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.
|
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2016 8:46:54 GMT -5
Not sure the Red Sox are going to have the resources to go big in free agency ... if they exercise the option on Buchholz, they'll be at around 163 million in committed salaries, plus arb2 years for Kelly & Ross, arb1 years for Xander, Holt, JBJ, and Layne. So, just pure guess, that's another, what, 10-15 million, at least? You're already at nearly 180 million, and you've got to resign or replace Koji and Tazawa, and need someone to replace Ortiz. Plus, you need some room in the payroll to start signing some of the kids to long-term extensions. So, I'm thinking the Sox really need to cover 1B/DH with people on the roster already (Hanley, Shaw, Travis). Your math seems a little off to me (I'm at ~$10m less in guaranteed salary, including Buchholz), but I agree with the general point. If either of the Travii look like 1.5+ win players by next offseason, the front office will likely be content with them at 1B and look to upgrade elsewhere first.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 27, 2016 9:27:36 GMT -5
Not sure the Red Sox are going to have the resources to go big in free agency ... if they exercise the option on Buchholz, they'll be at around 163 million in committed salaries, plus arb2 years for Kelly & Ross, arb1 years for Xander, Holt, JBJ, and Layne. So, just pure guess, that's another, what, 10-15 million, at least? You're already at nearly 180 million, and you've got to resign or replace Koji and Tazawa, and need someone to replace Ortiz. Plus, you need some room in the payroll to start signing some of the kids to long-term extensions. So, I'm thinking the Sox really need to cover 1B/DH with people on the roster already (Hanley, Shaw, Travis). Your math seems a little off to me (I'm at ~$10m less in guaranteed salary, including Buchholz), but I agree with the general point. If either of the Travii look like 1.5+ win players by next offseason, the front office will likely be content with them at 1B and look to upgrade elsewhere first. Ah, yes, I was going off Cot's, but I didn't notice they were including Craig. So, yeah, you're right that it's ~$10m too high.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Sam Travis
Mar 27, 2016 10:00:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Mar 27, 2016 10:00:29 GMT -5
If Shaw or Travis look like 2.5+ WAR players next year, I wouldn't chase any 1B. The cost isn't worth the marginal upgrade, specially when these kids are likely to only improve and the 1B FA will all be on the downswing.
|
|
|
Sam Travis
Mar 27, 2016 10:24:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2016 10:24:07 GMT -5
If Shaw or Travis look like 2.5+ WAR players next year, I wouldn't chase any 1B. The cost isn't worth the marginal upgrade, specially when these kids are likely to only improve and the 1B FA will all be on the downswing. At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 11:15:58 GMT -5
If Shaw or Travis look like 2.5+ WAR players next year, I wouldn't chase any 1B. The cost isn't worth the marginal upgrade, specially when these kids are likely to only improve and the 1B FA will all be on the downswing. At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely. LOL, live in a fantasy baseball world much ? You must not have gotten the memo where Henry said the Sox have been relying too much on sabermetrics and were going to lean more heavily on player evaluations. I seriously doubt if anyone on the Red Sox is going to be sitting around saying if Shaw puts up a 3-4 WAR, we can expect a 2.5 WAR from him. What will happen is that player evaporators will determine if his skill set makes it likely or unlikely to maintain, increase or decrease his level of performance and what changes can be made to maximize that expected performance. This isn't rotisserie baseball and decisions aren't going to be made based on the recommendations of people that are too busy fondling their keyboards to actually watch baseball.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 27, 2016 11:26:03 GMT -5
What will happen is that player evaporators Oh man, you really think they will evaporate him if he plays poorly? That is pretty harsh.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 11:35:44 GMT -5
LOL, new team function, Aaron Hernadez has been hired.
Apparently evaluators isn't a real word.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2016 12:48:53 GMT -5
At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely. LOL, live in a fantasy baseball world much ? You must not have gotten the memo where Henry said the Sox have been relying too much on sabermetrics and were going to lean more heavily on player evaluations. I seriously doubt if anyone on the Red Sox is going to be sitting around saying if Shaw puts up a 3-4 WAR, we can expect a 2.5 WAR from him. What will happen is that player evaporators will determine if his skill set makes it likely or unlikely to maintain, increase or decrease his level of performance and what changes can be made to maximize that expected performance. This isn't rotisserie baseball and decisions aren't going to be made based on the recommendations of people that are too busy fondling their keyboards to actually watch baseball. Man, someone is grumpy today. Go grab a plate of sisig and a San Miguel and chill out, Ray.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 27, 2016 12:52:27 GMT -5
But seriously: I guarantee you multiple members of the Red Sox front office understand the idea that Shaw and Travis can only be counted on as presumptive starters in 2017 if they perform to a certain level in 2016. It's not really a hard concept to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 27, 2016 13:07:51 GMT -5
Not sure why he would have to be an elite defender. He's seen as an above average one and that's more then good enough with his bat. I don't know that that's true. Most scouting reports that I've seen say Travis' defense at 1B is average or so. Keith Law calls him a good defensive first baseman in his rankings this year, which I take to mean above average.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 13:15:08 GMT -5
Travis is quite athletic, so I imagine he'd be able to improve defensively with work.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Sam Travis
Mar 27, 2016 13:20:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Mar 27, 2016 13:20:35 GMT -5
But seriously: I guarantee you multiple members of the Red Sox front office understand the idea that Shaw and Travis can only be counted on as presumptive starters in 2017 if they perform to a certain level in 2016. It's not really a hard concept to grasp. I think if Shaw performs well at the plate, and Travis is ready to play in 2017, they'll project to be around a 2.5 WAR 1B tandem with steamer. Regardless, there's a decent shot they're comfortable enough to not sign a 1B come next offseason. I hope that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 27, 2016 21:56:07 GMT -5
Steamers et al are a general set. They show what the average results were for all players who had had a similar age and prior history to the player they are naming. It's not an evaluation of Shaw/Travis, etc, it's a compilation of all previous somewhat vaguely similar players. That might (or might not) be what Cherington embraced but I seriously doubt if the DD regime will be that statistically unaware to use that to override what they think of a specific player going forward.
I seriously think the stats guys here have no clue about reality, this isn't fantasy baseball and the Red Sox have (and always had) far more evaluators than sabers and the evaluators have and always had for more say. Bill James has far less impact than Mike Hazen.
If things were as they are in jmei's world, Panda would be a relatively easy trade to make. I don't mean to pick on jmei personally but at SP he's by far and away the biggest spreader of this non-existent baseball decision making model and always expresses it with authority like as if it's fact. Look at the paragraph I responded to, it's just plain bogus logic.
Shaw/Travis/Hanley will be evaluated based on the the baseball people's view, not Steamers. Computer generated projections are maybe 10-20% of the decision process. They are far more useful for identifying areas that need work for specific players (Bannister's approach). They are here for the fans, not the pros.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 28, 2016 6:53:39 GMT -5
Steamers et al are a general set. They show what the average results were for all players who had had a similar age and prior history to the player they are naming. It's not an evaluation of Shaw/Travis, etc, it's a compilation of all previous somewhat vaguely similar players. That might (or might not) be what Cherington embraced but I seriously doubt if the DD regime will be that statistically unaware to use that to override what they think of a specific player going forward. I seriously think the stats guys here have no clue about reality, this isn't fantasy baseball and the Red Sox have (and always had) far more evaluators than sabers and the evaluators have and always had for more say. Bill James has far less impact than Mike Hazen. If things were as they are in jmei's world, Panda would be a relatively easy trade to make. I don't mean to pick on jmei personally but at SP he's by far and away the biggest spreader of this non-existent baseball decision making model and always expresses it with authority like as if it's fact. Look at the paragraph I responded to, it's just plain bogus logic. Shaw/Travis/Hanley will be evaluated based on the the baseball people's view, not Steamers. Computer generated projections are maybe 10-20% of the decision process. They are far more useful for identifying areas that need work for specific players (Bannister's approach). They are here for the fans, not the pros. That's not really at all how most projection systems work. Most projection systems take multiple years of a player's stats, adjust for things like level of competition and ballpark, apply an aging curve, and weigh the most recent years more and the more predictive peripherals more. In other words, it does automatically what any good evaluator should be doing manually when they look at a player's stat page. I guarantee you that Dombrowski and Hazen and just about every other member of the Red Sox front office applies similar principles when they do their back-of-the-envelope projections for how good players will be going forward. Yes, those guys also get detailed, up-to-date scouting reports and use those to make better informed decisions, but we generally don't, and so I'm working with what we have. The part of that I was emphasizing is that one good year doesn't mean you can ignore what Shaw and Travis have done in past years. Those guys have track records of being good but not great prospects, and of having good but not great tools and skills. Unless something significantly changes in their scouting reports, a la J.D. Martinez's change in swing mechanics pre-2014, that track record should be still taken into account. Look at my original statement-- it doesn't reference a specific projection system (and was not meant to do so), but instead refers to the general principle that to be able to count on them as starting-caliber players in 2017, they need to play better than that in 2016, because you'll need to regress them to their track record somewhat. PS: Not every reference to projections needs to be a referendum on the validity of sabermetrics (a debate that, by the way, sabermetrics has just about already won). We've had this exact argument at least three or four times now-- if you don't like projections, feel free to ignore my references to them instead of angrily lashing out about the kids on your lawn and such every time I bring them up.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 7:20:55 GMT -5
For players like Shaw or any other young player without any or much major league experience, I have to imagine there is a much bigger error bar on projections. These players are constantly improving (or just getting overwhelmed) and a broad-brush based projection system cannot possibly account for how each one can adjust. How can you possibly project improvement or a complete inability to adjust that hasn't happened yet?
I bet Hanley's 2006 projections were a little off after slashing .271/.335/.385 in AA in 2005. He then slashed .292/.353/.480 in the majors in 2006.
And for every Hanley, there are probably 3 Middlebrooks/Cecchini/Lavarnway types who crash and burn after showing promise.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Mar 28, 2016 7:37:26 GMT -5
FWIW, I saw a streamer last night on the sports spot of a local station. It read "scout says Sam Travis can be the next Paul GoldSchmidt". That would be nice, huh?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 28, 2016 8:14:34 GMT -5
For players like Shaw or any other young player without any or much major league experience, I have to imagine there is a much bigger error bar on projections. These players are constantly improving (or just getting overwhelmed) and a broad-brush based projection system cannot possibly account for how each one can adjust. How can you possibly project improvement or a complete inability to adjust that hasn't happened yet? I bet Hanley's 2006 projections were a little off after slashing .271/.335/.385 in AA in 2005. He then slashed .292/.353/.480 in the majors in 2006. And for every Hanley, there are probably 3 Middlebrooks/Cecchini/Lavarnway types who crash and burn after showing promise. Oh yeah, for sure. But that's not unique to statistical projection systems, and it applies to scouting-based projections (OFPs and the like) just as much.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 28, 2016 8:47:22 GMT -5
Steamers et al are a general set. They show what the average results were for all players who had had a similar age and prior history to the player they are naming. It's not an evaluation of Shaw/Travis, etc, it's a compilation of all previous somewhat vaguely similar players. That might (or might not) be what Cherington embraced but I seriously doubt if the DD regime will be that statistically unaware to use that to override what they think of a specific player going forward. I seriously think the stats guys here have no clue about reality, this isn't fantasy baseball and the Red Sox have (and always had) far more evaluators than sabers and the evaluators have and always had for more say. Bill James has far less impact than Mike Hazen. If things were as they are in jmei's world, Panda would be a relatively easy trade to make. I don't mean to pick on jmei personally but at SP he's by far and away the biggest spreader of this non-existent baseball decision making model and always expresses it with authority like as if it's fact. Look at the paragraph I responded to, it's just plain bogus logic. Shaw/Travis/Hanley will be evaluated based on the the baseball people's view, not Steamers. Computer generated projections are maybe 10-20% of the decision process. They are far more useful for identifying areas that need work for specific players (Bannister's approach). They are here for the fans, not the pros. That's not really at all how most projection systems work. Most projection systems take multiple years of a player's stats, adjust for things like level of competition and ballpark, apply an aging curve, and weigh the most recent years more and the more predictive peripherals more. In other words, it does automatically what any good evaluator should be doing manually when they look at a player's stat page. I guarantee you that Dombrowski and Hazen and just about every other member of the Red Sox front office applies similar principles when they do their back-of-the-envelope projections for how good players will be going forward. Yes, those guys also get detailed, up-to-date scouting reports and use those to make better informed decisions, but we generally don't, and so I'm working with what we have. The part of that I was emphasizing is that one good year doesn't mean you can ignore what Shaw and Travis have done in past years. Those guys have track records of being good but not great prospects, and of having good but not great tools and skills. Unless something significantly changes in their scouting reports, a la J.D. Martinez's change in swing mechanics pre-2014, that track record should be still taken into account. Look at my original statement-- it doesn't reference a specific projection system (and was not meant to do so), but instead refers to the general principle that to be able to count on them as starting-caliber players in 2017, they need to play better than that in 2016, because you'll need to regress them to their track record somewhat. PS: Not every reference to projections needs to be a referendum on the validity of sabermetrics (a debate that, by the way, sabermetrics has just about already won). We've had this exact argument at least three or four times now-- if you don't like projections, feel free to ignore my references to them instead of angrily lashing out about the kids on your lawn and such every time I bring them up. Then you need to stop using them as be all end all gospel every time you bring them up in reply to other people's posts or be prepared to hear from people that actually watch baseball. You are literally the only one that does that and you do it all the time. You said: At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely. That statement ignores so many factors, it's off the charts. No, a player wouldn't have to produce 3-4 WAR for evaluators to expect 2.5 without there being underlying reasons and those reasons clearly have nothing to do with a regression to their minor league and first few seasons track record. If there's regression, there are reasons for it, it's not random as you fantasy baseball people think. As far as sabermetrics proving themselves, look at the Red Sox and Royals projections the last few years, if you really want to scare yourself look at the individual players. Rearward looking sabermetrics has proven itself yes, projection systems are light years away. The only thing that sabemetrics has proven is that the will end up with an average team and average player having the same averages as major league. You are overly impressed that they come up with the average team winning 81 games and it turns out to be true. We'll see how your ignore the obvious approach to Panda's year turns out. A good evaluator by the way does a lot more than look at a player's stat page, I think that's likely the part that you don't seem to understand. On an aside, I'm sure your fantasy teams do better than average, at least you have that going for you.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 28, 2016 9:13:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I speak English
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 28, 2016 9:20:19 GMT -5
Ray, there's a reason why the FOs hired up so many of the people who worked with numbers at sites like BP. It's not the end all, but they do use those projections.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 28, 2016 9:23:11 GMT -5
Ray, there's a reason why the FOs hired up so many of the people who worked with numbers at sites like BP. It's not the end all, but they do use those projections. I 100% agree with that statement, 100% agree that they should and the way you phrased it. (Although their own projections are far more likely, companies like BP, etc, have nowhere near the resources of the tightest major league teams), LOL, even the Marlins.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 28, 2016 9:42:36 GMT -5
I just don't see how projections could take things like makeup, work ethic and things like those advanced vision/reaction test results into consideration. The reason why the Red Sox even started placing more of an emphasis on these things is because they realized players with high marks in those areas tend to meet or exceed expectations more often.
The opposite is also true.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 28, 2016 9:52:27 GMT -5
You'll want to familiarize yourself with the fine-grained data that MLB is making available to teams. Spin rate, for one, brings physics into play. Different spin rates cause the ball to drop more or less. That's really a function of the pitcher's release point, motion, hand and fingers and so on, so it doesn't change. But the knowledge can be used to refine a pitcher's approach. That can, apparently, be credited for much of the success of Astro's starters.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 28, 2016 9:57:21 GMT -5
I just don't see how projections could take things like makeup, work ethic and things like those advanced vision/reaction test results into consideration. The reason why the Red Sox even started placing more of an emphasis on these things is because they realized players with high marks in those areas tend to meet or exceed expectations more often. The opposite is also true. I don't think they do either and that's why I think the saber type projections are only step one in what will ultimately be their actual projection. For every player they will adjust plus or minus according to those factors and several others like mechanics, new tools, physical conditioning, etc, etc, etc. They will also use the projections to identify weak and strong points and try to fix the weakest links. Evaluators are going to make the ultimate call on whether or not a level of performance is sustainable. If they didn't, 3B and LF wouldn't be up for grabs right now.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 28, 2016 9:59:02 GMT -5
You'll want to familiarize yourself with the fine-grained data that MLB is making available to teams. Spin rate, for one, brings physics into play. Different spin rates cause the ball to drop more or less. That's really a function of the pitcher's release point, motion, hand and fingers and so on, so it doesn't change. But the knowledge can be used to refine a pitcher's approach. That can, apparently, be credited for much of the success of Astro's starters. All teams now have field fx at the majors and most have it at multiple minor league parks. That info isn't shared. Significant advantage for positioning fielders and determining actual defensive performance over perceived performance. Jeter always looked good diving for all the balls that went by him. Being specific, they can track all nine position players, the ball and the base runners simultaneously in nanoseconds. Does Bradley really start moving before the ball hits the bat ? The Red Sox know.
|
|
|