Stone's Throwing of Shade at Ricky

[YourWhatHurts]

Just now, chw42 said:

Ricky finally got the balls to put his 2nd catcher at DH.

I hope Ricky was just letting Nomar sink and he'll starting getting ready for the playoffs now.  But my guess is Nomar is in the lineup tomorrow just because.

[JoshPR]

2 hours ago, Green Line said:

Yes I did.  I love Jerry!

Yikes! shudder... To each there own

[ShoeLessRob]

Didn’t think at his age Steve could still throw this much HEAT.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Winning leads to chemistry; chemistry doesn't lead to winning.

No one is talking about team chemistry. We are talking about people and ego management. At least I am.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

It's hardly an original thought.  Did the team have much "chemistry" when Dallas called their asses out?  Hard to say, can't really measure it.  Here's another non original quote that I like: if you can't measure it, it's not important.  That quote is often misinterpreted to mean "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist", which is entirely different and not the conclusion.  The conclusion is if you can't measure it -- don't worry about it from a management perspective.

Sure "Dancing for Dubs" might have some positive effect on how Mendick stabbed that liner against the Tigers, but so far nobody has been able to quantify it.  Until we can, I'll go with that the dubs produce the dances, and not other way around.

This is the furthest thing from the truth in team sports. They are people and they need to be managed from egos, to training, to injuries and so on.

[ptatc]

48 minutes ago, hi8is said:

I'm all for talking shop but after circling the same bush 50 times, a little break is fun. Otherwise, maybe just saying "42" some more will answer everything.

It is the answer to life the universe and everything. It's not a coincidence that Jackie Robinson wore that number.

[ptatc]

3 hours ago, SonofaRoache said:

I disagree with most on this. One player can't carry a team in baseball and managing is important. Having the most optimal lineup, pitching managing and care, defensive adjustments, situational awareness, etc are critical. In basketball and football, having a Hall of Fame wing and great quarterback means you will be good for a very long time regardless of coach and overall talent. If you have another good player or two to compliment those two stars, you will be very good as a team. 

These are not the decisions made by the manager alone, if at all.

[ptatc]

29 minutes ago, YourWhatHurts said:

I hope Ricky was just letting Nomar sink and he'll starting getting ready for the playoffs now.  But my guess is Nomar is in the lineup tomorrow just because.

You forgot to finish the sentence. just because.......it is not his decision alone to make.

[hi8is]

25 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It is the answer to life the universe and everything. It's not a coincidence that Jackie Robinson wore that number.

Exactly.... exactly.

[gusguyman]

7 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

Can you please answer this question for me?  In your estimation, how many balls has Eloy missed this year that Dyson would have caught?

No one is answering this question because 1) it is an over-simplification and 2) the unsimplified answer is really hard to find. BUT, I was really interested so I spent way, way too long looking into this:

First, to answer your question itself. Here are Dyson's career stats:

Here are Eloy's

You can see Eloy generally adds about -3% to -5% to success rate, whereas Dyson generally comes out to about 5% added in large sample sizes. So we are looking at probably a 10% swing in catch probability - Eloy has a success rate of 83% while Dyson has 93%. Of course, the thing this does not capture is that Eloy's biggest weakness may be going after balls in the gap - we have seen he is very slow to get the ball back in. So let's say a batter has, idk, a 10% chance of taking an extra base against Eloy that they would not have gotten against Dyson. 

Eloy has played LF for 5733 opponent PAs, and he has fielded 542 balls in that time, so on average he fields a ball in 10% of the at-bats he plays in LF. Now, the chances may have been lower or higher in this inning, depending on batter profiles, pitcher arsenal and velocity, etc, but lets talk on average. Of the balls Eloy fields, about 60% are catching flyballs, the rest are retrieving a ball from somewhere in the outfield. 

So each batter has an extra 1% chance of getting on, and an additional 1% chance of taking an extra base. Most of the balls that Dyson catches that Eloy won't would be pretty tough, so lets say each batter has a .25% better chance of a single, .65% better chance of a double, and a .1% better chance of a triple, since those are rare. Add in the effect of taking an extra base, almost all of which would be stretching a single to a double, and I'd say (very roughly) that the average batter has .25% better chance of a single, 1.5% better chance of a double, and .25% better chance of a triple.

Now to answer the question you are simplifying - how much does that affect the Sox overall chance of winning? And how does it compare to the offensive advantages of leaving Eloy in the lineup?

This is a pain to answer mathematically - you have to recursively calculate a ton of stuff because the win percentages change based on which batters get on (i.e. are there no outs still or two outs). You can use Markov Chains to calculate expected runs from 24 base-out states but that doesn't take into account the batters and the pitcher or handedness or a tons of other super important stuff. Over the last year I built a basic Monte Carlo baseball simulator to account for these things. It isn't particularly advanced, but it can give us a rough estimate here, so I'll take the opportunity to use it instead.

To answer the latter question first, let's look at how important Eloy is if you assume the Twins at least tied it up, and also don't take fielding into account. I ran 100,000 simulations, and I found that with Eloy in the lineup, the Twins won 60.5% of games when they scored at least 2 in the top of the ninth. With Dyson in, the Twins won 61.3% of those situations. Note that the Twins chances of winning here are much higher than 50% because in some of these situations they scored more than 2 runs and took a lead into the bottom of the ninth.

So if we assume the Twins at least tie it up, having Eloy in the lineup over Dyson is worth about 0.8% towards the White Sox' chances of winning. Not a ton, and the overall effect is that the Twins have a 6.11% chance of winning with Eloy in while 6.30% chance of winning with Dyson in. But again, that is ignoring fielding, so let's see what happens when we take into account the fact that Dyson lowers the chances of the Twins tying it up in the first place.

I ran another 100,000 simulations for both Eloy in and Dyson in, this time adjusting the opponent chances of hits as described above. With Eloy in the lineup, the Twins had a 6.18% chance of winning. With Dyson in the lineup, their chances of winning were 6.24%. In case you thought I woefully underestimated the importance of Dyson's defense, I reran the simulations with the defense having 5x more of an effect. In this case, the Twins win% with super Dyson was 6.19% 

Basically we are talking near negligible differences, and the White Sox chances of winning were slightly better with Eloy in. Really though, this exercise just goes to show how tiny of an effect individual strategic choices usually have on a team's chances of winning. These things just don't matter all that much in baseball, and I'll argue about them until blue in the face anyway.

TL;DR: The difference between Eloy and Dyson on overall win percentage was negligible, and there is a mathematical argument that leaving Eloy in was the correct choice.

BTW, I saw someone mention that RR only left Eloy in because he was leading off the ninth. So I reran the simulations with the scenario that Eloy instead made the last out in the 8th, and EE was leading off the ninth. In this case, leaving Eloy in gives the Twins a 6.22% chance of winning, while putting Dyson in gives the Twins a 6.17% chance of winning, and now subbing Dyson is (again, barely) the correct answer. So it was fair to treat Eloy leading off as a major factor.

If you think I messed up any of the estimates badly let me know, I am happy to rerun with different settings.

Edited September 15, 2020 by gusguyman

[Pants Rowland]

3 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Stone with Laurence Holmes on the Score now.

Any details or insight to provide?

[SonofaRoache]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

These are not the decisions made by the manager alone, if at all.

So Ricky doesn't make the call to bring in Dyson for Eloy? He also has no say in starting McCann against Berrios? I know these days the front office influences a lot of decisions, but o think Ricky has more leeway than people think. 

[harkness99]

11 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

So Ricky doesn't make the call to bring in Dyson for Eloy? He also has no say in starting McCann against Berrios? I know these days the front office influences a lot of decisions, but o think Ricky has more leeway than people think. 

he is talking about playing Mazara... which he is right that's not all Ricky's choice

 

[ptatc]

15 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

So Ricky doesn't make the call to bring in Dyson for Eloy? He also has no say in starting McCann against Berrios? I know these days the front office influences a lot of decisions, but o think Ricky has more leeway than people think. 

The call for Dyson for Eloy, probably, McCann starting probably not much. This is whole purpose of the analytics departments. Run the numbers and simulations to determine the optimal lineups. However it's not just for that day but for each series and each week to determine what is best overall.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, Pants Rowland said:

Any details or insight to provide?

 No breaking news, but he did speak highly of Dylan Cease, contrasting a few comments noted in the game thread yesterday. He stated he is performing well, especially in light of his relative inexperience.

Jason B on now, both stated they would vote Anderson over Abreu as their top AL MVP vote.

Jason’s answer to Parkins question regarding Eloy’s difficulties in LF brought up his physical limitations, and Parkins’ follow up was, “So you’re saying Eloy is like you out there.”

 

[Jerksticks]

The FO traded Steele Walker for Mazara.  You gotta think there’s been orders to play Mazara since they invested a 2nd round pick and plenty of money in him.  

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

The FO traded Steele Walker for Mazara.  You gotta think there’s been orders to play Mazara since they invested a 2nd round pick and plenty of money in him.  

yes.

that and they thought they saw something they could change to take him to the next level. They need time to let him adjust to those changes. It's not fair yo a player to tell him to change and then not give him time to adjust to those changes.

[southsider2k5]

8 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

The FO traded Steele Walker for Mazara.  You gotta think there’s been orders to play Mazara since they invested a 2nd round pick and plenty of money in him.  

Absolutely.  They obviously want to see if what they saw in him is still there.  He is an Avi Garcia.  Maraza is a super high ceiling guy who just can't get there.  I know it seems like FOREVER because of the shortened season, but besides games this year, they are also trying to evaluate if he is worth keeping around for next year.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

27 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Absolutely.  They obviously want to see if what they saw in him is still there.  He is an Avi Garcia.  Maraza is a super high ceiling guy who just can't get there.  I know it seems like FOREVER because of the shortened season, but besides games this year, they are also trying to evaluate if he is worth keeping around for next year.

It hasn't amounted to anything, and I haven't actually looked fully at video etc, but I think Mazaras swing has been much better the past 10-14+ days. His rhythm as well. He has felt inbetween all year.

[ron883]

30 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Absolutely.  They obviously want to see if what they saw in him is still there.  He is an Avi Garcia.  Maraza is a super high ceiling guy who just can't get there.  I know it seems like FOREVER because of the shortened season, but besides games this year, they are also trying to evaluate if he is worth keeping around for next year.

Avi Garcia is one hell of a player. Much better than Mazara. Me.likey.Avi.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

yes.

that and they thought they saw something they could change to take him to the next level. They need time to let him adjust to those changes. It's not fair yo a player to tell him to change and then not give him time to adjust to those changes.

Kenny and Hahn likely got really excited about the 505 foot home run.

The reason we traded a second round pick for Mazara, Home Run courtesy of Reynaldo Lopez.

Joe Borchard also hit one really far that one time. Kenny's Number 1 pick in 2000. Joe finished his career with a negative WAR (-1.5).

Mazara's is positive for now (1.1, though -0.2 with the White Sox), hopefully he won't get enough playing time to turn negative before leaving.

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by South Side Hit Men

[Blackout Friday]

Nobody in baseball takes Steve stone seriously as anything more than a tv persona. If you think it’s his choice to never work in a front office you’re wrong. I know this for 100 percent fact. 

[SoxBlanco]

7 hours ago, gusguyman said:

No one is answering this question because 1) it is an over-simplification and 2) the unsimplified answer is really hard to find. BUT, I was really interested so I spent way, way too long looking into this:

First, to answer your question itself. Here are Dyson's career stats:

Here are Eloy's

You can see Eloy generally adds about -3% to -5% to success rate, whereas Dyson generally comes out to about 5% added in large sample sizes. So we are looking at probably a 10% swing in catch probability - Eloy has a success rate of 83% while Dyson has 93%. Of course, the thing this does not capture is that Eloy's biggest weakness may be going after balls in the gap - we have seen he is very slow to get the ball back in. So let's say a batter has, idk, a 10% chance of taking an extra base against Eloy that they would not have gotten against Dyson. 

Eloy has played LF for 5733 opponent PAs, and he has fielded 542 balls in that time, so on average he fields a ball in 10% of the at-bats he plays in LF. Now, the chances may have been lower or higher in this inning, depending on batter profiles, pitcher arsenal and velocity, etc, but lets talk on average. Of the balls Eloy fields, about 60% are catching flyballs, the rest are retrieving a ball from somewhere in the outfield. 

So each batter has an extra 1% chance of getting on, and an additional 1% chance of taking an extra base. Most of the balls that Dyson catches that Eloy won't would be pretty tough, so lets say each batter has a .25% better chance of a single, .65% better chance of a double, and a .1% better chance of a triple, since those are rare. Add in the effect of taking an extra base, almost all of which would be stretching a single to a double, and I'd say (very roughly) that the average batter has .25% better chance of a single, 1.5% better chance of a double, and .25% better chance of a triple.

Now to answer the question you are simplifying - how much does that affect the Sox overall chance of winning? And how does it compare to the offensive advantages of leaving Eloy in the lineup?

This is a pain to answer mathematically - you have to recursively calculate a ton of stuff because the win percentages change based on which batters get on (i.e. are there no outs still or two outs). You can use Markov Chains to calculate expected runs from 24 base-out states but that doesn't take into account the batters and the pitcher or handedness or a tons of other super important stuff. Over the last year I built a basic Monte Carlo baseball simulator to account for these things. It isn't particularly advanced, but it can give us a rough estimate here, so I'll take the opportunity to use it instead.

To answer the latter question first, let's look at how important Eloy is if you assume the Twins at least tied it up, and also don't take fielding into account. I ran 100,000 simulations, and I found that with Eloy in the lineup, the Twins won 60.5% of games when they scored at least 2 in the top of the ninth. With Dyson in, the Twins won 61.3% of those situations. Note that the Twins chances of winning here are much higher than 50% because in some of these situations they scored more than 2 runs and took a lead into the bottom of the ninth.

So if we assume the Twins at least tie it up, having Eloy in the lineup over Dyson is worth about 0.8% towards the White Sox' chances of winning. Not a ton, and the overall effect is that the Twins have a 6.11% chance of winning with Eloy in while 6.30% chance of winning with Dyson in. But again, that is ignoring fielding, so let's see what happens when we take into account the fact that Dyson lowers the chances of the Twins tying it up in the first place.

I ran another 100,000 simulations for both Eloy in and Dyson in, this time adjusting the opponent chances of hits as described above. With Eloy in the lineup, the Twins had a 6.18% chance of winning. With Dyson in the lineup, their chances of winning were 6.24%. In case you thought I woefully underestimated the importance of Dyson's defense, I reran the simulations with the defense having 5x more of an effect. In this case, the Twins win% with super Dyson was 6.19% 

Basically we are talking near negligible differences, and the White Sox chances of winning were slightly better with Eloy in. Really though, this exercise just goes to show how tiny of an effect individual strategic choices usually have on a team's chances of winning. These things just don't matter all that much in baseball, and I'll argue about them until blue in the face anyway.

TL;DR: The difference between Eloy and Dyson on overall win percentage was negligible, and there is a mathematical argument that leaving Eloy in was the correct choice.

BTW, I saw someone mention that RR only left Eloy in because he was leading off the ninth. So I reran the simulations with the scenario that Eloy instead made the last out in the 8th, and EE was leading off the ninth. In this case, leaving Eloy in gives the Twins a 6.22% chance of winning, while putting Dyson in gives the Twins a 6.17% chance of winning, and now subbing Dyson is (again, barely) the correct answer. So it was fair to treat Eloy leading off as a major factor.

If you think I messed up any of the estimates badly let me know, I am happy to rerun with different settings.

Sorry that I didn’t have time to reply earlier, but this is a fantastic post. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I might send you a message tomorrow to discuss this in more detail. 

[soxfan49]

 

[Stinky Stanky]

Back to Stone, which is it, Mouthpiece for Ownership, or Criticize Too Much and He'll Get Fired Like He Did With The Cubs?  It can't be both.