.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 01:41 PM) As I said in the minor league forum, this now make 4 1B's in Charlotte: Wilkins, McDade, L Anderson and now Ishikawa. Anderson has been terrible and is probably gone. One of the others may go as well, though they may be hoarding extra 1B types knowing they MIGHT trade PK or Dunn. Still though, 4 is silly, you can't get them playing time. 3 is even silly, IMO. This also gives you an idea that the org probably doesn't see Dan Black as a future major leaguer, for those who have asked on that before. Yeah, I cant imagine Anderson sticks around now.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 18, 2013 -> 01:05 PM) Just by following this conversation , I'd venture to guess most of the Sox WAR is on the pitching side whereas Clevelands is evenly distributed, so any value the Sox have in pitching WAR is negated by lack of hitting WAR . So teams can have even WAR's but a team where it is more evenly distributed between offense and pitching probably has a better record. Is this assumption correct and a better way to explain it than trying to explain how Wins Above Replacement does not translate to actual wins and losses to the layman ? Dick Allen is right -- a win is a win is a win. Whether it's pitching or hitting or defense, the inputs that go into the stat are all broken down to runs saved or runs earned, which obviously have equal value. The reason it doesn't add up to actual wins is really just what I was trying to explain before about the stat assigning value to events based on their average outcomes versus their actual outcomes. But, again, the stat was NOT designed to add up to actual wins, so it isn't a surprise that it doesn't. It's really all about trying to compare players on an equal playing field. Is Peter Bourjos (all defense) having a better year than David Ortiz (all offense)? Is Adrian Beltre (clean up in a stacked lineup) really playing better than Ryan Braun (cleanup in a garbage lineup)? It essentially tries to serve as en equalizer of context and play-style by measuring all of a players contributions by the amount of runs they typically produce. Dick Allen -- you're right that it isn't perfect, but I still think you're looking for the stat to do more than it is supposed to do. It's very useful for a lot of things, but matching team records isn't it. It's sort of like how people get caught up on pitcher wins. When someone says "who cares about everything else, nothing matters more than a win," you can't really argue. The problem is that pitchers wins are NOT the same stat as team wins, they just have the same name. That's true, also, of wins above replacement. The win we're talking about is really defined as "produced ten runs above replacement," and we call it a win because of pythag, but it isn't the same stat as what shows up on the standings. A tangent on the "imperfection" of WAR-like stats: the product is onyl as good as the inputs. So, if they aren't right, it's not so much about the idea of them as it is about the data that goes in. Currently, the LEAST reliable components of these stats are centered on (1) evaluating catcher defense. The errors and throws are easy, but what about pitch framing and game calling? All studies so far can't find the differences showing up in the results, and no one is willing to accept that it doesn't matter, so we assume there's more there that we haven't figured out how to measure, (2) factoring leverage into RP evaluation. SPs gain a ton of value by soaking up innings, but and RP inning is not often the same as a SP inning in terms of value because RP innings often occur in more important game situations. Leverage index is currently factored in, but how much weight it's given is up to debate, and (3) positional defense. UZR makes perfect sense in all but extreme shift situations, but the numbers tend to fluctuate more than people expect them to, which leads many to distrust them.

Yeah, stopgap. Hopefully it means a pending Dunn trade, hopefully it doesn't mean Konerko is cooked.