Moustakas linked to Sox again

[Dick Allen]

I don't believe that Eloy will be anything other than a LF.

 

His arm is not strong enough for RF.

Everything you read on line during the season last year, Eloy seemed like the next face of MLB. Then the winter happens and all of a sudden you start seeing articles about how he can't do this or can't do that. At least he's still ranked really high, whatever that is worth.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Why did it take forever for Darvish to sign? Why isn't Arrieta signed? Do they need to be better players? Same agent. Similar problem, only everyone can use pitchers. This is what Boras does, and it can backfire. Usually he pulls something out of his ass though.

You forgot JD too who was just signed 3 days ago. He’s pretty good too.

[hogan873]

There are still quite a few free agents out there, and many will sign soon I would assume. The longer they go unsigned, the more likely they may sign for shorter-term deals or deals with opt outs attached. Even though there hasn't been much talk other than this supposition regarding Moustakas, I could see him signing for 5 years with an opt out after 2. And I wouldn't be against the Sox signing him provided the price is right. Would signing him necessarily take the Sox out of the Machado sweepstakes next year? I wouldn't necessarily think so if an opt out was attached and/or Moustakas is moved to 1B.

[username]

We should also probably keep in mind that Machado might insist on playing SS, not 3B. That’s his preference, and it’s also conceivable that that becomes our biggest long-term need. If TA doesn’t step it up then we’ll need a long-term option there. And if he does, he’s a valuable asset we could move or shift to another position.

[Jose Abreu]

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.

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.

[Bob Sacamano]

The only reason looking at specific time frames makes sense if you are looking to see how a player was doing before and after an injury.

[southsider2k5]

We should also probably keep in mind that Machado might insist on playing SS, not 3B. That's his preference, and it's also conceivable that that becomes our biggest long-term need. If TA doesn't step it up then we'll need a long-term option there. And if he does, he's a valuable asset we could move or shift to another position.

 

Money will speak louder than position. In fact I believe the reason he wanted to move back to SS is so that he could see himself as a SS instead of just at 3B.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

I'm not following you here -- the post you just quoted is implying absolutely nothing related to the significance of a sample size.

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.

[Eminor3rd]

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+.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Lillian]

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.

[Chicago White Sox]

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.

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.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Chicago White Sox

[caulfield12]

I can't see the Sox handing a player like Moustakas a five year deal. Why would we be bidding against ourselves for a player we may not even want?

 

His low OBP frightens me, as he is a career .251 avg, .305 OBP hitter. Any slip in that batting average and we are talking about a hitter who majorly struggles to get on base. His defense is not good enough to offset that either.

 

He completely changed his offensive approach in 2015 and started to take more pitches to the opposite field.

 

Realistically, he’s a much better hitter from 2015-17, albeit one year lost to injury.

 

If we did that with Avi, aggregated his career stats, he would seem to be a bottom 10-15% player or sub replacement level guy.

 

.277, .329 OBP, 746 ops, only one career year over 1 WAR...

 

When Moustakas’ defense is above average, he’s a 3-4 WAR player. And he’s still just 29.

 

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[Dick Allen]

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, but it'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 ordinarily rank hitters in 2017 by wRC+.

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.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

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.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

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.

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.

[Eminor3rd]

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?

Edited February 23, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[caulfield12]

Even if you do it that way, he’s one of the best 100 out of 300 who had the most playing time for each team. Hence, well above average.

 

Let’s think of this another way. Which players that are better than him are available without gutting our farm system?

If I argued Josh Harrison, the argument would be that Yolmer is better or certainly cheaper.

 

So, other than Machado (who might not even want to play 3b), Donaldson, Rendon and Arenado, who’s really out there? At least two of those guys will probably re-sign, so you’re back in the box of chasing 33-37 year old Josh Donaldson with $140-165 million over four years.

 

Is Burger likely to be a 3 war third baseman in 2020? Odds, knowing his defensive issues...?

Edited February 23, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Whose playing time did I ignore?

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.

[Lillian]

This might provide an explanation for the terrible .188 AVG. in July, during his All Star 2015 season:

 

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-colum...le36249930.html

 

He took family leave twice, in the period leading up to his mother's loosing battle with cancer. She passed away the month following his poor July, on August 9TH.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Lillian

[caulfield12]

Following suit with the rest of the league, Mike Moustakas went off in the power department last season, besting his previous career-high home-run total by 16. His hard-hit rate actually fell nearly six percentage points to 31.9 percent, but Moustakas got the ball in the air more often -- his flyball rate jumped from 39.6 percent to 45.7 percent -- and that was the driving force behind the homer spike. He was also a far more aggressive hitter, upping his Swing% from 42.1 percent to 55.6 percent, and while that led to a precipitous drop in walk rate, the new approach proved beneficial on the whole. The 29-year-old improved against same-handed pitching, batting .270/.296/.467 against lefties (.241/.291/.396 for career) and kept his contact rate over 80 percent. It may very well prove to be his career year, but a move to a more hitter-friendly home park should keep Moustakas' production from falling off too much.

https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/baseball/...mike-moustakas/

 

Of course, in 2015 he had a 4.4 WAR and was heading that way before the knee injury in 2016. Last year, he was below 2 in a career year due to the leg on defense.

 

He was also bothered the last 5-6 weeks of 2017 by the knee.

 

That’s where Herm Schneider comes in.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

I’m not a fan of this signing. I don’t want to give up the draft pick for him and I think his injuries are catching up and will continue to do so.

[Chicago White Sox]

So, other than Machado (who might not even want to play 3b), Donaldson, Rendon and Arenado, who’s really out there? At least two of those guys will probably re-sign, so you’re back in the box of chasing 33-37 year old Josh Donaldson with $140-165 million over four years.

 

Is Burger likely to be a 3 war third baseman in 2020? Odds, knowing his defensive issues...?

Why are these five along with Moustakas the only five options? Why can’t we trade for someone when the time is right if necessary. The Giants just acquired a very comparable player in Longoria. I could see Kyle Seager becoming available at some point in the near future. These markets are dynamic and with the amount of teams rebuilding players who were once considered off-limits may become available.