Sox changing up their amateur scouting department according to Mark Gonzales

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

What?! This is literally the opposite of true. A K has a .000 batting average. Even pop flies have higher batting average.

A walk has a 1.000 OBP. 

[Dam8610]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

A walk has a 1.000 OBP. 

Cool story. How does not striking out preclude walking?

[Chicago White Sox]

42 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's just math dude. More balls put in play=more outs. It is the point of BABIP. Also, to put the ball in play as much as Madrigal does you have to have poor plate discipline. Pitchers don't throw enough meatballs. 

Lol...now you’re straight trolling.  Less strikeouts = less outs (it’s in the previous word) = higher batting average = higher OBP.  The fact you’re ignoring his elite bat to ball skills is beyond insanity.

[Jack Parkman]

Just now, Dam8610 said:

Cool story. How does not striking out preclude walking?

Because in order to strike out at a ridiculously low rate you're not getting into deep counts. 

[fathom]

Can I get an alert when there's actually something important added to this story?  Thanks

[Chicago White Sox]

44 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It's math that striking out less leads to a lower OBP? Say what?

You have to have poor plate discipline if you have elite contact skills? Say what again?

Dude is losing it.  He’s made some bad arguments in the past, but this is a true Soxtalk classic.

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Lol...now you’re straight trolling.  Less strikeouts = less outs (it’s in the previous word) = higher batting average = higher OBP.  The fact you’re ignoring his elite bat to ball skills is beyond insanity.

Not necessarily. The combination of K+BB might result in a higher OBP than having a ridiculously low K% but also a ridiculously low BB% Usually in order to have a ridiculously low K%, a ridiculously low BB% is a requirement. There are some rare players that can still go deep into counts and not strike out, but realistically in order to strike out as few times as Madrigal does, he's putting the ball in play (a lot) before he gets to two strikes. 

Therefore, you have to weigh the risk/reward of putting the ball in play vs. taking walks. Any schmo can strike out a low amount if you're swinging at crap just to put the ball in play. Taking a walk deep in a count is a skill. 

 

I don't understand what people don't understand here. Everything I've said makes sense. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Chicago White Sox]

42 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It wouldn't be because the thing that makes a high BABIP sustainable is a high EV. I doubt that a player with as little power as Madrigal is driving the ball with authority often. Go on though. 

Exit velocity has practically zero correlation with BABIP.  Go on though.

https://www.pitcherlist.com/going-deep-an-exposition-on-babip/

[thxfrthmmrs]

22 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Yes I do. It is used as a predictive measure. Average BABIP is .300. Theoretically, if a hitter put every single ball in play over 5 years it would average to a .300 BA. It is used to look for outliers and predict regression to the mean. 

Madrigal probably has had a BABIP that is abnormally high. You can't hit as well as he does without one, and you can't sustain  it without driving the ball consistently. Madrigal doesn't drive the ball like that. 

Then you don’t know what BABIP is really used for. While it’s true league average BABIP is around .300, it is also heavily dependent on the player’s skill set where a swing to either side of the scale would still make it sustainable. It is best used to compare a player’s performance from year to year whether then looking at the number in isolation and making assumptions based on it. So arguing Madrigal is going to have a low BABIP literally means rat’s ass because it doesn’t suggest he couldn’t sustain .300 BA with a low BABIP.

For the record, it isn’t a stretch to imagine Nicky could enjoy a higher BABIP than you suggest as the lowest outcome for BABIP is a medium hit line drive, follow by softly hit LD, which he’s fairly capable of doing.

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

Then you don’t know what BABIP is really used for. While it’s true league average BABIP is around .300, it is also heavily dependent on the player’s skill set where a swing to either side of the scale would still make it sustainable. It is best used to compare a player’s performance from year to year whether then looking at the number in isolation and making assumptions based on it. So arguing Madrigal is going to have a low BABIP literally means rat’s ass because it doesn’t suggest he couldn’t sustain .300 BA with a low BABIP.

For the record, it isn’t a stretch to imagine Nicky could enjoy a higher BABIP than you suggest as the lowest outcome for BABIP is a medium hit line drive, follow by softly hit LD, which he’s fairly capable of doing.

There is one thing that makes a high BABIP sustainable: Exit Velocity. If you drive the ball with authority, you're able to maintain higher BABIPs. If you don't you're not. Since power and driving the ball is one of Madrigal's weaknesses, then idk what your objection is. It isn't like Madrigal is going to hit a ton of HRs. 

[southsideirish71]

http://baseball-farm.com/index.php/2019/07/20/nick-madrigal-and-baseball-preconceptions/

 

Quote

"In fact, most line-drives (launch angle ~10–20 degrees) that range from 75 to 110 mph in exit velocity have an expected wOBA in between .700 and .900 (as represented by the orange strip that cuts through the middle of the table). Put another way, if you hit a line-drive, you are, on average, more or less likely to receive the same outcome no matter the exit velocity, holding the direction of the batted ball constant."

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by southsideirish71

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Exit velocity has practically zero correlation with BABIP.  Go on though.

https://www.pitcherlist.com/going-deep-an-exposition-on-babip/

This is hilarious. If that is the case, then what is the fucking point? If all of these things have a low correlation with BABIP, then where is the actual skill in baseball? This suggests that the outcome of a batted ball in play is 100% luck and nothing else. 

[thxfrthmmrs]

23 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

How is holding people accountable a hot take? 

Jesus fucking Christ people. 

If people think that I think Madrigal and Vaughn are horrible picks, you've got it all wrong. They supposedly have special qualities,(I know that) but their limitations lower the margin for error to become a plus MLB player. I think that top 5 picks should have more margin for error with similar upside. That is all I was trying to say. 

I find it ironic that you mentioned earlier average career WAR for top 5 picks are 5-7 WAR and it’s a relatively good bet both Madrigal and Vaughn will exceed those marks yet you’re still not happy. It’s perfectly fine to pick the low risk/medium reward type when they’re available, given how hard it is to even produce a single MLB’er in the draft. Constantly pushing for the high risk/high reward type regardless of other players that are available is such a meatball fan post.

[Chicago White Sox]

16 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Not necessarily. The combination of K+BB might result in a higher OBP than having a ridiculously low K% but also a ridiculously low BB% Usually in order to have a ridiculously low K%, a ridiculously low BB% is a requirement. There are some rare players that can still go deep into counts and not strike out, but realistically in order to strike out as few times as Madrigal does, he's putting the ball in play (a lot) before he gets to two strikes. 

Therefore, you have to weigh the risk/reward of putting the ball in play vs. taking walks. Any schmo can strike out a low amount if you're swinging at crap just to put the ball in play. Taking a walk deep in a count is a skill. 

 

I don't understand what people don't understand here. Everything I've said makes sense. 

Cool story...except remember the time you claimed striking out less would result in a lower OBP because of “straight math”.  Just own up to what you said so we can all move on.

[Jack Parkman]

8 minutes ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

I find it ironic that you mentioned earlier average career WAR for top 5 picks are 5-7 WAR and it’s a relatively good bet both Madrigal and Vaughn will exceed those marks yet you’re still not happy. It’s perfectly fine to pick the low risk/medium reward type when they’re available, given how hard it is to even produce a single MLB’er in the draft. Constantly pushing for the high risk/high reward type regardless of other players that are available is such a meatball fan post.

Let's put it in baseball terms: 

You try to hit a single. You might hit a double every once in a while. HRs and triples are rare, you just happen to run into them. 

You swing for the fences. You might strike out more often, but you're going to hit a hell of a lot more XBH than you otherwise would being content with the single. 

The safe pick is always the wrong pick. 

Did we not learn anything from the Sox draft philosophy from the late 2000s? 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[thxfrthmmrs]

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

There is one thing that makes a high BABIP sustainable: Exit Velocity. If you drive the ball with authority, you're able to maintain higher BABIPs. If you don't you're not. Since power and driving the ball is one of Madrigal's weaknesses, then idk what your objection is. It isn't like Madrigal is going to hit a ton of HRs. 

Like I said, who cares about BABIP if he has skills to be a .300 hitter? You’re overthinking this shit for no apparent reason and it’s making you sound like a troll.

Someone could be a .300 hitter with a .310 BABIP and others could be a .300 hitter if they are hitting .350 in BABIP. Both are sustainable depending on their skill set. Madrigal is the first outcome.

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Cool story...except remember the time you claimed striking out less would result in a lower OBP because of “straight math”.  Just own up to what you said so we can all move on.

The post that you quoted is what I was trying to get at by "straight math." In order to strike out at an incredibly low rate, it is extremely likely that the hitter is sacrificing walks and getting deep into counts in order to achieve that. It would take an incredibly rare and special player to have THAT EYE and THAT CONTACT TOOL. You're talking about the best pure hitters of all time. Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, etc. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Chicago White Sox]

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

This is hilarious. If that is the case, then what is the fucking point? If all of these things have a low correlation with BABIP, then where is the actual skill in baseball? This suggests that the outcome of a batted ball in play is 100% luck and nothing else. 

All these things don’t have a small correlation though, they’re just being evaluated as independent variables.  Not exactly sure what kind of r2 you were expecting here or if you actually read the article.

[Chicago White Sox]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The post that you quoted is what I was trying to get at by "straight math." In order to strike out at an incredibly low rate, it is extremely likely that the hitter is sacrificing walks and getting deep into counts in order to achieve that. It would take an incredibly rare and special player to have THAT EYE and THAT CONTACT TOOL. You're talking about the best pure hitters of all time. Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, etc. 

How in the world is that assessment “straight math”?  You’re moving the goalposts bro.

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

All these things don’t have a small correlation though, they’re just being evaluated as independent variables.  Not exactly sure what kind of r2 you were expecting here or if you actually read the article.

It doesn't reach the level of statistical significance unless you have an r^2 of over 0.5, so none of those have a correlation that is anything close to having any meaning at all. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

The post that you quoted is what I was trying to get at by "straight math." In order to strike out at an incredibly low rate, it is extremely likely that the hitter is sacrificing walks and getting deep into counts in order to achieve that. It would take an incredibly rare and special player to have THAT EYE and THAT CONTACT TOOL. 

Uh Jack, it takes an incredibly rare and special player to strike out in professional baseball at a 3% rate.

By all accounts with Nick Madrigal he's an intelligent hitter who doesn't chase a lot of pitches out of the zone. Honestly you're just making things up to rip the guy and creating scenarios opposite of his performance so far in his life.

[thxfrthmmrs]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Let's put it in baseball terms: 

You try to hit a single. You might hit a double every once in a while. HRs and triples are rare, you just happen to run into them. 

You swing for the fences. You might strike out more often, but you're going to hit a hell of a lot more XBH than you otherwise would being content with the single. 

The safe pick is almost always the wrong pick. 

Nice try, but very different probabilities. The probability of hitting an HR through the draft is much lower than in the game of baseball as you’re trying to force together an analogy. In that case I would rather have 3 singles or a double and a single than trying to hit an HR every single time where the probability is much lower. MLB draft is where if you’re constantly hitting singles or doubles, you’re doing better than 95% of the league.

[Jack Parkman]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Uh Jack, it takes an incredibly rare and special player to strike out in professional baseball at a 3% rate.

By all accounts with Nick Madrigal he's an intelligent hitter who doesn't chase a lot of pitches out of the zone. Honestly you're just making things up to rip the guy and creating scenarios opposite of his performance so far in his life.

No it doesn't. Players before the 90s would go out of their way to strike out as little as possible. I'm sure 30% of hitters had a K% of less than 10% in the 50s and 60s. 

[BackDoorBreach]

So this is really off the rails now.  And just to throw more gas on it, I too wanted Bleday over Vaughn since our entire org is 1B/DH's now.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No it doesn't. Players before the 90s would go out of their way to strike out as little as possible. I'm sure 30% of hitters had a K% of less than 10% in the 50s and 60s. 

Rates are judged vs league average and not vs other eras.