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.
Lester, Gomes & cash traded to OAK for Cespedes + draft pick
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Aug 2, 2014 2:08:30 GMT -5
Well the fact that he's a fly ball hitter and not a line drive hitter, it might be less of an issue. Eh, a lot of fly balls become doubles in Fenway that would be home runs elsewhere. Fenway actually suppresses right-handed-hitters' home runs relative to the average park (but massively inflates doubles). He should be able to get plenty of extra doubles too with his solid speed for a slugger. I hope someone can preach a little more patience to him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 29, 2014 17:23:59 GMT -5
I may not have the full breakdown for another couple of weeks, but a first look reveals that Yoenis Cespedes appears to have a very real and not random situational hitting split.
The thing is, it's not RISP versus non-RISP, although that's what jumps out at you when you look at his career splits.
It's actually man on 3rd versus no man on 3rd.
Look at his career splits by base situation, with estimated TAv:
Split PA BA OBP SLG TAv -23 33 .500 .576 .833 .468 --3 51 .395 .471 .737 .398 123 28 .435 .429 .609 .350 1-3 56 .304 .357 .609 .317 12- 132 .278 .311 .460 .262 1-- 361 .259 .296 .475 .258 -2- 181 .253 .331 .383 .254 --- 917 .245 .297 .441 .251 The odds of all the man-on-3rd situations clustering at the top or the bottom are 3%, and that's ignoring the smallness of the samples. Furthermore, even despite tiny samples, they all clustered at the top in both 2012 and 2014, and in 20013 they claimed the top 3 spots (he had a bad year with runners on the corners). The odds of man-on-3rd claiming either the top or bottom 3 spots three years in a row are 0.3%, again ignoring how hard it is for that to happen with the miniscule samples.
Here are the career totals and rates:
Split PA BA OBP SLG TAv K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC All but 1581 .252 .302 .444 .254 .218 .054 .055 .289 .270 .297 Man on 3rd 165 .389 .446 .687 .376 .133 .103 .066 .377 .302 .375 The improvement in strike zone command is dramatic, and it's probably responsible for the improvement in all three Hardness of Contact metrics (HRC= HR / Contact, XB% = XBH / Hits in Play; HOC is a weighted average.)
For the time being, I'll leave it at that, without speculation as to what it might mean or potentially augur.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 29, 2014 18:13:33 GMT -5
I may not have the full breakdown for another couple of weeks, but a first look reveals that Yoenis Cespedes appears to have a very real and not random situational hitting split. The thing is, it's not RISP versus non-RISP, although that's what jumps out at you when you look at his career splits. It's actually man on 3rd versus no man on 3rd. Look at his career splits by base situation, with estimated TAv: Split PA BA OBP SLG TAv -23 33 .500 .576 .833 .468 --3 51 .395 .471 .737 .398 123 28 .435 .429 .609 .350 1-3 56 .304 .357 .609 .317 12- 132 .278 .311 .460 .262 1-- 361 .259 .296 .475 .258 -2- 181 .253 .331 .383 .254 --- 917 .245 .297 .441 .251 The odds of all the man-on-3rd situations clustering at the top or the bottom are 3%, and that's ignoring the smallness of the samples. Furthermore, even despite tiny samples, they all clustered at the top in both 2012 and 2014, and in 20013 they claimed the top 3 spots (he had a bad year with runners on the corners). The odds of man-on-3rd claiming either the top or bottom 3 spots three years in a row are 0.3%, again ignoring how hard it is for that to happen with the miniscule samples. Here are the career totals and rates: Split PA BA OBP SLG TAv K% BB% HRC BABIP XB% HOC All but 1581 .252 .302 .444 .254 .218 .054 .055 .289 .270 .297 Man on 3rd 165 .389 .446 .687 .376 .133 .103 .066 .377 .302 .375 The improvement in strike zone command is dramatic, and it's probably responsible for the improvement in all three Hardness of Contact metrics (HRC= HR / Contact, XB% = XBH / Hits in Play; HOC is a weighted average.) For the time being, I'll leave it at that, without speculation as to what it might mean or potentially augur. It means absolutely nothing. Too small of a sample size, and no logical explanation
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 30, 2014 1:09:07 GMT -5
It means absolutely nothing. Too small of a sample size, and no logical explanation The smallness of the sample sizes actually makes the certainty of the reality of the effect larger. When you have a general effect and you can slice it into small pieces that shouldn't correlate if the effect were random, and they in fact correlate very strongly, that's evidence that the effect is real. The methodology I'm using here -- seeing if the individual base situations correlate, when they shouldn't if differences were random -- is the one I used to prove that career RISP hitting differences were real (to the satisfaction of, among others, Dick Cramer, who was the first to argue statistically that they weren't). And there is a trivial explanation. When there's a man on 3rd, then and only then can you be certain that a mere single drives in a run. That a hitter might change his approach in that situation is entirely credible.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 30, 2014 1:37:48 GMT -5
In another thread I pointed out that Cespedes, while being only slightly above average in most categories, was remarkably higher than average in HRs and, especially, in runs batted in. You just showed how that happened.
My feeling is that this is not just random, and it makes him more valuable than the standard metrics might make him. It also may explain, in part, Oakland's decline in runs scored after he departed.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Oct 3, 2014 9:51:21 GMT -5
It is entirely possible the Cespedes tries to use his power when the bases are clear or a man on first and changes his approach with a runner on 2nd or 3rd to focus more on contact. I can buy into that argument and potentially why his overall stats are lackluster, but still shows tremendous power and RBI numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Oct 3, 2014 10:33:19 GMT -5
It is entirely possible the Cespedes tries to use his power when the bases are clear or a man on first and changes his approach with a runner on 2nd or 3rd to focus more on contact. I can buy into that argument and potentially why his overall stats are lackluster, but still shows tremendous power and RBI numbers. Hmm I was curious and took a look at his splits for bases empty vs. Risp and it's pretty massive. This year in 203 pa his wRC+ was 140 with Risp compared to only 92 in 331 pa with the bases empty. This could be because he had a very low .257 babip with the bases empty whereas for his career his babip has been .297. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is causing the split though. One interesting thing is that his k rate drops 6% w/risp maybe suggesting a change in approach like you suggested. Edit: of course I missed the much better analysis a few posts up lol
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 3, 2014 10:48:52 GMT -5
bookiemetts, clever user name, well done.
I'd like to see more hitters taking a different approach with two strikes. Interesting numbers on Cespedes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 3, 2014 11:52:01 GMT -5
This is the kind of thing that could be better illustrated through plate discipline splits, but I don't know of any database that offers swing%/etc. splits by leverage/situation. It is true that some players do alter their approach in different situations (i.e., by swinging more/less, which might help or hurt them), but when you look at it purely by result (i.e., if you only try to gauge this by looking at his triple-slash in each of the baserunner situations), you introduce too many other potentially confounding variables, which makes drawing firm conclusions difficult. For instance, the league as a whole performs better with men in scoring position (97 wRC+) and men on base (101 wRC+) than with the bases empty (93 wRC+). This is largely due to sampling biases-- pitchers who put guys on base tend to be worse pitchers, so you'd expect those plate appearances where hitters are hitting with men on base/with RISP to come against worst pitchers. Similarly, defenses position themselves differently with men on (mainly, they're less likely to shift), which is why the bases empty BABIP (.295) is a good bit lower than the men on base BABIP (.303). There's also the fact that you're working with tiny samples once you slice and dice the data up, and plate discipline stats become predictive much more quickly than even BB%/K%, let alone the much, much more random XBH/BABIP stats (which take years of data to stabilize).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 3, 2014 18:18:39 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 3, 2014 21:43:25 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter. So trade Lester for Cespedes and then trade him for someone as good as Lester but 4-5 years younger?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 3, 2014 22:56:01 GMT -5
I usually agree with the illustrious Guidas but I really like the Cespedes trade. We got a definite pick instead of a probable one plus a chance to extend a very solid #5 or 6 hitter on a championship level offense. We can probably extend him if we want because he should be worth more to us than almost any other team. Every time I see teams play at Mcafee stadium it seems like at least 2 guys pop out in the foul line area. He is not bad in the field for a power hitter and right handed power is real hard to find. We tripled the controllability factor. And Cespedes is a fly ball hitter who pulls the ball about as much as any player in the league so Fenway should be his friend. I bet his BA increases by 25 points next year. He's a .280 hitting power guy to me with above average defense in LF to me going forward.
And we needed increased bat thump badly.
I think he may well get traded but if so we should still get a good return but I'd rather extend him for 3-4 more years at $16 mil a year if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Oct 4, 2014 8:12:12 GMT -5
I usually agree with the illustrious Guidas but I really like the Cespedes trade. We got a definite pick instead of a probable one plus a chance to extend a very solid #5 or 6 hitter on a championship level offense. We can probably extend him if we want because he should be worth more to us than almost any other team. Every time I see teams play at Mcafee stadium it seems like at least 2 guys pop out in the foul line area. He is not bad in the field for a power hitter and right handed power is real hard to find. We tripled the controllability factor. And Cespedes is a fly ball hitter who pulls the ball about as much as any player in the league so Fenway should be his friend. I bet his BA increases by 25 points next year. He's a .280 hitting power guy to me with above average defense in LF to me going forward. And we needed increased bat thump badly. I think he may well get traded but if so we should still get a good return but I'd rather extend him for 3-4 more years at $16 mil a year if necessary. Good defense is debatable. Great arm, poor reads.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 4, 2014 9:12:07 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter. Totally agree with your general point here (and I particularly like the goat rodeo metaphor!) but I might differ on the package we need to get back for Cespedes. We'll never get a controllable #2 SP or a controllable elite hitter for a package that has a low-OBP corner OF who can't field as its centerpiece. (Cespedes is a perfect example of the limitations of defensive metrics.) I'd be thrilled to get Beltre for a subsidized Cespedes and one or two of the mediocre, over-hyped, spot-starter-type young pitchers we threw out this year. A better scenario would be if we had seized the opportunity to make a reasonable deal with Lester last winter - something in the area of 5 years/$21 million a year. Then we'd have our No. 1 starter at significantly less money than we'll have to pay now. We'd be chasing a hitter and even in this offense-scarce environment a hitter is easier to get than a No. 1 starter. I said it before: I was pretty surprised on trade deadline by all the fanboyish posts on another board about how we were having a great day. "We got two all-stars! We fixed the offense! Cespedes won the HR contest." It's rarely a good day when you trade your top two SP - one of whom you could have signed at reasonable money and the other of whom is due to make minimum salary next year. I'd undo both trades in a second. It was a real goat rodeo.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 4, 2014 11:36:54 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter. You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Oct 4, 2014 12:19:10 GMT -5
Opportunity cost.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 4, 2014 12:28:11 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter. You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester. And that's my point with the trade. If they really think Cesepedes is the difference between making the playoffs or not next year (I sure don't) - and simultaneously think they can replace Lester's ability somewhere in the rotation next year (prob, if you buy him, Scherzer or Shields at market value OR trade several valuable assets for a similar pitcher, if you can) - then you make that trade. But if they really wanted to resign Lester, why gamble setting him loose on the open marker for basically 1 year of Cespedes when they could've retained Lester and had the exclusive 15 day post WS window (as well as 2 months leading up to it) to make him a market or near market value offer? You can still cobble together a 3.0WAR or better platoon using Nava as 80% of that platoon vs RHP at much less money. If you fail to sign Lester in the exclusive period after the 2014 season then at least you get a controllable asset via the draft pick and you're still going to blow the money or prospects trying to replace his production. Meanwhile, if they don't think they can move Cespedes as part of a deal to get an as good or better pitcher with at least a couple of years of control, or a hitter better than Cespedes at a position of need for more than a year, then it's just a shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic. Bottom line, I still think trading Lester for 1 year of a 3.0 WAR OF who is making $10M is a bad deal - especially when you can get that same production or likely better from a platoon that will cost you 50-70% less than that. No idea what else was offered but I would've held onto him if this was the best I could get and traded Gomes to someone else either in a package with a reliever or for whatever you could get (probably a reliever or an A ball lottery ticket) on his own.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 4, 2014 13:02:32 GMT -5
Lester may be getting pushed to take his situation to free agency by the union, yes this is purely speculative, but if so the negotiating window was irrelevant. And I have to think that if the offer we want to give Lester was one he'd take before hitting the open market, that an agreement would have already been made.
Guides, the real question to me is not whether they should have traded Lester, but whether Cespedes was the best long term return they could have received. his 1 year of control, as you say, implies that this deal was made to win next year. I'm not sure that was wise, but need to see the whole offseason plan before being able to make that judgement.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Oct 4, 2014 13:27:38 GMT -5
I stand by my July 31 opinion that this trade was a complete goat rodeo. The only way it becomes a positive in my opinion is if they get Lester back and/or then trade Cespedes in a package for either a controllable #2 or better starter or a controllable elite hitter. You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester. They gave up nothing of value if you by that you mean that Lester was going to FA whether he finished the season with the RS or with some other team. But I think the whole fiasco has to be looked at in the context of their botched opportunity to sign him last winter or spring.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 4, 2014 13:48:50 GMT -5
You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester. They gave up nothing of value if you by that you mean that Lester was going to FA whether he finished the season with the RS or with some other team. But I think the whole fiasco has to be looked at in the context of their botched opportunity to sign him last winter or spring. Sure. In that context, they did a good job recovering some value after that misstep.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Oct 4, 2014 13:51:20 GMT -5
Guidas,
I too think- and thought at the deadline, this was our poorest trade that day and Beane, ironically being criticized for the A's slump afterward and the playoff results made out like a bandit- you do this trade if you're him 100x out of 100. Yet Ben was simply a victim of a dropping market that day as Masterson and Price entered the trades, and importantly, the Pirates dropped out. Perhaps Ben is clear that either John is definitely not coming back, or definitely was going to test the market even if he's considering coming back, in which case it would be an ok trade under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Oct 4, 2014 14:03:56 GMT -5
You realize that the Red Sox gave up almost nothing of value to them in that trade, right? The only thing that could even possibly have mattered if it hurt their chances of re-signing Lester. They gave up nothing of value if you by that you mean that Lester was going to FA whether he finished the season with the RS or with some other team. But I think the whole fiasco has to be looked at in the context of their botched opportunity to sign him last winter or spring. Two different things. Go ahead and rip the front office for not making a competitive offer to Lester in spring training, they probably did screw that one up. But once July 31 came, they had another choice: keep very a good pitcher for the last part of lost season, then get compensation round draft pick, or trade him and get something more in return. They chose the latter course, and it was a no brainer. Even if you hate the particular trade they made, the concept was sound. Keeping Lester would have been far, far worse than trading for Cespedes and the competitive balance pick. Call me a sap if you want to, but I don't believe trading Lester mid-season is going affect whether or not he resigns with the sox. Have to wait and see the off season moves before casting final judgement on the Lackey and Lester trades. Even if you hate the Cespedes trade, that transaction has to be seen within the context of the entire 2015 roster building effort, which is still under way. It's going to be a long off-season, do we really need daily or 2x daily declarations of hate for those trades? Especially when they cannot yet be fully judged?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,966
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 4, 2014 14:22:29 GMT -5
They gave up nothing of value if you by that you mean that Lester was going to FA whether he finished the season with the RS or with some other team. But I think the whole fiasco has to be looked at in the context of their botched opportunity to sign him last winter or spring. Sure. In that context, they did a good job recovering some value after that misstep. I think we are being a little unreasonable, and overlooking the benefits of hindsight, in so roundly condemning the 2013-14 winter and spring. When the front office thought about what to offer Lester in Spring Training of 2014, they could look back over two years, his age 28 and 29 years, and see a 4.82 ERA in 2012, and a 4.52 ERA on Aug. 2, 2013, followed by nine great starts and a really great post-season. To watch the great season he had in 2014 and then fault the front office for not offering him more in Spring Training of 2014 seems completely unfair: you have to imagine them making decisions without knowing what was going to happen in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 4, 2014 15:23:33 GMT -5
Sure. In that context, they did a good job recovering some value after that misstep. I think we are being a little unreasonable, and overlooking the benefits of hindsight, in so roundly condemning the 2013-14 winter and spring. When the front office thought about what to offer Lester in Spring Training of 2014, they could look back over two years, his age 28 and 29 years, and see a 4.82 ERA in 2012, and a 4.52 ERA on Aug. 2, 2013, followed by nine great starts and a really great post-season. To watch the great season he had in 2014 and then fault the front office for not offering him more in Spring Training of 2014 seems completely unfair: you have to imagine them making decisions without knowing what was going to happen in 2014. Agree 100%
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 4, 2014 17:32:45 GMT -5
Wait a minute, you mean Lester has a track record beyond his 2014?
I could easily see Lester being the new Mark Teixiera, in the sense that he'll be the guy that Red Sox fans scream and cry about not signing, and then two years later the same fans will be bragging about not being tied to that bloated contract.
|
|
|