Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

[Whisox05]

They probably need keuchel more then Harper or Machado. Their staff wasnt that good. Rosenthal said today on mlb network that Padres seem to be a long shot for harper/ Machado.  He Did say there were multiple meetings with teams over that last 10 says with some being 2nd and 3rd time meetings with teams and harpers camp

Edited February 1, 2019 by aeichhor

[shipps]

3 minutes ago, aeichhor said:

 

Why cant I comprehend what buster is trying to say here? A bigger move than Harper? Or just in general might signal they are serious about making big moves?

[DirtySox]

2 minutes ago, shipps said:

Why cant I comprehend what buster is trying to say here? A bigger move than Harper? Or just in general might signal they are serious about making big moves?

It merely sounds like they have the money to make an addition. Even if it's not Harper. So why not Keuchel?

[Whisox05]

1 minute ago, shipps said:

Why cant I comprehend what buster is trying to say here? A bigger move than Harper? Or just in general might signal they are serious about making big moves?

Making a big move like Keuchel, Harper, machado, or realmuto seem to be possibilities 

[SonofaRoache]

5 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

An out is NEVER a good thing, there are simply some situations in which you’re willing to accept an out as the cost for an increased chance of a run. 

Coaches sacrifice outs all the time for runs, so yes, outs can be a good thing, depending on the hitter and situation. If Engel is batting with a man on first and no out in a tie game, he will bunt the runner over. Outs have their place in baseball. I am more negative on strikeouts than in play outs. 

[heirdog]

12 minutes ago, shipps said:

Why cant I comprehend what buster is trying to say here? A bigger move than Harper? Or just in general might signal they are serious about making big moves?

The latter...interest in big fish signals openness to making bigger move than simple roster filling, 1 yr deals.  

Edited February 1, 2019 by heirdog

[SonofaRoache]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

That is a special case where a sac fly wins immediately. The guy could also line to 3B and get doubled off that way. So many variables. 

I'm of the opinion that an out by definition is not productive. If you make fewer outs, run scoring will take care of itself. 

Players like Tim Anderson and Alexei Ramirez aren't my cup of tea. 

The top tier players get on base 35 -38 times out of 100. That is not a good percentage overall. When you mix in lesser players on the team, the odds of getting on base and scoring are low. This is why teams sacrifice outs for a chance to score one run. I care more about Runs produced and defense than OBP. How often do middle of the lineup jitters score after a walk? Harper and Machado's OBP difference is what 4 extra times standing on first out of 100? 

[mqr]

17 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

The top tier players get on base 35 -38 times out of 100. That is not a good percentage overall. When you mix in lesser players on the team, the odds of getting on base and scoring are low. This is why teams sacrifice outs for a chance to score one run. I care more about Runs produced and defense than OBP. How often do middle of the lineup jitters score after a walk? Harper and Machado's OBP difference is what 4 extra times standing on first out of 100? 

It's more like 10 times out of a hundred. Or the difference between a .200 hitter and .300 hitter. Last year Harper was on base almost 15 extra times out of 100. Nobody is saying a walk is better than a hit. It's not. It's just better than an out 99% of the time.

Teams that are on base more score more. Therefore they win more.

Edited February 1, 2019 by mqr

[BFirebird]

15 minutes ago, mqr said:

It's more like 10 times out of a hundred. Or the difference between a .200 hitter and .300 hitter. Last year Harper was on base almost 15 extra times out of 100. Nobody is saying a walk is better than a hit. It's not. It's just better than an out 99% of the time.

Teams that are on base more score more. Therefore they win more.

This is true.  When you are on base more often, you give yourself more opportunities to knock in more runs.  Cubs were awful last year with runners in scoring position to begin the year....but they finished the year top 10 in runs scored partly because they were on base so often and had more chances to score. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/onBasePct/order/true

13 out of the top 15 teams in OBP had records above .500.  And the 2 that don't (Texas & Cincy) were bottom 10 teams in pitching.

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, BFirebird said:

This is true.  When you are on base more often, you give yourself more opportunities to knock in more runs.  Cubs were awful last year with runners in scoring position to begin the year....but they finished the year top 10 in runs scored partly because they were on base so often and had more chances to score. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/onBasePct/order/true

13 out of the top 15 teams in OBP had records above .500.  And the 2 that don't (Texas & Cincy) were bottom 10 teams in pitching.

OPS is #1 in correlation with run scoring. #2 is OBP. I don't think it is a coincidence. XBH with runners on score runs. It isn't rocket science. 

[mqr]

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

OPS is #1 in correlation with run scoring. #2 is OBP. I don't think it is a coincidence. XBH with runners on score runs. It isn't rocket science. 

And obviously lineup limitations change the math, but on average a runner on first with 0 outs scores more often than one on second with 1 out who scores more often than a runner on 3rd with 2. Outs, in general, are almost always bad.

Edited February 1, 2019 by mqr

[ptatc]

14 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

OPS is #1 in correlation with run scoring. #2 is OBP. I don't think it is a coincidence. XBH with runners on score runs. It isn't rocket science. 

How strong is the correlation? Just because it is the #1 doesn't mean it's a strong correlation.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

How strong is the correlation? Just because it is the #1 doesn't mean it's a strong correlation.

R²=0.900 over one analyzed 5 year period.

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay/baseball/runs1.html 

Over some other periods it's as high as 0.95 and a better predictor of runs scored than wOBA.

https://cybermetric.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-well-do-ops-and-woba-predict-team.html

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

How strong is the correlation? Just because it is the #1 doesn't mean it's a strong correlation.

Well, OPS is just saying how many bases you can expect to get per at-bat. That means... that it is a very strong correlation since 4 bases = a run, so someone who averages more bases every at bat, contributes more runs.

[Jack Parkman]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

R²=0.900 over one analyzed 5 year period.

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay/baseball/runs1.html 

Thank you. That is incredibly statistically significant. 

[Eminor3rd]

50 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Coaches sacrifice outs all the time for runs, so yes, outs can be a good thing, depending on the hitter and situation. If Engel is batting with a man on first and no out in a tie game, he will bunt the runner over. Outs have their place in baseball. I am more negative on strikeouts than in play outs. 

Again, outs are never a good thing. 

Sometimes, coaches are willing to accept them as a cost to create a run scoring situation. But in literally every one of those situations, a hit is even better, and in most of those situations, a walk is better. 

It’s a subtle but important distinction from what you’re saying. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

R²=0.900 over one analyzed 5 year period.

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay/baseball/runs1.html 

wRC+ has a better correlation to runs than OPS. Using OPS, OBP, and Slugging in the same study is bad statistical analysis given that OPS is derived from OBP and Slugging. 

[Blackout Friday]

5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Well, OPS is just saying how many bases you can expect to get per at-bat. That means... that it is a very strong correlation since 4 bases = a run, so someone who averages more bases every at bat, contributes more runs.

That’s slugging percentage. 

[Balta1701]

 

5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

wRC+ has a better correlation to runs than OPS. Using OPS, OBP, and Slugging in the same study is bad statistical analysis given that OPS is derived from OBP and Slugging. 

Interestingly, I found a thread that started where someone did the correlations on reddit and wRC+ only had a correlation coefficient with runs scored of 0.83 in one year. It looks like most years it's better than that, but over some long time periods that people tried, wOBA had a higher correlation coefficient than wRC+. I don't see anyone who did just raw OPS in that thread, but raw OPS as I showed above is approximately as good as wOBA and maybe sometimes better. 

So yeah, OPS has a good chance of being more tightly correlated with runs scored than wRC+. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Blackout Friday said:

That’s slugging percentage. 

My bad, I typed that wrong.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 

Interestingly, I found a thread that started where someone did the correlations on reddit and wRC+ only had a correlation coefficient with runs scored of 0.83 in one year. It looks like most years it's better than that, but over some long time periods that people tried, wOBA had a higher correlation coefficient than wRC+. I don't see anyone who did just raw OPS in that thread, but raw OPS as I showed above is approximately as good as wOBA and maybe sometimes better. 

So yeah, OPS has a good chance of being more tightly correlated with runs scored than wRC+. 

I think wOBA has a higher correlation coefficient; I will look that up when I get home. I have that somewhere. I thought wRC+ over the 10 year sample was slighter higher than OPS and wOBA was the highest. 

Also, OBP + ISO has a better has a higher correlation coefficient than OPS I believe but I could be remembering that wrong. 

OPS is beautiful because it's incredibly easy to calculate - only two inputs - and it's incredibly efficient but I still don't think it should be compared to it's two subsets for obvious reasons.

 

Thanks for the link!

Edited February 1, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[pcq]

What was the Sox offer for Harper? Not sure if they are willing to go high enough. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

That ISO information is rather surprising.

[Jake]

I suspect the park and league adjustments are reducing the correlations in the case of wRC+. wRC+ beats OPS et al. in correlation with future performance without sacrificing the description of what happened in the past too much.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Jake

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

I suspect the park and league adjustments are reducing the correlations in the case of wRC+. wRC+ beats OPS et al. in correlation with future performance without sacrificing the description of what happened in the past too much.

Ahhh this is where I made my mistake. Its wRC not wRC+. You are correct the adjustment for parks and etc harm it. Similarly to how ops+ is less efficient 

wRC+ is more efficient than OPS+.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run