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 cologneredsox on Feb 29, 2016 9:34:38 GMT -5
Kelly's ERA for the season was 4.82. His career ERA is under 4. Besides, Eric did talk about the first half of the year...he quoted SIERA, which is an extrapolated value stripped of park and fielding effects. Basically, it says Kelly had a lot of rotten luck last year. He certainly wasn't helped by a BABIP of .320, either. And you're basing your assessment of him as "terrible" on a few weeks at the end of 2014 (when he actually wasn't that bad, but was coming off of injury), and a terrible first two months of 2015, when he had a ton of rotten luck and a terrible defense behind him. And, you discount his 8-1 run completely, despite a much improved ERA, SIERA, and other peripherals, *despite* a BABIP of over .330 (career value: about .290 before last season). So your entire argument against Kelly is basically predicated on a crummy half-season and some injury troubles. It's just very unconvincing, and comes across as irrational. In Boston in 35 games he has a seasons full of starts in a year and half. I can go through how hard he's been hit and how many walks he's given up in that span if you want. I don't really care what Kelly has done in the weak NL central back then pitching for a pitcher's park while getting 2-3 free outs a game pitching to pitchers either. While he's been in Boston he has a seasons full of starts while being here in a year and a half, he has given up a lot of contact and walks, he has been a below average starting pitcher. Not "terrible" okay not a good use of adjectives but really not good either, or mediocre, or bad. I like Kelly but only out of the bullpen because he can actually increase his value that way if you want to stop thinking along the ways of WAR and BWAR for a minute. Putting him in the bullpen would increase his future performance possibly while uping his trade value through the market. The market is paying top dollar in terms of trade throughout the trade market for relievers. Having 2-3 years of a good Kelly in the bullpen would be really valuable and more valuable than as a back end starter with all the recent trend and trades for bullpen pieces lately- The MgGee trade. The Kimbrel trade. Chapman could of gotten a good package if traded last trade deadline. The Andrew Miller deal. The Giles trade. Now let's look at back end rotation trades recently- The Wade Miley to Boston deal. Nathan Karns for one year of Logan Morrison and Brad Miller. Nathan Euvaldi for Martin Prado. The only two good deals was when Dave D. actually traded away some back rotation arms in Wade Miley for Smith and trading Porcello for one year of Cespedes with no pick attached. Those deals were either all had questionable returns or only decent returns (with the Smith trade looking good for the Sox and being the one exception). There's also increased value in having Owens start the year with the big league club for future performance. If he's growing and developing in the big leagues, then that also is a added bonus. I can take growing pains on a 24 year old learning to pitch in the big leagues. We already know Owens can get minor leaguers out. I think personally it's a waste to have him not developing in majors. I'm really one of the biggest Owens-supporters here and Eric - like many others - have been on his bandwagon as well. And it bothers me as well that it looks like Owens will start in Pawtuckett and not in Boston. But it holds true: Kelly has earned another chance. And judging from what he's shown in his last ten starts he might be as underrated as I think Owens is. If we're right about both and they have the ability to perform to standards which right now look like a better than best scenario, let's not make one or two month to big of a deal. Realisiticaly bith will be pitching (and starting) in the majors this year, hopefully for us. To make a fuzz about whom of them deserves it more just doesn't feel right, espeacially when the argument includes that one of both is a weakness. Both have obviously huge potential but huge question marks, too. I'd write neither off, which is whar you're doing with Kelly, while the others aren't denying that Owens has huge potential and upside, too. I guess that's what makes this discussion a bit uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 29, 2016 11:08:38 GMT -5
I just think the competition should exist and this guy shouldn't be guaranteed anything. I obviously have been very clear on where I stand with Kelly but if he clearly WINS the job out of spring training, then there won't be anything else to say but to give him a shot. This is the only position that could be won or lost in spring training and Kelly has a option left too, so if he blows up (again) then the Sox won't have to pay for it in the big leagues or they can throw him in the bullpen. That's where I'm really getting at in this thread. 1) Spring training performance has essentially no predictive value at all. Theo once said (OK, Theo once told me) that he dreamed of claiming some good player who had been DFA'd by some stupid team at the end of ST because he'd had a bad spring. Unfortunately, everyone else had figured that out by then (2005), so it never happened. The only thing you pay attention to in ST is whether anything has changed that a scout can see. Has someone developed a new pitch? Come into camp way out of shape (which is not the same as being heavy, by the way)? Pitching like his elbow is bothering him? But if a player who finished the season as the 60th best pitcher in baseball, gets his head handed to him in ST for no apparent reason, that is meaningless. Ditto if the 160th best pitcher dominates for no apparent reason. A lot of your positions are being torn to shreds because, frankly, you're ignorant of a lot of basic, Baseball 101 sorts of facts. 2) The notion of asking Joe Kelly to win his job again after what he did last year to earn that job would be, pretty obviously, just about the stupidest thing you could on a number of different levels. Great way to demonstrate to all the players that what they do on the field in the regular season will be discounted based on irrational whims. Great motivator, huh? 3) "I just think" is not a rational argument, and if that's all you ever have, people will stop listening and responding to what you have to say. I'm with you on "winning" the 5th spot in ST....I am assuming they both came in in good shape, have heard nothing otherwise. There is a huge difference pitching to the Blue Jay's starting line-up in Dunedin & having Allen Craig & co in the field. Then having to pitch to their AA team in Jet Blue with your starting 9 in the field. I know that's what scouts are for, just that the box scores will get the fans talking.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Feb 29, 2016 11:52:21 GMT -5
Ohh and by the way, Theo isn't the gm of the Sox anymore, Dave is. Actually, Mike Hazen is...
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 29, 2016 13:18:59 GMT -5
The notion of asking Joe Kelly to win his job again after what he did last year to earn that job would be, pretty obviously, just about the stupidest thing you could on a number of different levels. Great way to demonstrate to all the players that what they do on the field in the regular season will be discounted based on irrational whims. Great motivator, huh? Cy Kelly has earned nothing in this fans' eyes. And his or any other players "feelings" have nothing to do with putting the best product on the field. I believe in compassion...second chances...as much as any person I've ever met, but they are not continuing right where they left off at the end of last year. A good amount of progresssion and regression has taken place, even without having played games. He needs to earn his spot..precisely because he has been an overall disappointment so far in a Sox uniform.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 29, 2016 14:06:22 GMT -5
Kelly's ERA for the season was 4.82. His career ERA is under 4. Besides, Eric did talk about the first half of the year...he quoted SIERA, which is an extrapolated value stripped of park and fielding effects. Basically, it says Kelly had a lot of rotten luck last year. He certainly wasn't helped by a BABIP of .320, either. And you're basing your assessment of him as "terrible" on a few weeks at the end of 2014 (when he actually wasn't that bad, but was coming off of injury), and a terrible first two months of 2015, when he had a ton of rotten luck and a terrible defense behind him. And, you discount his 8-1 run completely, despite a much improved ERA, SIERA, and other peripherals, *despite* a BABIP of over .330 (career value: about .290 before last season). So your entire argument against Kelly is basically predicated on a crummy half-season and some injury troubles. It's just very unconvincing, and comes across as irrational. In Boston in 35 games he has a seasons full of starts in a year and half. I can go through how hard he's been hit and how many walks he's given up in that span if you want. I don't really care what Kelly has done in the weak NL central back then pitching for a pitcher's park while getting 2-3 free outs a game pitching to pitchers either. While he's been in Boston he has a seasons full of starts while being here in a year and a half, he has given up a lot of contact and walks, he has been a below average starting pitcher. Not "terrible" okay not a good use of adjectives but really not good either, or mediocre, or bad. I like Kelly but only out of the bullpen because he can actually increase his value that way if you want to stop thinking along the ways of WAR and BWAR for a minute. Putting him in the bullpen would increase his future performance possibly while uping his trade value through the market. The market is paying top dollar in terms of trade throughout the trade market for relievers. Having 2-3 years of a good Kelly in the bullpen would be really valuable and more valuable than as a back end starter with all the recent trend and trades for bullpen pieces lately- The MgGee trade. The Kimbrel trade. Chapman could of gotten a good package if traded last trade deadline. The Andrew Miller deal. The Giles trade. Now let's look at back end rotation trades recently- The Wade Miley to Boston deal. Nathan Karns for one year of Logan Morrison and Brad Miller. Nathan Euvaldi for Martin Prado. The only two good deals was when Dave D. actually traded away some back rotation arms in Wade Miley for Smith and trading Porcello for one year of Cespedes with no pick attached. Those deals were either all had questionable returns or only decent returns (with the Smith trade looking good for the Sox and being the one exception). There's also increased value in having Owens start the year with the big league club for future performance. If he's growing and developing in the big leagues, then that also is a added bonus. I can take growing pains on a 24 year old learning to pitch in the big leagues. We already know Owens can get minor leaguers out. I think personally it's a waste to have him not developing in majors. Then post facts, not opinions. "I can say how hard he's been hit..." Fine, then do it, by using factual, statistical data and not your opinion. People have presented a mountain of data, and you continue to repeat the same subjective, opinion-driven arguments. I don't find your argument remotely compelling. And even though I do agree with the belief that there should be competition for the fifth spot, your "argument" against Kelly has only served to reinforce my opinion that he's the best option, because you haven't been able to remotely produce a statistical argument against him. Meanwhile, my own research and others' (Eric's especially) has pretty much convinced me that Kelly is not only capable of a leap forward, but may be in the early stages of one. I've also started realizing how irrational my previous concern about him was, because it was largely based on his poor performance at the start of last year. So in a way, your argument worked...it's just served to convince me of the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 29, 2016 14:10:29 GMT -5
In Boston in 35 games he has a seasons full of starts in a year and half. I can go through how hard he's been hit and how many walks he's given up in that span if you want. I don't really care what Kelly has done in the weak NL central back then pitching for a pitcher's park while getting 2-3 free outs a game pitching to pitchers either. While he's been in Boston he has a seasons full of starts while being here in a year and a half, he has given up a lot of contact and walks, he has been a below average starting pitcher. Not "terrible" okay not a good use of adjectives but really not good either, or mediocre, or bad. I like Kelly but only out of the bullpen because he can actually increase his value that way if you want to stop thinking along the ways of WAR and BWAR for a minute. Putting him in the bullpen would increase his future performance possibly while uping his trade value through the market. The market is paying top dollar in terms of trade throughout the trade market for relievers. Having 2-3 years of a good Kelly in the bullpen would be really valuable and more valuable than as a back end starter with all the recent trend and trades for bullpen pieces lately- The MgGee trade. The Kimbrel trade. Chapman could of gotten a good package if traded last trade deadline. The Andrew Miller deal. The Giles trade. Now let's look at back end rotation trades recently- The Wade Miley to Boston deal. Nathan Karns for one year of Logan Morrison and Brad Miller. Nathan Euvaldi for Martin Prado. The only two good deals was when Dave D. actually traded away some back rotation arms in Wade Miley for Smith and trading Porcello for one year of Cespedes with no pick attached. Those deals were either all had questionable returns or only decent returns (with the Smith trade looking good for the Sox and being the one exception). There's also increased value in having Owens start the year with the big league club for future performance. If he's growing and developing in the big leagues, then that also is a added bonus. I can take growing pains on a 24 year old learning to pitch in the big leagues. We already know Owens can get minor leaguers out. I think personally it's a waste to have him not developing in majors. I'm really one of the biggest Owens-supporters here and Eric - like many others - have been on his bandwagon as well. And it bothers me as well that it looks like Owens will start in Pawtuckett and not in Boston. But it holds true: Kelly has earned another chance. And judging from what he's shown in his last ten starts he might be as underrated as I think Owens is. If we're right about both and they have the ability to perform to standards which right now look like a better than best scenario, let's not make one or two month to big of a deal. Realisiticaly bith will be pitching (and starting) in the majors this year, hopefully for us. To make a fuzz about whom of them deserves it more just doesn't feel right, espeacially when the argument includes that one of both is a weakness. Both have obviously huge potential but huge question marks, too. I'd write neither off, which is whar you're doing with Kelly, while the others aren't denying that Owens has huge potential and upside, too. I guess that's what makes this discussion a bit uncomfortable. I'm not writing off Kelly as a pitcher. I just don't want to see him starting. I don't see the upside everyone else sees when Kelly pitches.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Feb 29, 2016 14:13:50 GMT -5
I'm really one of the biggest Owens-supporters here and Eric - like many others - have been on his bandwagon as well. And it bothers me as well that it looks like Owens will start in Pawtuckett and not in Boston. But it holds true: Kelly has earned another chance. And judging from what he's shown in his last ten starts he might be as underrated as I think Owens is. If we're right about both and they have the ability to perform to standards which right now look like a better than best scenario, let's not make one or two month to big of a deal. Realisiticaly bith will be pitching (and starting) in the majors this year, hopefully for us. To make a fuzz about whom of them deserves it more just doesn't feel right, espeacially when the argument includes that one of both is a weakness. Both have obviously huge potential but huge question marks, too. I'd write neither off, which is whar you're doing with Kelly, while the others aren't denying that Owens has huge potential and upside, too. I guess that's what makes this discussion a bit uncomfortable. I'm not writing off Kelly as a pitcher. I just don't want to see him starting. I don't see the upside everyone else sees when Kelly pitches. Given the fact there has been a reasonable effort on explaining why and where there is reason for upside for Kelly as a starter, this then seems to be a dead discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 29, 2016 14:19:55 GMT -5
You're not going to change each others' minds-- it's fine to disagree and just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Feb 29, 2016 20:31:08 GMT -5
I will say this: Johnson has been somewhat lost in all of this, and Elias (other than jmei's mention I think?) pretty much totally forgotten. I'm not enamored of Johnson to the extent of some other folks, but I absolutely believe he's chronically underrated because he really doesn't have a standout pitch, and his velocity is average. But a plus curve, a solid-average change, and plus command all speak to a pitcher who can probably step in and thrive quickly. And a little tightening of the curve and/or a bit more fade on the change (or a few years to develop plus-plus command), and he might be a quality 3 or even a 2. And Elias has had a fair bit of success himself, another guy who, at 27, might take enough of a step forward (especially with RISP) to become a league-average SP or, at the least, a bullpen weapon. This is a team with pretty deep pitching, and potentially *outstanding* pitching.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 1, 2016 2:01:36 GMT -5
In Boston in 35 games he has a seasons full of starts in a year and half. I can go through how hard he's been hit and how many walks he's given up in that span if you want. I don't really care what Kelly has done in the weak NL central back then pitching for a pitcher's park while getting 2-3 free outs a game pitching to pitchers either. While he's been in Boston he has a seasons full of starts while being here in a year and a half, he has given up a lot of contact and walks, he has been a below average starting pitcher. Not "terrible" okay not a good use of adjectives but really not good either, or mediocre, or bad. I like Kelly but only out of the bullpen because he can actually increase his value that way if you want to stop thinking along the ways of WAR and BWAR for a minute. Putting him in the bullpen would increase his future performance possibly while uping his trade value through the market. The market is paying top dollar in terms of trade throughout the trade market for relievers. Having 2-3 years of a good Kelly in the bullpen would be really valuable and more valuable than as a back end starter with all the recent trend and trades for bullpen pieces lately- The MgGee trade. The Kimbrel trade. Chapman could of gotten a good package if traded last trade deadline. The Andrew Miller deal. The Giles trade. Now let's look at back end rotation trades recently- The Wade Miley to Boston deal. Nathan Karns for one year of Logan Morrison and Brad Miller. Nathan Euvaldi for Martin Prado. The only two good deals was when Dave D. actually traded away some back rotation arms in Wade Miley for Smith and trading Porcello for one year of Cespedes with no pick attached. Those deals were either all had questionable returns or only decent returns (with the Smith trade looking good for the Sox and being the one exception). There's also increased value in having Owens start the year with the big league club for future performance. If he's growing and developing in the big leagues, then that also is a added bonus. I can take growing pains on a 24 year old learning to pitch in the big leagues. We already know Owens can get minor leaguers out. I think personally it's a waste to have him not developing in majors. Then post facts, not opinions. "I can say how hard he's been hit..." Fine, then do it, by using factual, statistical data and not your opinion. People have presented a mountain of data, and you continue to repeat the same subjective, opinion-driven arguments. I don't find your argument remotely compelling. And even though I do agree with the belief that there should be competition for the fifth spot, your "argument" against Kelly has only served to reinforce my opinion that he's the best option, because you haven't been able to remotely produce a statistical argument against him. Meanwhile, my own research and others' (Eric's especially) has pretty much convinced me that Kelly is not only capable of a leap forward, but may be in the early stages of one. I've also started realizing how irrational my previous concern about him was, because it was largely based on his poor performance at the start of last year. So in a way, your argument worked...it's just served to convince me of the opposite. Ok fine. 15 homeruns last season given up while giving up 145 hits in 130+ innings. On pace for well over 20+ homeruns and over 200 hits in 180+ innings. Not to mention all the walk totals. A WHIP of nearly 1 and a half. The guy seriously declined big time last year to a frightening degree. But like the other poster said, I'll just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 1, 2016 4:26:11 GMT -5
I will say this: Johnson has been somewhat lost in all of this, and Elias (other than jmei's mention I think?) pretty much totally forgotten. I'm not enamored of Johnson to the extent of some other folks, but I absolutely believe he's chronically underrated because he really doesn't have a standout pitch, and his velocity is average. But a plus curve, a solid-average change, and plus command all speak to a pitcher who can probably step in and thrive quickly. And a little tightening of the curve and/or a bit more fade on the change (or a few years to develop plus-plus command), and he might be a quality 3 or even a 2. And Elias has had a fair bit of success himself, another guy who, at 27, might take enough of a step forward (especially with RISP) to become a league-average SP or, at the least, a bullpen weapon. This is a team with pretty deep pitching, and potentially *outstanding* pitching. I haven't forgotten about Johnson, not one bit. His time in the majors is delayed to build up innings and arm strength in aaa. That may only take a month or two however. He's the depth guy as I see it right now because of the injury but he could easily be the best pitcher out of the group right now by the end of the year. His command trumps any pitcher listed out of that entire group but for now he's on the backburner and trying to put in the work in aaa and standout again like he did last year.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 1, 2016 5:18:14 GMT -5
The claim that a player's second-half (or any other fraction) is somehow indicative of his next year's performance has been studied methodically not a few times - and there has proven to be simply *zero evidence for it*; to wit, given some projection function, and given the choice to provide as input either an entire season's worth of data or some arbitrarily-delimited partial season, the full season has been shown to be the more reliable and accurate. (it's just a subset of cherrypicking start and end dates.) This is settled (sabermetrics) law.
This is well understood by MLB front offices, which presumably Ian Desmond's agent can spectacularly confirm.
The rest is just "storyselling" (as I've dubbed it). Of course story A may be more plausible, sounder, certainly better told/written than story B, and sometimes that story may appear "validated" by future events, and even less often may actually describe a non insignificant factor in the future performance, but any attempt to put some veneer of "proof" on it is foolish and either ignorant or dishonest
Joe Kelly may or may not be the best bet for the 5th starter, but his 2015 2nd half is certainly not dispositive vis a vis his 2015 as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Mar 1, 2016 6:40:48 GMT -5
The claim that a player's second-half (or any other fraction) is somehow indicative of his next year's performance has been studied methodically not a few times - and there has proven to be simply *zero evidence for it*; to wit, given some projection function, and given the choice to provide as input either an entire season's worth of data or some arbitrarily-delimited partial season, the full season has been shown to be the more reliable and accurate. (it's just a subset of cherrypicking start and end dates.) This is settled (sabermetrics) law. This is well understood by MLB front offices, which presumably Ian Desmond's agent can spectacularly confirm. The rest is just "storyselling" (as I've dubbed it). Of course story A may be more plausible, sounder, certainly better told/written than story B, and sometimes that story may appear "validated" by future events, and even less often may actually describe a non insignificant factor in the future performance, but any attempt to put some veneer of "proof" on it is foolish and either ignorant or dishonest Joe Kelly may or may not be the best bet for the 5th starter, but his 2015 2nd half is certainly not dispositive vis a vis his 2015 as a whole. yeah, but Brian Bannister
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Mar 1, 2016 9:10:40 GMT -5
I sometimes think fans get so caught up in their hatred for a player they lose sight of the bigger picture.
There is nothing to gain by wishing Kelly to be anything but a success as 5th starter. We want his value maximized, as we do with all players, so when the time comes that another player takes their job, the Sox gain maximum value in trading the vet Hoping for anything less is a cutting off your nose to spite your face way of thinking. It's counterproductive to the success of the franchise.
When Owens shows he's clearly the better pitcher, the job is his. Until then, he's an awesome insurance policy, as is Johnson and Elias.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Mar 1, 2016 9:46:32 GMT -5
The claim that a player's second-half (or any other fraction) is somehow indicative of his next year's performance has been studied methodically not a few times - and there has proven to be simply *zero evidence for it*; to wit, given some projection function, and given the choice to provide as input either an entire season's worth of data or some arbitrarily-delimited partial season, the full season has been shown to be the more reliable and accurate. (it's just a subset of cherrypicking start and end dates.) This is settled (sabermetrics) law. This is well understood by MLB front offices, which presumably Ian Desmond's agent can spectacularly confirm. The rest is just "storyselling" (as I've dubbed it). Of course story A may be more plausible, sounder, certainly better told/written than story B, and sometimes that story may appear "validated" by future events, and even less often may actually describe a non insignificant factor in the future performance, but any attempt to put some veneer of "proof" on it is foolish and either ignorant or dishonest Joe Kelly may or may not be the best bet for the 5th starter, but his 2015 2nd half is certainly not dispositive vis a vis his 2015 as a whole. If we shouldn't be putting a ton of weight into a player's second half performance, someone should have told Billy Beane before he spent something like 25% of his budget on Rich Hill.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 1, 2016 11:55:20 GMT -5
Back in the 1990s, studies proved that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were vastly superior to calcium channel blockers for controlling blood pressure. So everyone got ACEis. Until docs started noticing that people of African descent had minimal benefit...
All of which is to say, I haven't seen all of the statistical analyses on second-half performance. But from what Ive seen, you're talking about large, unselected groups with random performance fluctuation, not small groups or individuals with clear, non-random, approach-based (drastically different pitch mix) reasons for improvement.
There is a world of difference between looking at population dynamics and small group or individual dynamics. Population studies very clearly dull, and even ablate, real individual variation. The timeframes discussed re: Kelly are not arbitrary, they're separated by an injury period and a subsequent change in pitching style. It's one thing to look at two halves of a normal full season, but Kelly's post-injury performance did not occur in a vacuum, he made a change, and saw improved results. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll carry it over, but I would argue that there are subsets of those first-half/second-half population studies where the second-half improvements are real and predictive. They're just swamped by random variation in large studies. The alternative is that no player ever makes a mid-season change and has a notable reset in his baseline performance.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 1, 2016 12:28:23 GMT -5
Then post facts, not opinions. "I can say how hard he's been hit..." Fine, then do it, by using factual, statistical data and not your opinion. People have presented a mountain of data, and you continue to repeat the same subjective, opinion-driven arguments. I don't find your argument remotely compelling. And even though I do agree with the belief that there should be competition for the fifth spot, your "argument" against Kelly has only served to reinforce my opinion that he's the best option, because you haven't been able to remotely produce a statistical argument against him. Meanwhile, my own research and others' (Eric's especially) has pretty much convinced me that Kelly is not only capable of a leap forward, but may be in the early stages of one. I've also started realizing how irrational my previous concern about him was, because it was largely based on his poor performance at the start of last year. So in a way, your argument worked...it's just served to convince me of the opposite. Ok fine. 15 homeruns last season given up while giving up 145 hits in 130+ innings. On pace for well over 20+ homeruns and over 200 hits in 180+ innings. Not to mention all the walk totals. A WHIP of nearly 1 and a half. The guy seriously declined big time last year to a frightening degree. But like the other poster said, I'll just agree to disagree. Seriously? If you're going to post factual data, do it...instead of throwing one or two facts into a guesstimate soup. He gave up 145 hits in 134 1/3 innings (with a BABIP 21 points over his inclusive career average). He had a BB/9 of 3.28, or 49 walks. That's your "unmentionable" walk total? His WHIP was 1.44. You seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to portray all of his stats as worse than they are...you write 130(plus), instead of 134.1, completely gloss over the actual walk numbers, focus on (almost) 1.5 as his WHIP instead of being brief and to-the-point by citing the actual number of 1.44, and claim **well over 20+ homeruns** in 180 innings, when actually, with a HR/9 of 1.00, he would have exactly 20 HR in 180 innings, and 23 in 207 innings. So not only are you grossly exaggerating with "well over," and those unmentionable walks, you're citing pseudostats that are heavily editorialized. You're also not agreeing to disagree or you wouldn't have responded. To be clear, I'm not making a case for Kelly here, either. I've said my piece, and I agree with you 100% that there should be competition for the spot. I'm telling you that if you don't like people getting on your case about the quality of your arguments and calling them weak, quote *hard* facts, statistics, use links, etc...*or* state a compelling opinion, even if it goes against CW. But mishmashing the two, and finagling the values of the data to exaggerate your point probably won't work to convince people on this site the way it might on, say, BDC.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 1, 2016 13:40:28 GMT -5
Ok fine. 15 homeruns last season given up while giving up 145 hits in 130+ innings. On pace for well over 20+ homeruns and over 200 hits in 180+ innings. Not to mention all the walk totals. A WHIP of nearly 1 and a half. The guy seriously declined big time last year to a frightening degree. But like the other poster said, I'll just agree to disagree. Seriously? If you're going to post factual data, do it...instead of throwing one or two facts into a guesstimate soup. He gave up 145 hits in 134 1/3 innings (with a BABIP 21 points over his inclusive career average). He had a BB/9 of 3.28, or 49 walks. That's your "unmentionable" walk total? His WHIP was 1.44. You seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to portray all of his stats as worse than they are...you write 130(plus), instead of 134.1, completely gloss over the actual walk numbers, focus on (almost) 1.5 as his WHIP instead of being brief and to-the-point by citing the actual number of 1.44, and claim **well over 20+ homeruns** in 180 innings, when actually, with a HR/9 of 1.00, he would have exactly 20 HR in 180 innings, and 23 in 207 innings. So not only are you grossly exaggerating with "well over," and those unmentionable walks, you're citing pseudostats that are heavily editorialized. You're also not agreeing to disagree or you wouldn't have responded. To be clear, I'm not making a case for Kelly here, either. I've said my piece, and I agree with you 100% that there should be competition for the spot. I'm telling you that if you don't like people getting on your case about the quality of your arguments and calling them weak, quote *hard* facts, statistics, use links, etc...*or* state a compelling opinion, even if it goes against CW. But mishmashing the two, and finagling the values of the data to exaggerate your point probably won't work to convince people on this site the way it might on, say, BDC. There was nothing that I said that wasn't inaccurate about my statement. His whip was closer to 1 and a half then it was closer to anything else. I'm not about to do a conductive research to prove something here that something already everyone knows. He is a mediocre/bad/not a good starting pitcher. I'm done trying to convince everyone of that and it's like the other poster said, I'm not going to able to convince anyone that wants Kelly in the rotation anyways.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 1, 2016 13:48:19 GMT -5
I don't mean to interrupt the show, but 1.44 would round to 1.4 if you were to round WHIP to 1 decimal point.
As you were.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 1, 2016 14:26:32 GMT -5
The claim that a player's second-half (or any other fraction) is somehow indicative of his next year's performance has been studied methodically not a few times - and there has proven to be simply *zero evidence for it*; to wit, given some projection function, and given the choice to provide as input either an entire season's worth of data or some arbitrarily-delimited partial season, the full season has been shown to be the more reliable and accurate. (it's just a subset of cherrypicking start and end dates.) This is settled (sabermetrics) law. This is well understood by MLB front offices, which presumably Ian Desmond's agent can spectacularly confirm. The rest is just "storyselling" (as I've dubbed it). Of course story A may be more plausible, sounder, certainly better told/written than story B, and sometimes that story may appear "validated" by future events, and even less often may actually describe a non insignificant factor in the future performance, but any attempt to put some veneer of "proof" on it is foolish and either ignorant or dishonest Joe Kelly may or may not be the best bet for the 5th starter, but his 2015 2nd half is certainly not dispositive vis a vis his 2015 as a whole. Yes, looking at a game log, finding the point where a player appeared to get hot or cold, and then believing that there was something real when you had no other reason to do so -- that's a recipe for disaster. And since the vast majority of seasons that appear to have a significant split or splits in them are random variation, any statistical study will come up with no significant predictive value for this technique. You know what? It's also a recipe for disaster when you have good reason to believe it's something real, and you assume it's random variation, as happens once in a great while. Let me give you two examples that stick in my mind, one that I nailed and one that I missed, to my embarrassment. I could give you many more examples where I correctly identified a real cause and made an accurate prediction (and a couple where I missed.) (In fact, Mike Andrews may recall us doing a thing together at a SABR chapter meeting in the 2006 / '07 winter, where I told him that this site had Jed Lowrie ranked insanely too low -- something like 21, when he should have been in the top 10. Why was that? Because he had clearly been playing with a bum ankle at Wilmington, and when you threw out those games (which required cherry-picking the date where it stopped bothering him) he'd had a great season.) Case A
5 straight seasons with wRC+ of 124, 124, 117, 120, and 125. What do you project for his next season? The 125 last season was 149 through July 31. Then he missed 4 games with an injury, was 55 the rest of the year, and missed the final 14 games. It's an injury that very much tends to be chronic. What do you predict for his next year? You know enough stats to not explain the 55 while apparently playing injured as regression to the mean because he had a 149 previously; that's the gambler's fallacy. Case B.
Played his career to age 29 in a pitcher's park and had a 107 wRC+, declining from 115 at ages 26 and 27 to 104 and then 88. Escaped to a good hitter's park and had a 125 wRC+. Scouting and data strongly suggests that he was a bad fit for his original park, sort of the opposite the way Boggs was a good fit for Fenway, and escaping that park explains the career year. But maybe that's after-the-fact rationalization. Indeed, he has a 100 the next year. Which went like this: Missed all of ST with an injury. Had 6 rehab games and made his debut on May 6. Had a 45 wRC+ through June 7 and a 119 thereafter. What's your proper baseline for your projection next year? Somewhere in the 100 to 107 range (which would deny fit-to-park as a real factor as well as reject the hypothesis that the slow start was due to rust), or in the 119 to 125 range?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 1, 2016 14:57:44 GMT -5
I don't mean to interrupt the show, but 1.44 would round to 1.4 if you were to round WHIP to 1 decimal point. As you were. You win the message board by a decimal point. Congratulations. Hahaha
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 1, 2016 15:59:52 GMT -5
Seriously? If you're going to post factual data, do it...instead of throwing one or two facts into a guesstimate soup. He gave up 145 hits in 134 1/3 innings (with a BABIP 21 points over his inclusive career average). He had a BB/9 of 3.28, or 49 walks. That's your "unmentionable" walk total? His WHIP was 1.44. You seem to spend a lot of effort in trying to portray all of his stats as worse than they are...you write 130(plus), instead of 134.1, completely gloss over the actual walk numbers, focus on (almost) 1.5 as his WHIP instead of being brief and to-the-point by citing the actual number of 1.44, and claim **well over 20+ homeruns** in 180 innings, when actually, with a HR/9 of 1.00, he would have exactly 20 HR in 180 innings, and 23 in 207 innings. So not only are you grossly exaggerating with "well over," and those unmentionable walks, you're citing pseudostats that are heavily editorialized. You're also not agreeing to disagree or you wouldn't have responded. To be clear, I'm not making a case for Kelly here, either. I've said my piece, and I agree with you 100% that there should be competition for the spot. I'm telling you that if you don't like people getting on your case about the quality of your arguments and calling them weak, quote *hard* facts, statistics, use links, etc...*or* state a compelling opinion, even if it goes against CW. But mishmashing the two, and finagling the values of the data to exaggerate your point probably won't work to convince people on this site the way it might on, say, BDC. There was nothing that I said that wasn't inaccurate about my statement. His whip was closer to 1 and a half then it was closer to anything else. I'm not about to do a conductive research to prove something here that something already everyone knows. He is a mediocre/bad/not a good starting pitcher. I'm done trying to convince everyone of that and it's like the other poster said, I'm not going to able to convince anyone that wants Kelly in the rotation anyways. C'mon man. His WHIP is closer to 1.44 than it is to anything else. And WHIP is a terrible stat because it doesn't account for BABIP, though I'm not sure you're aware of what that is. If you're not going to do "conductive research" (which can't be the right word) to prove something while others are, then just drop out of the conversation. The stupid thing about this is that no one even disagrees that Kelly is going to need to earn and keep earning that spot. It's just that your logic and understanding of advanced statistics isn't there. Please understand that there are things you don't know or understand and that we've all been there before. I still am there to some extent. Although Eric was probably at that point when he was 5 years old.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 1, 2016 16:21:19 GMT -5
Let's back off on the pettiness, please. You can disagree with someone without insulting their intelligence. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 1, 2016 16:41:06 GMT -5
I don't mean to interrupt the show, but 1.44 would round to 1.4 if you were to round WHIP to 1 decimal point. As you were. You win the message board by a decimal point. Congratulations. Hahaha Common man, you don't see how saying 1.44 rounds to 1.5 is a stupid thing to say, especially when you use it in defense to the assertion that you are exaggerating stats?... The range of WHIP over the population of qualified pitchers is ~60pts, meaning if you were to round WHIP to a decimal you limit yourself to 5-7 outcomes. You also should know why 4 does not round up. I too was on the Kelly to the bullpen wagon, I was even advocating for it in the second half of the season. The FO made a statement with the Miley trade though, that they trust Kelly and the depth behind him for the 5th spot. There is a competition for the spot, but out of spring training it's Kelly's to lose. Simply being outperformed by Owens in spring training will not be enough to bump Kelly out of the rotation for April 1st. And where is the love for my man Brian Johnson? Johnson had the split decision over Owens in the July rankings, and would have gotten the call if it wasn't for his injury. I think he is just as likely as Owens to win a starting spot, and I'd argue he has less to learn in the minors than Owens.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 1, 2016 18:33:26 GMT -5
Thank you mods for not deleting my last few posts. I'm fine with all posts being read.
|
|
|