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.
2016 Non-Sox Thread
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Jan 19, 2016 20:50:51 GMT -5
human intelligence about the human element of players [...] is critical information Please elaborate, what's an example of such information, why is it critical, and what do you do with it? This board is full of scouting information, not only about how players performed (analytics), but why they may have performed that way, explaining anomalies due to injury, illness, fatigue, family issues, emotional state, being rushed, weather, equipment failures, etc. Scouts also learn what pitches are being "practiced" and why, how a pitcher is tinkering with mechanics or struggling with feel, and why. Scouts know that a hitter has been told to work the count, bunt, hit and run, sacrifice, and why. Scouts know that defenders are positioned on certain plays, in relation to an opposing hitter or to babying a hammy problem. In other words good scouts are all eyes, ears and connections, experts at accurately reading the human influence (and impact) of each play within each game. Older scouts are likely the most and best connected (plugged in) in ways that youngers scouts could only hope to achieve with experience. Older scouts also get paid the best because of their information networks (just like the elite skills of David Price or Big Papi; or just like the older top nurses, sales staff, engineers, faculty.). Because of their high salaries, these are also the first to go and are, by virtue of salary history and age, the most unlikely to be hired. We have all witnessed the often spurious reasons for downsizing and the resultant workload inefficiencies. Such human intelligence, combined with analytics, provides a truer picture than one or the other alone. So, this downsizing is both sad and a most likely inefficient move away from from comprehensive information gathering; and, therfore, analysis.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 19, 2016 21:20:02 GMT -5
With skilled analysts to observe each player and play at multiple angles over-and-over and a greater amount of information available to know "injury, illness, fatigue, family issues, emotional state, being rushed, weather, equipment failures, etc" I'm not so sure the human intelligence is actually being lost - it's simply changing and in many ways improving.
Is there something being lost? I'm sure there is - but I don't believe it's as much as we feel it is. The long-time traditions are fading away and being replaced with something new, different and not as personally engrossing.
The play is ending and the movie has begun.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jan 20, 2016 10:31:28 GMT -5
Please elaborate, what's an example of such information, why is it critical, and what do you do with it? This board is full of scouting information, not only about how players performed (analytics), but why they may have performed that way, explaining anomalies due to injury, illness, fatigue, family issues, emotional state, being rushed, weather, equipment failures, etc. Scouts also learn what pitches are being "practiced" and why, how a pitcher is tinkering with mechanics or struggling with feel, and why. Scouts know that a hitter has been told to work the count, bunt, hit and run, sacrifice, and why. Scouts know that defenders are positioned on certain plays, in relation to an opposing hitter or to babying a hammy problem. So you answered part 1 of my question, but not parts 2 and 3. Moreover, we were talking mainly about advance scouts. I'm sure you're not supposed to be telling scouts from your future opponents how your pitchers are tinkering with their mechanics and what your hitters have been instructed to do, do you have any proof that scouts actually get this information?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 20, 2016 16:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Jan 20, 2016 16:53:32 GMT -5
With skilled analysts to observe each player and play at multiple angles over-and-over and a greater amount of information available to know "injury, illness, fatigue, family issues, emotional state, being rushed, weather, equipment failures, etc" I'm not so sure the human intelligence is actually being lost - it's simply changing and in many ways improving. Is there something being lost? I'm sure there is - but I don't believe it's as much as we feel it is. The long-time traditions are fading away and being replaced with something new, different and not as personally engrossing. The play is ending and the movie has begun. And we all know what Hollywood does to good plays and books. LoL
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Jan 20, 2016 17:01:09 GMT -5
This board is full of scouting information, not only about how players performed (analytics), but why they may have performed that way, explaining anomalies due to injury, illness, fatigue, family issues, emotional state, being rushed, weather, equipment failures, etc. Scouts also learn what pitches are being "practiced" and why, how a pitcher is tinkering with mechanics or struggling with feel, and why. Scouts know that a hitter has been told to work the count, bunt, hit and run, sacrifice, and why. Scouts know that defenders are positioned on certain plays, in relation to an opposing hitter or to babying a hammy problem. So you answered part 1 of my question, but not parts 2 and 3. Moreover, we were talking mainly about advance scouts. I'm sure you're not supposed to be telling scouts from your future opponents how your pitchers are tinkering with their mechanics and what your hitters have been instructed to do, do you have any proof that scouts actually get this information? I missed the "avance" part of this discussion. My bad. But the unearthing of background information by well connected scouts remains valuable, and surely even advance scouts have their sources.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 20, 2016 18:11:54 GMT -5
You did well Gerry. Sometimes questions are statements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2016 22:56:25 GMT -5
What is the deal with Yoenis Cespedes ? Mets who know him don't offer him more than a 3 year deal Baltimore bid against themselves and choose Chris Davis and the Tigers choosing Justin Upton over him. His he a bad apple or is he injured.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jan 20, 2016 23:46:02 GMT -5
What is the deal with Yoenis Cespedes ? Mets who know him don't offer him more than a 3 year deal Baltimore bid against themselves and choose Chris Davis and the Tigers choosing Justin Upton over him. His he a bad apple or his he injured. If only his focus/baseball intelligence could catch up with his talent.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 21, 2016 2:24:50 GMT -5
BP has a verdict on the Kennedy contract. It's meh (this is behind a paywall, I believe).
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 23, 2016 1:25:12 GMT -5
Cespedes 3/75 with an opt out after year 1 with the Mets
If it ends up as only a one year deal, then there's no real risk. But if Cespedes falls back to his pre-2015 seasons offensively and/or defensively, they could be stuck in a no upside deal for a corner outfielder, with Conforto already there and Granderson still with the club through 2017.
It's not a ton of risk, but Cespedes getting a mega deal clearly wasn't happening. But if he puts another 6 WAR season up and opts out, maybe he'll find a $150M suitor
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Jan 23, 2016 11:48:00 GMT -5
Hmm between Conforto, Cespedes and Granderson there's a chance that outfield could end up with like a .240 BA, .320 OBP and like 75 homers lol
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 23, 2016 13:34:26 GMT -5
Cespedes 3/75 with an opt out after year 1 with the Mets If it ends up as only a one year deal, then there's no real risk. But if Cespedes falls back to his pre-2015 seasons offensively and/or defensively, they could be stuck in a no upside deal for a corner outfielder, with Conforto already there and Granderson still with the club through 2017. It's not a ton of risk, but Cespedes getting a mega deal clearly wasn't happening. But if he puts another 6 WAR season up and opts out, maybe he'll find a $150M suitor I see very little downside for the Mets here. Remember, $25m a year doesn't buy you that much in free agency these days, and even if Cespedes reverts to his pre-2015 three win player level, the Mets aren't overpaying by much. I'd have been pretty happy if the Red Sox had signed him to that contract.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2016 14:15:21 GMT -5
Cespedes 3/75 with an opt out after year 1 with the Mets If it ends up as only a one year deal, then there's no real risk. But if Cespedes falls back to his pre-2015 seasons offensively and/or defensively, they could be stuck in a no upside deal for a corner outfielder, with Conforto already there and Granderson still with the club through 2017. It's not a ton of risk, but Cespedes getting a mega deal clearly wasn't happening. But if he puts another 6 WAR season up and opts out, maybe he'll find a $150M suitor I see very little downside for the Mets here. Remember, $25m a year doesn't buy you that much in free agency these days, and even if Cespedes reverts to his pre-2015 three win player level, the Mets aren't overpaying by much. I'd have been pretty happy if the Red Sox had signed him to that contract. I generally agree, except for the last part. He's not the kind of player I like watching. He has a great arm, but he's terrible at reads and doesn't hit the cutoff man ever. He can hit, but never walks. in some ways, I see him as a worse version of Hanley. Beware the players with career years in their walk years. I don't think he ever puts up another 6 WAR season. I think the market agrees with me somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 23, 2016 14:22:16 GMT -5
He's definitely not a six win player, but getting a well above-average starter for 3/$75m (and no lost draft pick) is still a nice add. I do agree that he fits better with the Mets than he does with Boston. Defensively, his advantages are his range and arm strength, while he doesn't get great reads on the ball and is not super accurate with his arm, which makes him a better fit for the large outfields of Citi Field than the claustrophobic LF in Fenway. But I wouldn't exaggerate the importance of "fit"-- I think he's still a pretty significant upgrade on Castillo, and there's very little risk with a three-year deal.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 23, 2016 14:52:52 GMT -5
Surprised somewhat he went with the fewer years instead of signing for 5 with Nats. I guess he just loves the Big Apple. The only smart thing about this is the lousy free agency class next winter. He is definitely betting on himself to having a big season so he can cash in. Not sure he, or his agent, has taken into account he can now be given a qualifying offer and therefore hurting his value to many teams. With him not having one this year, I was surprised he couldn't exploit it.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 23, 2016 15:03:48 GMT -5
Surprised somewhat he went with the fewer years instead of signing for 5 with Nats. I guess he just loves the Big Apple. The only smart thing about this is the lousy free agency class next winter. He is definitely betting on himself to having a big season so he can cash in. Not sure he, or his agent, has taken into account he can now be given a qualifying offer and therefore hurting his value to many teams. With him not having one this year, I was surprised he couldn't exploit it. I think he did well, if he plays well and opts out he's huge. If he craps out he has 75 mil in the bank.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jan 23, 2016 15:26:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 23, 2016 16:48:33 GMT -5
Cespedes 3/75 with an opt out after year 1 with the Mets If it ends up as only a one year deal, then there's no real risk. But if Cespedes falls back to his pre-2015 seasons offensively and/or defensively, they could be stuck in a no upside deal for a corner outfielder, with Conforto already there and Granderson still with the club through 2017. It's not a ton of risk, but Cespedes getting a mega deal clearly wasn't happening. But if he puts another 6 WAR season up and opts out, maybe he'll find a $150M suitor I see very little downside for the Mets here. Remember, $25m a year doesn't buy you that much in free agency these days, and even if Cespedes reverts to his pre-2015 three win player level, the Mets aren't overpaying by much. I'd have been pretty happy if the Red Sox had signed him to that contract. I agree, there isn't a ton of downside even if he reverts to a 2.5-3 win player. But spending $25M on a corner outfielder already with Conforto and Granderson would hopefully provide some decent upside potential. I don't mind the deal, not a guy I'd have hoped the Sox landed, but it's a solid pickup for the Mets
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 23, 2016 17:28:28 GMT -5
OMG thank you for this. Outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 23, 2016 17:51:03 GMT -5
To be fair, "Eckstein123" is a pretty catchy password.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2016 0:14:57 GMT -5
The plot has thickened: ...yet??
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 24, 2016 9:50:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2016 17:20:45 GMT -5
Phil Simms makes me miss Harold Reynolds.
|
|
|
Post by proudtoserve on Jan 25, 2016 13:05:53 GMT -5
Phil Simms makes me miss Harold Reynolds. I will be grateful to have Phil the "color" analyst for the upcoming June MLB draft.........hope we never see HR again......
|
|
|