White Sox acquire Joakim Soria, Luis Avilan and $3 Million

[ptatc]

I have no interest at ALL in a dick measuring contest with you. God forbid someone point out that the random, free, lost-year bullpen flyer that the White Sox picked up might have some reasons for hope in his peripherals. If you have to pick up random dudes for your pen so that Dylan Covey doesn't have to pitch all year, it's smart to buy low on a guy with better peripherals than results. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that?

 

I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding the BASICS of probability. Mathematics factually proves that pitchers with the numbers that Joakim Soria had last year are MORE LIKELY to improve (assuming health) than those that do not. Nothing, anywhere, EVER has suggested that it's LOCK that Joakim Soria improves. A guessing game, therefore, means nothing. If he sucks because you guessed he would suck based on nothing at all, it doesn't make you smart or correct about anything useful. If Soria becomes the best reliever in the league, it will not prove that low FIP always leads to improvement. No matter what happens, it will just be another data point contributing to a general trend that currently, whether or not Soria ultimately strengthens or weakens the argument, shows that low-FIP pitchers are more likely to improve.

 

I know you love to contradict everything I say, though, so I'm sure you'll reply again with something that either (1) quibbles with some specific component of what is above, despite the fact that it doesn't change the argument at all, to try to get me away from my point, or (2) presents absolutely no useful information, likely including a snide comment about biased moderators or making some pathetic "wager" involving comment signatures like we're a couple of s***ty third graders on a playground. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It won't change the tiny, non-controversial anecdote of a claim that all of us are making that there may be some hope to Soria in the numbers. And I know that you understand it, even if you pretend not to.

This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions.

[Eminor3rd]

This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions.

 

That's not true. We're so far away from DIPS being new that people forget where it came from. Voros McCracken mathematically tested the year-to-year stability of every pitching metric he could think of, finding that relatively few were significant predictors of themselves going forward. He noticed a pattern: that the ones that WERE significant predictors of themselves going foward were those least affected by defense. He took ONLY those factors that were statistically significant predictors of future totals, and developed a formula that scale the results to ERA. Then, hundreds of people have rigorously tested and proven that FIP (and eventually xFIP, which is essentially just FIP with normalized HR rates) is a better predictor of ERA than ERA itself is. This is true throughout the entire live ball era.

 

It is math. It's calculating probabilities, so it isn't as black and white as 1+1=2, but the formulas were derived and proven from actual data.

[Dam8610]

This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions.

 

The models require high level mathematics, specifically regression modeling, to work. Just because it's not arithmetic doesn't mean it's not mathematics. At the highest levels, mathematicians don't even use numbers.

[Dick Allen]

That's not true. We're so far away from DIPS being new that people forget where it came from. Voros McCracken mathematically tested the year-to-year stability of every pitching metric he could think of, finding that relatively few were significant predictors of themselves going forward. He noticed a pattern: that the ones that WERE significant predictors of themselves going foward were those least affected by defense. He took ONLY those factors that were statistically significant predictors of future totals, and developed a formula that scale the results to ERA. Then, hundreds of people have rigorously tested and proven that FIP (and eventually xFIP, which is essentially just FIP with normalized HR rates) is a better predictor of ERA than ERA itself is. This is true throughout the entire live ball era.

 

It is math. It's calculating probabilities, so it isn't as black and white as 1+1=2, but the formulas were derived and proven from actual data.

It seems to me this particular example doesn't really fit the bill. Using FIP and xFIP after last season, you wouldn't have predicted his FIP and xFIP numbers in 2017, and would have told anyone who did that they are arguing with math . The fact is, even if this is all you claim it is, it is not 100%, and everyone has access to this information. To become better than average, one must find anomalies with these numbers. Personally, I think his numbers were a bit inflated towards the positive, and he will be 34 years old with 2 TJS under his belt. Regression seems way more likely than anything else.

[Dam8610]

It seems to me this particular example doesn't really fit the bill. Using FIP and xFIP after last season, you wouldn't have predicted his FIP and xFIP numbers in 2017, and would have told anyone who did that they are arguing with math . The fact is, even if this is all you claim it is, it is not 100%, and everyone has access to this information. To become better than average, one must find anomalies with these numbers. Personally, I think his numbers were a bit inflated towards the positive, and he will be 34 years old with 2 TJS under his belt. Regression seems way more likely than anything else.

 

The entire crux of this argument appears to be your lack of understanding that a chance of something happening is not a guarantee or prediction that it will happen.

[Eminor3rd]

It seems to me this particular example doesn't really fit the bill. Using FIP and xFIP after last season, you wouldn't have predicted his FIP and xFIP numbers in 2017, and would have told anyone who did that they are arguing with math . The fact is, even if this is all you claim it is, it is not 100%, and everyone has access to this information. To become better than average, one must find anomalies with these numbers. Personally, I think his numbers were a bit inflated towards the positive, and he will be 34 years old with 2 TJS under his belt. Regression seems way more likely than anything else.

 

1) Practically every post I've made in this thread has specifically stated that I do NOT claim that this is 100%

 

2) This is the best post you've made on this subject. Because you're citing actual reasons that you are skeptical about his "regression" toward his FIP. That's all anyone is asking. It's totally reasonable to point out his age and TJ history as reasons that his stuff may decline quickly.

[Dick Allen]

The entire crux of this argument appears to be your lack of understanding that a chance of something happening is not a guarantee or prediction that it will happen.

No, the entire crux of the argument is, while I like the trade, I think Soria sucks, and people view crap on other teams a lot differently than they view it on their own. White Sox fans are unique in that they appreciate others' crap a lot more than their own. The White Sox have had a whole lot of whipping boys with excellent peripherals. But the dream is Soria will be flipped for a prospect who will help the White Sox contend for years. I hope that happens, but it is a dream. The Sox gave up a rule 5 unclaimed and got another decent reliever and cash to get him.

[greg775]

Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade?

 

In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone.

 

Am I missing something?

The trade is fine. I just can't stand the idea of watching Soria in a Sox uniform.

 

No, the entire crux of the argument is, while I like the trade, I think Soria sucks, and people view crap on other teams a lot differently than they view it on their own. White Sox fans are unique in that they appreciate others' crap a lot more than their own. The White Sox have had a whole lot of whipping boys with excellent peripherals. But the dream is Soria will be flipped for a prospect who will help the White Sox contend for years. I hope that happens, but it is a dream. The Sox gave up a rule 5 unclaimed and got another decent reliever and cash to get him.

I agree with this post.

[credezcrew24]

I just think it's funny that anyone would brag about predicting that Felipe Paulinio wouldn't do well

[Bob Sacamano]

I just think it's funny that anyone would brag about predicting that Felipe Paulinio wouldn't do well

 

Lol I was thinking the same. Paulino had no track record of success while Soria at least has that going for him (though as pointed out, he's 34 now).

[Dick Allen]

I just think it's funny that anyone would brag about predicting that Felipe Paulinio wouldn't do well

It wasn't bragging, but if you go back to when they signed him, any post not positive about his future performance was ill informed, exactly like not being positive about Soria. Peripherals.

[BlackSox13]

I prefer to look at Soria this way. If he sucks he's helping the Sox get a better draft position in '19 but if he's good he presents the possibility of bringing back a quality prospect or two in July. Hopefully, Soria sees this as an opportunity to close for a rebuilding team that would happily trade him to a contender in July. Win win for everyone.

[chitownsportsfan]

I have no interest at ALL in a dick measuring contest with you. God forbid someone point out that the random, free, lost-year bullpen flyer that the White Sox picked up might have some reasons for hope in his peripherals. If you have to pick up random dudes for your pen so that Dylan Covey doesn't have to pitch all year, it's smart to buy low on a guy with better peripherals than results. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that?

 

I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding the BASICS of probability. Mathematics factually proves that pitchers with the numbers that Joakim Soria had last year are MORE LIKELY to improve (assuming health) than those that do not. Nothing, anywhere, EVER has suggested that it's LOCK that Joakim Soria improves. A guessing game, therefore, means nothing. If he sucks because you guessed he would suck based on nothing at all, it doesn't make you smart or correct about anything useful. If Soria becomes the best reliever in the league, it will not prove that low FIP always leads to improvement. No matter what happens, it will just be another data point contributing to a general trend that currently, whether or not Soria ultimately strengthens or weakens the argument, shows that low-FIP pitchers are more likely to improve.

 

I know you love to contradict everything I say, though, so I'm sure you'll reply again with something that either (1) quibbles with some specific component of what is above, despite the fact that it doesn't change the argument at all, to try to get me away from my point, or (2) presents absolutely no useful information, likely including a snide comment about biased moderators or making some pathetic "wager" involving comment signatures like we're a couple of s***ty third graders on a playground. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It won't change the tiny, non-controversial anecdote of a claim that all of us are making that there may be some hope to Soria in the numbers. And I know that you understand it, even if you pretend not to.

 

well damn.

[Eminor3rd]

It wasn't bragging, but if you go back to when they signed him, any post not positive about his future performance was ill informed, exactly like not being positive about Soria. Peripherals.

 

Based on the content of this thread, I cannot fathom how you can continue to accuse people about being certain about Soria's future performance. There are dozens of posts in this thread acknowledging uncertainty.

 

Most in this thread are hopeful about a Soria bounceback because peripherals.

 

LITERALLY NO ONE is certain that Soria is good because peripherals. You are creating a strawman, pretending we're arguing for that strawman, and then tearing down your own strawman.

[Dick Allen]

Based on the content of this thread, I cannot fathom how you can continue to accuse people about being certain about Soria's future performance. There are dozens of posts in this thread acknowledging uncertainty.

 

Most in this thread are hopeful about a Soria bounceback because peripherals.

 

LITERALLY NO ONE is certain that Soria is good because peripherals. You are creating a strawman, pretending we're arguing for that strawman, and then tearing down your own strawman.

Yet if I or Greg write he sucks, there is a lot of backlash. We are arguing with math. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts FIP or xFIP.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Kyyle23]

It wasn't bragging, but if you go back to when they signed him, any post not positive about his future performance was ill informed, exactly like not being positive about Soria. Peripherals.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=90722

 

Not seeing a lot of this

[bmags]

man, funny how salary for guys like that seem to have escalated while guys that would have been 12-14 million back then will go for like 1 for 5 mill (vet power bats).

[Dick Allen]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=90722

 

Not seeing a lot of this

I don't have a post in that thread. Must be somewhere else. A lot of satisfaction in that thread though. Peripherals.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Dam8610]

Yet if I or Greg write he sucks, there is a lot of backlash. We are arguing with math. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts FIP or xFIP.

 

If your claim is he sucked last year, that's just factually not true. The numbers do disagree with you in that regard.

 

If your claim is that he will suck in 2018, you're entitled to your opinion, but all of his numbers from 2017 show a positive trend, so I'm hopeful that he will be a useful piece who can net the team some talent in July, and if he's not, it costs the team nothing but money.

[Dick Allen]

If your claim is he sucked last year, that's just factually not true. The numbers do disagree with you in that regard.

 

If your claim is that he will suck in 2018, you're entitled to your opinion, but all of his numbers from 2017 show a positive trend, so I'm hopeful that he will be a useful piece who can net the team some talent in July, and if he's not, it costs the team nothing but money.

I have seen too many anomalies to think these numbers are foolproof, especially with relievers. And I know, no one is saying they are foolproof, but I don't neccesarily believe he was one of baseballs top relievers last year. David Robertson put up similar numbers his first couple of years with the White Sox, and his second year it turns out he was playing hurt, and if someone said he sucked, there were plenty of others to pile on. If you have a high k-rate, I believe these numbers tilt toward you. It is the one thing sabermetrically I could never understand. K's for a pitcher were huge. K's for a hitter was nothing. Although offensively, that seems to be turning.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't have a post in that thread. Must be somewhere else. A lot of satisfaction in that thread though. Peripherals.

 

And after the talk of peripherals, there is talk of "best case." Again, no one is saying they are 100% certain he will be good or great. Just that there is reason for hope. I would bet on him being mediocre rather than great, however.

Edited January 9, 2018 by soxfan2014

[Dick Allen]

And after the talk of peripherals, there is talk of "best case." Again, no one is saying they are 100% certain he will be good or great. Just that there is reason for hope. I would bet on him being mediocre rather than great.

So would I. So would all the projections I have seen. So would MLB team execs. Mediocre at best.

[ptatc]

That's not true. We're so far away from DIPS being new that people forget where it came from. Voros McCracken mathematically tested the year-to-year stability of every pitching metric he could think of, finding that relatively few were significant predictors of themselves going forward. He noticed a pattern: that the ones that WERE significant predictors of themselves going foward were those least affected by defense. He took ONLY those factors that were statistically significant predictors of future totals, and developed a formula that scale the results to ERA. Then, hundreds of people have rigorously tested and proven that FIP (and eventually xFIP, which is essentially just FIP with normalized HR rates) is a better predictor of ERA than ERA itself is. This is true throughout the entire live ball era.

 

It is math. It's calculating probabilities, so it isn't as black and white as 1+1=2, but the formulas were derived and proven from actual data.

I guess the issue i have is with the phrasing of "mathematically proven fact" you sed. It's still a regression type model that is not "proven." It's a probability based on the regression model that no one has ever presented the actual %. does the model predict 51% of the variation or a 91% of the variation.

 

It does predict better than ERA itself but that may be the tallest short person in the room.

[Kyyle23]

I don't have a post in that thread. Must be somewhere else. A lot of satisfaction in that thread though. Peripherals.

 

Yea but you are acting like anyone who had a dissenting opinion was attacked for it. Not seeing that

[Dick Allen]

Yea but you are acting like anyone who had a dissenting opinion was attacked for it. Not seeing that

I didn't see any dissenting opinions. I can tell you when I had mine, it was the same reaction as with Soria. Also, not too many wanted to hear anything negative about Zach Duke. I don't know what it is with these guys that make posters fall in love?