SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2014-15 offseason discussion
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 12, 2014 22:55:22 GMT -5
Eric, you've been 'small sample sizing' the crap out of multiple threads recently. Its got to stop.... Well, I put that really clumsily. Everyone knows the sample sizes are small. In this case, we all know that Marrero has had 40 whole PA in AAA. For the original assertion to be true (the SS's job is his to lose), there is probably nothing Marrero could have done in AAA to warrant that claim. He could be hitting .623 instead of .263 and he's still have quite a bit to prove. My intent would have been more clear by saying "not when he's had 40 PA in AAA (and is hitting .263 / .300 / .316 to boot)." That the 40 PA have not been good is still a data point that will factor into the final analysis; the odds of a positive outcome would be better if he's raked for 40 PA, at least by a little bit. Essentially, the point was that he'd just been promoted to AAA, where he needs to continue to hit well in the long run (stuff I thought everyone knew and didn't need explaining), and by the way, so far, he hasn't, for whatever that's worth -- and since I didn't think everyone knew that, I pointed out the numbers. Like I said, it could have been way more clear. I do like to point out SSS just because they're interesting. Noticing them is a way of focusing your attention on a guy who might be worth watching among the 150+ candidates. I assume that folks take them with the standard SSS grains of salt. It's always my intent that people do so. Even when I say "that's statistically significant," that doesn't mean I think it's real unless I say that explicitly. It's just a statement about the numbers. So what you're saying then is, on the flipside, Sean Coyle will save us all. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 12, 2014 23:24:48 GMT -5
I assume that folks take them with the standard SSS grains of salt. It's always my intent that people do so. Even when I say "that's statistically significant," that doesn't mean I think it's real unless I say that explicitly. It's just a statement about the numbers. Based on the way you typically write your posts, this is entirely unclear, FYI. You might not want to assume that people know what you really mean in the future.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 13, 2014 21:34:12 GMT -5
Marrero now batting .326 but yes, I agree that he needs seasoning in AAA....maybe even well into next year.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 13, 2014 21:47:41 GMT -5
With Drew gone next year, do we put bogey at ss until marrero is ready and then yank bogey out in order to insert marrero.
Might be messing with bogey's head a bit!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 13, 2014 22:29:56 GMT -5
I assume that folks take them with the standard SSS grains of salt. It's always my intent that people do so. Even when I say "that's statistically significant," that doesn't mean I think it's real unless I say that explicitly. It's just a statement about the numbers. Based on the way you typically write your posts, this is entirely unclear, FYI. You might not want to assume that people know what you really mean in the future. I'm gradually becoming aware of that, and a related phenomenon: I can get very interested and seemingly enthusiastic without actually thinking a positive outcome is likely. Just a 10% possibility gets me stoked. I'm gradually realizing that most people don't do that, so if they see interest and enthusiasm (man, you have to watch what Gibson / Hernandez / Weems / etc. is doing!) they misread that as a much rosier estimate of the likely outcome than I actually have. I think that most people don't let themselves get psyched about a 10% breakthrough chance because if they did, then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. I don't get very disappointed in these cases, and to the extent that I do get disappointed, in a way I don't mind it. One side of the brain is psyched and the other side knows the likelihood of actual goodness is small, and they somehow coexist.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 14, 2014 10:54:00 GMT -5
Based on the way you typically write your posts, this is entirely unclear, FYI. You might not want to assume that people know what you really mean in the future. I'm gradually becoming aware of that, and a related phenomenon: I can get very interested and seemingly enthusiastic without actually thinking a positive outcome is likely. Just a 10% possibility gets me stoked. I'm gradually realizing that most people don't do that, so if they see interest and enthusiasm (man, you have to watch what Gibson / Hernandez / Weems / etc. is doing!) they misread that as a much rosier estimate of the likely outcome than I actually have. I think that most people don't let themselves get psyched about a 10% breakthrough chance because if they did, then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. I don't get very disappointed in these cases, and to the extent that I do get disappointed, in a way I don't mind it. One side of the brain is psyched and the other side knows the likelihood of actual goodness is small, and they somehow coexist. Well I do get enthusiastic with your SSS posts and look for my own examples all the time, fully understanding that they're small samples.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 14, 2014 11:09:18 GMT -5
Eric, you overrate our stupidity and your effect.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 14, 2014 21:10:21 GMT -5
Reports in the media today of other teams interest in Napoli, Gomes and miller. Plus speculation that peavy will be traded.
Assuming all are traded for prospects. What kind of haul can we expect from these players, assuming all four are traded?
I am not sure it will happen, but I am intrigued.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 14, 2014 22:17:04 GMT -5
Based on the way you typically write your posts, this is entirely unclear, FYI. You might not want to assume that people know what you really mean in the future. I'm gradually becoming aware of that, and a related phenomenon: I can get very interested and seemingly enthusiastic without actually thinking a positive outcome is likely. Just a 10% possibility gets me stoked. I'm gradually realizing that most people don't do that, so if they see interest and enthusiasm (man, you have to watch what Gibson / Hernandez / Weems / etc. is doing!) they misread that as a much rosier estimate of the likely outcome than I actually have. I think that most people don't let themselves get psyched about a 10% breakthrough chance because if they did, then they're setting themselves up for disappointment. I don't get very disappointed in these cases, and to the extent that I do get disappointed, in a way I don't mind it. One side of the brain is psyched and the other side knows the likelihood of actual goodness is small, and they somehow coexist. Depending on context I am to get prone to becoming more excited/intrigued in almost any 10% variance as it is almost always statistically significant and thus potentially indicative of, at the very least, more inquiry or attention; at the very best it is proof of real change. As you said, it's important not to leap to conclusions with small samples or believe that correlations are directly linked to cause and effect relationships or outcomes. But there gets to be a certain point where the small samples are continuing on their trends and genuine relevance may be appearing. For example, since the middle of last year, Sean Coyle began with an anomalous outbreak of offense. He picked it up again in the spring and has show very few signs of regressing yet. So this small sample more than 10% improvement i certain areas, btw, has grown to the point where it is potentially moving from nice small sample variation from previous norms to genuine suggestions that this may - possibly - be part of a consistent and genuine trajectory. (or not). Anyway, you have company on the 10% type stuff.
|
|
|
Post by zil on Jul 14, 2014 23:03:15 GMT -5
Reports in the media today of other teams interest in Napoli, Gomes and miller. Plus speculation that peavy will be traded. Assuming all are traded for prospects. What kind of haul can we expect from these players, assuming all four are traded? I am not sure it will happen, but I am intrigued. Napoli's not going anywhere and he's the only one who would yield more than a lottery ticket in return.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 14, 2014 23:12:08 GMT -5
Reports in the media today of other teams interest in Napoli, Gomes and miller. Plus speculation that peavy will be traded. Assuming all are traded for prospects. What kind of haul can we expect from these players, assuming all four are traded? I am not sure it will happen, but I am intrigued. We are not getting rid of napoli when he is really our only power threat outside of ortiz for the forceable future
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,945
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 14, 2014 23:12:24 GMT -5
Eric, you overrate our stupidity and your effect. It's not a matter of "stupidity," just a way of processing information and viewing the world. I've been posting online about baseball since 2000 or so and I've got a pretty good sense of how often my SSS flag-posts are misunderstood, no matter how much I try to explain them. I'll admit that I can have no idea about how many people get it and never post one way or the other. But I can assure you that the people who get all hot and bothered and tell me I was "wrong" about Chip Ambres or Charlie Zink, etc. clearly outnumber the folks who post and say they get it. If you get it, I appreciate that, but you can't speak for anyone else. As for my "effect," if by that you mean my influence or whatever, there's a pretty good track record there. Not that that matters to me. I do all of this because I want to know, and then I post it because I think others will be interested.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 15, 2014 16:03:18 GMT -5
Not when he's hitting .263 / .300 / .316 in AAA it isn't, at least not for a good while. Eric, you've been 'small sample sizing' the crap out of multiple threads recently. Its got to stop.... This needs to be said again about small sample sizes. A small sample size might be able to tell you a lot depending on how extreme the outcomes are. The expected variance of a sample is a function of the outcomes in the sample and the size of the sample. The smaller the size of the sample the larger the expected variance, however the expected variance never will reach infinity. Hence a large enough observed variance from a mean outcome can be considered to have a low probability of being caused by a randomly distributed variable. But that's all it means. For instance if a player in Pawtucket goes 0-10 with 10Ks that's probably statistically significant even though the sample size is very small. It is unlikely that this was caused by a randomly distributed variable. But that doesn't mean that the player is done and should be released. It just means that there is likely an explanation for this outcome that is specific to these 10 plate appearances. It also doesn't mean it's predictive.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 16, 2014 22:14:40 GMT -5
Well said Moonstone.
On another topic and just my opinion here but if I'm Andrew Miller's agent, I'm going to be looking for a one year contract with a team that promises to give my client a serious shot at the rotation. I'm not so sure the Red Sox are that team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 16, 2014 22:22:29 GMT -5
So he can lose his delivery and murder his value again? I'm probably as big a proponent as anyone on this board of converting successful relievers into starters. Heck, I still maintain that moving Daniel Bard to the rotation was a good idea, in spite of the fact that it flies in the face of all available evidence. Trying to ever make Miller into a starter again is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 16, 2014 23:08:23 GMT -5
Put yourself into Miller's shoes, what would you do ? Don't forget to include the difference in starter vs reliever pay in your thinking. He has a family to consider just like everyone else.
ADD: Now put yourself in the average GM shoes and consider Miller's pedigree. What would you do given that opportunity for a small risk big reward investment ?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 16, 2014 23:14:46 GMT -5
Put yourself into Miller's shoes, what would you do ? Don't forget to include the difference in starter vs reliever pay in your thinking. He has a family to consider just like everyone else. That family will not be eating hot does every day, no matter what he chooses to do. He's going to make a pile of money one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 16, 2014 23:16:29 GMT -5
I don't like to put myself in players shoes because I don't want to pretend that I have the same goals that they do or that all players have the same goal or whatever. But Miller being able to streamline his arsenal and simplify his delivery out of the bullpen led directly to his success. If he wants to be a starter I certainly wouldn't begrudge him in the least. I just think he's bad at starting and good at relieving.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jul 16, 2014 23:18:06 GMT -5
Put yourself into Miller's shoes, what would you do ? Don't forget to include the difference in starter vs reliever pay in your thinking. He has a family to consider just like everyone else. That family will not be eating hot does every day, no matter what he chooses to do. He's going to make a pile of money one way or the other. A utility player isn't eating hot dogs either, that's unrealistic to real life reasoning. ADD: Either way, none of this is my original point. That point being that Miller will have options available to him that make it less likely that you will see him as a reliever in Boston after this year. Somebody will make that offer to him, it's not the typical lefty set-up man situation. That's what Boston will need to compete against this coming off season for his services.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 17, 2014 5:44:04 GMT -5
Put yourself into Miller's shoes, what would you do ? Don't forget to include the difference in starter vs reliever pay in your thinking. He has a family to consider just like everyone else. ADD: Now put yourself in the average GM shoes and consider Miller's pedigree. What would you do given that opportunity for a small risk big reward investment ? Don't forget how Miller got here and why HE chose the methodical path back to the majors? Remember, he willingly signed a minor league deal after becoming a free agent shortly after the Sox acquired him via trade. He also willingly started the year in the minors. Why? Because he took a step back and figured out the best way for him to have a successful major league career. He's in a great spot right now as a pitcher and I'd be shocked (well mildly surprised) if he had any thoughts of anything like being a starter. A closer? Sure, but he's a bullpen arm and a very good one. The Sox should be keeping him. You'd think they could work something out assuming Larry stay out of negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 17, 2014 7:15:18 GMT -5
Put yourself into Miller's shoes, what would you do ? Don't forget to include the difference in starter vs reliever pay in your thinking. He has a family to consider just like everyone else. ADD: Now put yourself in the average GM shoes and consider Miller's pedigree. What would you do given that opportunity for a small risk big reward investment ? It is not true that Miller would necessarily get paid more as a starter. Miller could easily get $15m guaranteed as a reliever this offseason; no one would guarantee him $15m as a starter experiment. Yes, becoming a starter gives him a higher ceiling in terms of career pay, but it also comes with a lot lower floor and a great deal more risk.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 17, 2014 7:17:28 GMT -5
When Koji retires, why not co-closers? Manage the 8th and 9th with Tazawa and Miller. Using Miller in the 8th if some lefties coming up. Holding him until the 9th if they will be up then. Same with Tazawa. If righties in the 8th, use him there. Let Miller close. If lefties in the 8th, let Miller handle them and Tazawa close. Would like to keep both since it appears Breslow has fallen off the cliff. Have to think an injury there. He's too good to be this bad.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Jul 17, 2014 7:45:15 GMT -5
When Koji retires, why not co-closers? Manage the 8th and 9th with Tazawa and Miller. Using Miller in the 8th if some lefties coming up. Holding him until the 9th if they will be up then. Same with Tazawa. If righties in the 8th, use him there. Let Miller close. If lefties in the 8th, let Miller handle them and Tazawa close. Would like to keep both since it appears Breslow has fallen off the cliff. Have to think an injury there. He's too good to be this bad. I like that in theory, just think it would be hard to manage.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 17, 2014 9:37:00 GMT -5
When Koji retires, why not co-closers? Manage the 8th and 9th with Tazawa and Miller. Using Miller in the 8th if some lefties coming up. Holding him until the 9th if they will be up then. Same with Tazawa. If righties in the 8th, use him there. Let Miller close. If lefties in the 8th, let Miller handle them and Tazawa close. An excellent idea. We just need to get rid of John Farrell before we can implement it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jul 17, 2014 10:43:53 GMT -5
When Koji retires, why not co-closers? Manage the 8th and 9th with Tazawa and Miller. Using Miller in the 8th if some lefties coming up. Holding him until the 9th if they will be up then. Same with Tazawa. If righties in the 8th, use him there. Let Miller close. If lefties in the 8th, let Miller handle them and Tazawa close. An excellent idea. We just need to get rid of John Farrell before we can implement it. So let's say a team has three lefties in the lineup and six righties and for the sake of argument, all of the lefties hit in a row. You would bring in Miller to start the 8th and then Tazawa to pitch the 9th, perfect right? But what if Miller can't get all three lefties out? What if a team decides to mix it up and mix their hitters or start pinch hitting. The suggestion seems great in vacuum where the opposition handles the game in an orderly fashion. But that never really happens in reality does it? Part of the reason why managers have a set "closer" to pitch the 9th inning is that it gives them the most predictable control over their best pitchers. If you know exactly when they are coming into the game you minimize the amount of throws they waste in the bullpen and you know how many batters they will be facing at most. In this scenario you might be forced to use your best pitcher for longer than you want and/or warm him up more than once.
|
|
|