Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 23, 2018 -> 09:59 AM) RE: Money. Why, as I have read on these boards, do the Sox have money to trade for Matt Kemp if a prospect comes along, have money to trade for Corey Dickerson to DH, have money to sign Manny Machado or Josh Donaldson. But if they sign Mike Moustakas to a team friendly contract, they have pretty much used all of their capital, and are screwed moving forward? The difference is that Matt Kemp's money only covers two years and would purchase a sub-market asset with 6 years of control. It would be spending money now to save money in the future.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 23, 2018 -> 09:37 AM) What do you mean by Rosenthals on the DL? He's behind a paywall at the moment.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 23, 2018 -> 09:09 AM) To be more precise; I would prefer the left handed bat at $12 Million, for 5 years, to the Super Star right handed hitter, at $35 Million, for 10 years. That preference stems from the fact that we already have several potential Super Stars, and all but one of them, hit right handed. If you take the money out of the equation, of course I would prefer Machado, to Moustakas. I think one of the under-posted arguments to NOT settling for a guy like Moustakas is in the bolded of your post above. A bunch of these guys ARE going to flame out. More than likely, when we find ourselves on the fringes of contention, we will have a couple big holes to fill, and the math that you just described may very well apply. It may make a ton of sense to fill those holes with "just solid" players if we already have superstars elsewhere. The problem with doing that NOW is that we don't know which guys are going to be the busts and thus which spots we need to fill, so we'd be forced to guess. There is value in the flexibility of holding our money back until we can spend it in the most optimal way.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 07:35 PM) All the guys who were not full time players. You ignored if they played 15 games or 150.you ignored if they sat vs. LHP or RHP. You ignored if they were September call ups, or just some player that had a hot week. And you took these guys and made a blanket statement that they were better hitters. These are things you wouldn’t ingnore nomally. Dude, that is NOT related to the conversation I'm having with Lillian. It's just not. I have already agreed that the sample on my table ten pages ago should have been higher. I don't know what you're arguing. I have agreed with you on that point. EDIT: Also, I'm saying we SHOULD include September call-ups. Like, for example, would you agree that Rhys Hoskins should be on that table? My error was that I wasn't thinking about the right number of PA. Hoskins had like 200 PA or something, for whatever reason I was thinking of one month of PA as much smaller than that. I wasn't willfully hiding information, I just made a bad estimate. And I stated in every post about it what my minimum was. And even if I WAS trying to be deceptive, it still wouldn't be the same thing as Jose Abreu was suggesting in the Lillian conversation, which was the whole point originally.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 07:20 PM) It you did ignore playing time. By definition you used part time players to make is performance less impressive. The White Sox aren’t going to sign the guy unless it’s for dirt cheap anyway. But he is a pretty good player. Whose playing time did I ignore?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 06:59 PM) But they are because you were using players that didn’t play a whole season, and platoon guys whose numbers would certainly go down if they played every day. Yet you claimed they were better than Moustakas. Trance Thompson put up a 146wRC+ in 2015. Was he really better than big Papi, Rizzo, Bryant , McCutchen, Machado..... If you use those guys, it could only make Moustakas look worse because you were just looking for guys that did better. Far more did worse. Again, that's not at all related to the post we're talking about, which is based on ignoring certain portions of a sample. I didn't ignore any part of any sample. So Jose Abreu's claim that it was ironic makes no sense. Regarding what you're talking about: I think you're right that 50 is far too low. I didn't put a lot of thought into it. The correct number is probably more like 100-150 PA. It's important to include mid and late season callups/breakouts. That probably bring Moustakas just into the top 100. Generally, I think my point still stands: I don't think he is (or has recently been) as good a hitter as people think, because while hits hits homeruns, he does everything else poorly. So his overall production last year really wasn't high enough to (IMO) justify the risk against his aging curve to sign him.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 06:31 PM) I’ve got great respect for you Lillian so please don’t take this the wrong way, but do you realize how variable & random baseball actually is? Every player is going to have good months & bad months. Occasionally a bad month could indicate an injury or something, but 95% of the time it’s just normal variation. You are really overthinking it here or are simply looking for a reason to justify a move you want to happen. In Lillian's defense here, I think it certainly IS possible for Moustakas' performance variance to have been a result of an injury. And IF that's true, Lillian is probably onto something. However, in order to make that case, Lillian would have to provide evidence for that injury and show that his numbers were more consistent in non-injured years. Lillian, in case you're reading this: it's not that what you're observing COULDN'T be something predictive, it's just that its existence alone isn't enough to make the case that it's predictive. If you look at a lot of random players' month-by-month splits, you'll find a lot of instances of notable inconsistency, of which the vast majority cannot be explained by injury. It just turns out that players' performance over the course of a season happens to be more consistent than it seems to us fans.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 06:04 PM) Regarding this argument that it is not meaningful to evaluate stats, if any portion is excluded: When you have consistent statistical data, with a short period, which is significantly divergent, I think that it's fair to consider that data as an aberration. It's a long season. If a hitter hit .300 every month, but one, in which he hit .200, what would you conclude? Going forward, would you anticipate that he would hit around .300 .200, or the average of his entire season? I would interpret that data as indicative of a .300 hitter, who had a really bad month. The question then becomes, what caused that aberration? Was he hurt, or was it attributed to something else? To put it another way, I would take that good production in 5 of the 6 months, and hope that the rest of the team could pick up the slack, during that one bad month, if it should recur. The more consistent the production, and the greater the divergence of the one exception, the less significance one could reasonably attach to that aberration. Just to add to Tony's reply, which I agree with completely -- the bad month is naturally proportionately included in the full season total. So if the question is: "what is a guy who hits .300 for five months of every season and hits .200 one month of every season?" The most accurate and useful answer would be "he is a .283 hitter." If you answered, "He is a .300 hitter who has one bad month every year," you'd also be correct in a sense, but that answer is less precise and would distort the perception of his overall value, relative to the answer above. Because at the end of the day, the value you receive from the guy for a season is .283 production.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 03:57 PM) The point being 50 PA is not something you would use to conclude like you did with Moustakas. 10 or 12 bad or unlucky PA would drop those numbers quickly. That's not what I did with Moustakas, though. It's fair to say that 50 PA is too low a cutoff for that list (and after thinking about it a bit, I think I agree that I probably should have used something closer to 100 or even 150), but that's not even related to the idea of arbitrarily lopping off parts of a given sample based on time. That would be like if I chose Moustakas' 50 worst plate appearances to judge him. That's not at all the same thing as setting 50 PA as a cut off to make an ordinal ranking of hitters in 2017 by wRC+.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 12:30 PM) While I agree with this post, I do find it ironic that you say this, yet have been using 50 plate appearances as a minimum for stats throughout this thread. Those 50 PA are even less significant than month to month, half to half, etc. I'm not following you here -- the post you just quoted is implying absolutely nothing related to the significance of a sample size.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 09:27 AM) Try doing that with Todd Frazier, since coming to the A. L. Last year's monthly batting averages: .183 .185 .261 .192 .221 .225. Which month would you like to take out? His one month of statistical aberration is the .261, not the 5 other months, hovering around the "Mendoza line". QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 09:42 AM) The answer is: You would take out no months, because they all actually happened and you need to use as much information as possible to evaluate a player. Right, this ^ What's the magic in month to month? Why not week to week? Half to half? Moving the endpoints around may make the numbers different, but they all add up to the same thing in the end. All that tells us is that Frazier's performance is more evenly distributed than Moustakas', but the whole performance still happened and still affected wins and losses the same way. The answer is to look at the whole season. and judge accordingly.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 09:27 AM) Try doing that with Todd Frazier, since coming to the A. L. What am I looking for?

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 07:40 AM) Actually that’s a great point about Dyson. If WAR was the end all, be all, he would have signed for a lot more than 2 years $7.5M It's been well established that the free agent market doesn't pay the same rates for defensive production as it does for offensive production. Whether that's evidence that the way we measure defense is wrong, evidence that front offices aren't valuing defense properly, or more evidence that agents are behind the curve when selling their clients depends upon your personal perspective.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Feb 22, 2018 -> 08:22 AM) I have always found it useful to look at each month's production, in order to attempt to better assess a player's performance. For example; a hitter might be very productive, with the exception of one very bad month. Whether due to injury, extremely tough pitching, bad luck, or just a plain old slump, that month could significantly affect his overall season stats. Looking at Moustakas' month by month production, over the last 3 seasons, will reveal a pretty consistently good hitter, with power and a relatively low strike out rate. Take 2015, for example; Here are his month, by month AVG's: .356 .282 .299 .188 .281 .291. If you throw out that .188 in July, he was a pretty solid hitter. 2016 was a lost season, due to injury. However, he was fine, for the brief time that he played. So, looking at all of 2015 and last year, and taking out his worst month, in each of those years, his stats are generally pretty good. They aren't overwhelming, but they are good enough to represent a left handed presence, sandwiched somewhere between the heavily weighted right handed, middle of the order hitters. I hope that clarifies my point. Every player looks good if you remove all the times when they are bad.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 03:20 PM) They aren’t “scrambling to sign” him. The whole premise of this debate is that he is available at a discounted rate. And by discounted, I mean 5 years/$60MM. In that case, yes, I would consider signing him now at age 29 even if he doesn’t perfectly align with the Sox forecasted competitive window. I just don't see any reason for him to sign for that low AND that long. If it's that much of a steal, I could be comfortable with it, there's just no reason for him to do it. If he ends up having to settle for $12mm/yr, it'll be for 1-2 years. But yeah man, I don't even know if we're really on other sides of this fence if that's the price you have in mind.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 02:58 PM) That's where I am getting it. Steamer actually has him at 2.6 not that it matters much, but he played in 27 games in 2016 and put up a 0.7. So if he played a full season, he was well on his way to well above average then. Was well above average in 2015, and after missing a lot time he came back last year and was above average. In fact, only 9 MLB 3B had a higher wRC+ than he did. I believe defensively he can bounce back. He wasn't horrible, but wasn't great. Many think another year away from his surgery will improve his defense, which will only make his WAR rise. If you have reason to believe his defense will improve, it could certainly change the math substantially. In terms of the numbers, his defensive decline looks really natural, so without any outside info (like an injury) it looks like normal decline. But if it's true that he was working back from a non-chronic injury and he will be an above average defender going forward, it's much easier to argue for acquiring him.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 04:16 PM) And yet many want to sign guys like Donaldson (who is 3 years older and not a FA until next offseason) or Harper/Machado to a 10 year contract? I'm not advocating for signing Donaldson, but all of the players you mentioned are WAY better than Moustakas, so they have much more room to get worse before they get to be a problem.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 03:49 PM) Aging curves aren't always accurate. I bet you wouldn't have had Jose Abreu putting up the numbers he put up and a 4.1 WAR last year. He was a below average player. Now people want him to sign an extension. Correct, but they ARE accurate most of the time. They are the most likely thing to occur. Even if you acknowledge the possibility that he could buck the trend (I do), it can't be EXPECTED.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 03:45 PM) That is still top 3 on average per team. Ok, now apply aging curves for two to four seasons in the future.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 03:00 PM) Heres' where I got it. 107 is Yolmer Sanchez. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d Ok, yeah, you filtered by BA Title Qualification. That's fine, but it misses a crapton of rookies and players that spent decent time on the DL, both good and bad. I think it's more accurate to go with a lower threshold.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 02:45 PM) What’s your definition of middle of the order then? #3-#5? Either way whether he is #5 or #6 it’s semantics and I don’t know why everyone keeps labeling him mediocre? Apparently the Royals won a title with a bunch of mediocre players then. Not many here too high on Hosmer or Moose and both guys were regulars in the “middle of the order” during their 2015 championship season just over two years ago. Again -- it isn't 2015 anymore. Those players are older, and they'll be older still when we are competitive. Last year, in a bounceback season, he was a 114 wRC+ hitter, good for 107th in the major if you filter by minimum 50 plate appearances, or apparently 60-something if you filter by whatever minimum Dick Allen filtered by, which I guess is probably "Qualified for Batting Title." Would you scramble to add the roughly 100th best hitter to the middle of your order? Ok, now, take that answer and remember that next year doesn't matter in terms of overall record. Two years from now will matter possibly, if things go REALLY well next year. The year after that must matter. So we're taking that 100th best hitter form this year, pushing him 2-3 years into his 30's, and NOW placing him in the middle of oour order. Where will he rank then if ages normally? Today, he is a roughly average player overall. Those guys are ALWAYS available to sign. Every offseason you can sign average players at market rates.Why not, instead, sign a 2-win 115 wRC+ guy when we actually need him, instead of now and hoping he defies the aging curve AND that we also correctly guessed that he'll play the position we'll need in two or three years? And that his aged hasn't had him move off of that position?

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 02:44 PM) Where did you get this number? https://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/ Scroll down/Ctrl+F to "Context"

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 02:22 PM) He isn't league average. You keep saying that, but I don't know why. He put up 2.2 fWAR last year and both Steamer and ZiPS project him at 2.5. A league average player is "roughly 2 WAR." Ok, maybe he's slightly above? He's within rounding error of a league average player.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 12:47 PM) Your initial post that I quoted said something to effect that the white sox are likely not a playoff caliber team in two years (2020) if Moose is hitting in the middle of the lineup. How do you figure? And how do you define “middle of the lineup”? To me, that’s #3 thru #6. How many 2017 playoff teams regularly batted a guy #6 in their lineup last year with an OPS better than .835? Even if you are expecting a drop in performance two years from now, are you expecting it to be so dramatic that his OPS falls below say .750? Even after moving into a more hitter friendly park? For reference, the Yankees scored the second most runs in baseball last year and they were batting Greg Bird in the #6 spot for most of their playoff games. That’s a team that made it to the ALCS and was one game away from knocking off the eventual champ. The guys NL playoff teams were rolling out in that spot in the order were even worse... No, I don't consider #6 to be "middle of the order." But an argument where a team can be so good offensively that they still made the playoffs despite a mediocre performance by a guy in the #6 hole is not an argument that we should sign a mediocre guy for the #6 hole.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2018 -> 11:20 AM) My point is, first you used incorrect numbers. Second, he's probably entering an area where he is a good buy. Most projections have him between 2.5 and 3.0 WAR for 2018. He was 10th for 3B in wRC+, a stat you find important. The top 9 aren't available for a second round draft pick. If the White Sox are being realistic about signing Manny Machado, and I would love if they did, it means they have a ton of money to spend. Moustakas at a discount, shouldn't hurt adding more players. They are going to need several when it is all said and done. Moustakas can play 1B and DH as well, and could be a replacement down the road for a guy like Abreu. Someone whose WAR and wRC+ trended down until his age 30 season. If signing Manny Machado means the White Sox will not be able to add other big pieces, they are screwed anyway. First, as I stated in the first post where I mentioned the ranking, I used a table with a minimum PA number of 50 to find the 107 rank. This is important so that you don't ignore mid-season call-ups. Which did you use? Second, everyone is entirely ignoring context with this signing. If you are making a signing now for the sake of the future, you need to consider the player's performance in the FUTURE. As has been pointed out several times by several posters in this thread, Moustakas is currently 29 years old and has already shown signs of decline. There is no reason to believe his defense will get better with age. His primary contribution (power), is more abundant in today's run environment than ever before.