Eminor3rd

QUOTE (forrestg @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 06:01 PM) Describing the needs for each team . Describing a sox weakness and want was a leadoff hitter. I thought DeAza was not bad. I suppose Ichiro might be a little better . I don't know how these people have jobs. They probably don't even know who De Aza is.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) Honestly if he is even close to league average offensively and defensively for the amount they're paying him and the other available options, I'll be happy with him. Yeah, for sure. I think that's the key in evaluating this deal. Considering context, it was a significant improvement at a low cost.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) You can't trade one statistical issue for another and say one is ok and the other isn't. A small sample size means that you might not be observing the actual relationship (thus, the combined 'full season' of 3B datapoints might not be accurate until we get more data). However, it is also statistically incorrect to conflate data gathered at other positions as evidence of a true relationship at a different position. Your point is no more statistically correct than those wanting to use the 3B data only. I don't understand why you think I'm arguing that. Once again, someone asked why people think he's a sub-par defender, and I said it's because he has a -17.7 career UZR. That's the answer. You're right that we can't transfer that data over to third and know for sure, and I feel like I've said that in every post I've made. But, if an infielder is bad at a blend of 2B/SS/3B, I would argue it's more likely he's bad at 3B than it is that he's good at 3B. If you disagree, that's fine -- we really don't know.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) He has a season's worth of being a plus defender at 3B, so there is some reason to believe that he might be. He was signed to play 3B, so that is the context of the question but apparently not your answer. Right, there is some reason to believe he MIGHT be, but UZR historically doesn't become a reliable indicator of true talent until about three seasons of data. So pick your poison -- small sample of numbers not nearly enough to show the whole picture, or larger sample of numbers that can show a related picture but isn't exactly what you want to see. Again, the truth is somewhere in between. My point on the UZR data from third is that that number doesn't do much for us. I'm more confident that he'll be better at third because I believe it is an easier position, not because of small sample UZR data.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) I saw your post and I'm not buying it. Being bad for several years at positions he isn't going to play is not more significant than being good for one year at the position he is going to play. If you think his sample size at 3B is too small, that's fine, but then don't quote UZR at all. His career UZR numbers suggest a guy who has below average range, arm, and hands. I agree with you that third is easier and you can't expect a direct correlation, but there is no reason to believe he will be a plus defender. When I originally made the post "-17.7 career UZR," it was in response to the question, "where is this notion that he's a sub-par defender coming from?" And, his career UZR is where the notion of him being a sub-par defender comes from. I stand by that.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) Oh, a career row that includes all positions and not just 3B. OK. Well let's just say he'll be bad at playing 3B because he sucks at Monopoly. It's about the same. Please see post #96: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...t&p=2733259

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Yeah, I looked at his UZR there and didn't see the number -17.7 anywhere. It's at the very bottom of that first table, in the Career row.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:33 PM) I would rely more on one season's worth of numbers at the position he's going to play over career numbers at positions he isn't going to play. Normally, that makes sense. But UZR is a statistic that really requires a major sample to be reliable as a measure of true talent, and the things it measures (range, arm, etc.) can be a decent proxy for skills that transfer to similar positions. But, your overall point is true -- he'll be a much better 3B than MI, I just don't think the UZR numbers from 50 games at third do much to support that in this case. Here are these links, in case you missed my last post on the previous page: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/defense/uzr/ http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...;position=2B/SS

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) Where does that number come from? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...;position=2B/SS http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/defense/uzr/

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Most of that comes from his SS days. He probably doesn't have the range to be a SS. Yes, true. Probably not a 2B either, for those suggesting Beckham may be on the block. I think, as it stands, Keppiner is the every day guy with Morel as a late-inning defensive replacement and occasional starter. If Hannahan gets signed, I'm guessing Morel stays in the minors.

QUOTE (GoGoSox2k2 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) i know Bill James' numbers are not the end all be all, however where did the talk come from that Keppinger was a liability on defense? I am not doubting or agreeing just wondering -17.7 career UZR

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) I personally worry less about the opportunity cost of rushing prospects or changing their positions..when I see contracts out there like what Victorino just got in Boston. This will come off as wildly basic, but I want my organization's ready talent on the field if and when we've made the decision to be 'win now'. I'm at least open to Sanchez being ready, and being a 2b. Keeping flexible (because of what we frankly are right now...a team losing production at catcher and maybe 3b unless other things change) Do you think he's going to be better than Beckham in 2013, though? I don't -- I think they'll both play great defense and be below average offensively. I'd give Beckham (who has a higher ultimate ceiling, but a smaller chance to hit it) one more shot to avoid the non-tender and try to cobble something together at third. I think that's the best shot at winning in 2013 and it has the added benefit of probably being best for Sanchez in the long-term.

Keep in mind that Keppinger is really bad at defense, just broke his fibula, and is seeking a three-year deal. Also keep in mind that Sanchez is not major league ready.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) Hmm...you may be right, but I just feel like last year showed us a few things about Youk. Boston fans painted him as hopelessly done, but it is always interesting to me when I see a statistical spike FOLLOWING something that could've been a source of motivation. Motivation is talked about endlessly in the abstract, but if a player responds after a career-testing event...it gives you some evidence he may have a fair amount left. And in this, I consider his injuries in BOS, not just Valentine. I think health is the question with Youkilis. I'm actually confident that he's still very much an above average player when healthy, I just think that he is playing hurt most of the time now.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) Heyman tweeted that Choo and Cabrera are very available...but Indians are looking for long-term assets. I'm not sure either fits with the Sox needs, though. Choo has always been a Sox killer... Rumor has it that Cabrera for Bauer has some legs -- the Sox don't have any offer that can approach that. I agree that we could use him, but I don't think there's any hope of it happening at all.

You guys might flame me for this, but I wouldn't mind Jack Hannahan at all. He's a lefty, and a Hannahan/Morel platoon would be drastically better than Morel alone. Both players play solid defense (Hannahan is better) and can get hot, especially when always hitting with the platoon advantage. Don't get me wrong, it needs to be a fallback option, but it's emerged as a really solid one, I think. And, I'll also point out that if this happens, I'd expect them to make an upgrade elsewhere with the cost/trade chip savings.

What about all this Yunel Escobar stuff? I feel like we'd be outbid, and he's risky -- but Brent Morel.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) Some people like stats, some people don't. Let's just stop with that discussion because at this point in time, we know which side on which everyone lies, it's no longer productive, and it's only going to go downhill from here. I'll stop. But I really think this is the wrong way to look at it, and I'm mostly just frustrated that I haven't been able to explain myself -- I haven't been arguing stats vs. non-stats at any point in this conversation. But, whatever. I'd love to move Floyd. I think he's good but I think we have decent depth in the rotation, even in the case of an injury, and the hole at 3B is just gaping. I don't think Flowers is good, but that hole at C, to me, is much more bearable than the one at third.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 03:09 PM) This was my post that seemed to inspire this whole disagreement. Note, that I didn't insult anybody nor did I criticize any stats. I used one particular number as an example and then stated my preference for how I choose to enjoy the game. So take your "oh please" and "arrogant" comments elsewhere as I was not attempting to degrade anybody's baseball acumen. Only when mine was dismissed because of my choice for how to enjoy the game did I get bent out of shape. That said, my participation in this conversation is over. So feel free to take your best shots now, because I'm totally done. I have no interest in taking shots at you. Even re-reading that after your disclaimer still makes me feel offended, but I'll take your word for the fact that you didn't intend it to be so. Please do me a favor and take my word for the fact that my response was the same. Clearly, we both felt offended and shot back at one another. I'm over it if you are.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Now this is just ridiculous. Having more knowledge of advanced stats does not grant you some sort of special talisman that means anyone else's opinions on the value or performance of a player are wrong. YASNY could just as easily make your exact same post in reverse - that if you are unwilling to acknowledge or learn about the dynamic, non-stats-driven aspects of the game, that your assessments should not be taken seriously. How does that sound to you? Stats are powerful tools in evaluating impact and performance of players over time. They can also be used as semi-reliable predictors of LIKELY outcomes - not definite ones. Therefore, all stats are limited in scope, have inherent flaws, and will never be able to capture all aspects of a player's value to a team. That is an impossible standard. Stats are great. Baseball is great. Stats only describe certain aspects of the game. Get it? QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) Bull! This game has been a huge part of my life enough trust my judgement on what I see, the unmeaserable chemistry factor and watching the game itself being played. I have expressed many opinions over the years on soxtalk and I stand by my record of my words over your stats. I grant that your advanced stats give you a little, very little, insight to player evaluation. For you to come on here and say I have no idea of what I'm talking about because I don't happen to agree with your microscopic standard of player management is ridiculously short-sighted, at best. And, I'm being very restrained in my response to your arrogance. You guys are missing my point. There aren't "two sides." There is no set of sabermetric information and non-sabermetric information. It's not measurables vs. non-measurables. It's just information -- and if you want to be able to evaluate player performance accurately, you use all of it. You don't dismiss parts that you (a) don't like, (b) weren't known when you were growing up, © can't be easily calculated without computers, etc. All the stuff YASNY cited about unmeasurable chemistry is super important -- the difference in our arguments are that you're dismissing information and I'm not. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just bluntly responding to YASNY et al.'s dismissal of all arguments that they don't understand because they refuse to try. If you think something is bogus but you don't even understand it, then you don't have anything useful to say about it. All of this garbage about "well while you write your computer programs, I'm going to actually watch the game" is just as insulting as anything I've said. If you think I'm out of line, then let's start with the condescending blanket dismissal that began the whole argument. If you go back and read all of my posts before that specific remark, you'll notice that I've tried to be as informative as possible so that everyone can learn and discuss. To type all of that and get some smart-ass quip insinuating that I don't even watch baseball is infuriating. EDIT: I've read all the posts between now. I just want to make it clear that I never intended to insult anyone's method of "enjoying the game." You can ignore all of this stuff if you want if you don't enjoy it, but it doesn't make it all useless. That's all I'm trying to say. Secondly, I acknowledge the numbers are not infallible, I just ask that if people are going to argue against some of them, that they take the time to understand them before forming that opinion.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) While you're writing programs and punching in numbers to come with that 2.058 figure, I'll be sitting in my recliner with a cold brew and enjoying a ballgame. And the last time I looked on the only output format that really matters (the scoreboard) a home run is worth exactly 1 run with 1 run added for every baserunner. I don't need a computer for that. That's totally fine -- if you aren't interested in evaluating player performance, there's nothing wrong with that. Just acknowledge (to yourself) that you have no idea what you're talking about and remember that since you don't understand and have no interest in learning, that no one should take your assessment seriously.

QUOTE (SI1020 @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 11:08 AM) Do I need to take a calculus course to understand them? Do you know how to compute them? If they are the be all and end all of hitting measurements like FIP is supposed to be of pitching I think I'll pass. As for the thread I really enjoyed TUC's rant. I'd have to disagree on Dunn though. Last off season I said I'd trade him for a bag of balls. This time I'd ask for some bats too, because he did improve somewhat. I also think the Red Sox overpaid for Napoli. Maybe he will find Fenway to his liking. No, not at all. You just need to actually try to learn about it before passing judgement, just like everything else on this planet. You just need to set aside uninformed pop journalism prejudices for long enough to actually see what is going on. And these offensive measures are way, way more complete and reliable than FIP. FIP is based on DIPS theory, which is essentially that there are only certain factors of pitching performance that are reliable predictors of future performance, so if you want to predict how a pitcher will perform from year to year, you should only look at those factors. DIPS works out most of the time, but there are several high profile exceptions that no one can explain (See Matt Cain, Zack Greinke for examples on both sides of the spectrum). The whole idea is to strip out the context of defense, which is not something that anyone has figured out how to do completely. All of these offensive numbers do not need to make these kind of estimates. It's all based on linear weights, and it is, conceptually, very simple. Essentially, it has to do with coming up with average run values for each possible offensive event. These values change every year because the run environment changes every year. For example, on average, a homerun was worth 2.058 runs in 2012 because sometimes people were on base and sometimes they weren't on base. If a guy hit a homerun, you give him credit for 2.058 runs regardless, because that's what a homerun is typically worth. You're stripping context from the measurement -- the guy did these things, and we're giving him credit for the average amount of runs so we can compare him to other guys who did similar things. Coming up with the run values is rigorous mathematics because it involves compiling a ton of information about base/out states each time in order to update the constants, but the process isn't actually complicated or difficult to understand. And, the best news is that we have these machines called computers that can do all the rigorous math, without error, if we just program them to do so! For reference, here are all the constants from 1871 to 2012: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx

https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/275994488273530880

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) It is? Because Joe Carter's OPS was usually mediocre to bad while he drove in a ton of runs. Those two are mostly independent measures. Exactly, OPS doesn't "predict" anything. Homeruns create total bases, which are an input for SLG, which is an input for OPS. OPS was a very elementary, very raw attempt to look at overall offensive contribution that his been improved upon several times since its inception. The reason the RBI sucks isn't because runs don't matter, it's because it is a context-specific statistic that does a good job at describing what happened under very specific conditions, but does a poor job of evaluating a player's "true talent." Yes, RBI total loosely correlates with a hitter's true talent, but it correlates MUCH more strongly with lineup position, regardless of hitter quality. If you want to make informed decisions about how much a certain player is going to help you, you want to be able to evaluate his performance in a context-neutral environment. You do this, very simply, by counting the things the batter did that were more-or-less entirely under his control (hits, walks, stolen bases) and assigning run values based on league averages. Was Giancarlo Stanton (86 RBI) worse than Curtis Granderson (106 RBI) in 2012? No, because Stanton's season would have produced way more runs on an average team than Granderson's, which is eveident in their wOBA numbers -- .346 vs .405 Does this not make sense? I think everyone should learn how this stuff works before dismissing it.