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 Red Sox Rotation Discussion
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 18, 2016 17:09:08 GMT -5
Yeah, if you take out all of a pitcher's poor games - look at that - he looks like a good pitcher. Look Mom, no hands! Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 18, 2016 17:35:37 GMT -5
Well, he did explain why he took out the bad games. Not that agree with his point anyway, I'd package E-Rod with Devers for a sensible upgrade in the rotation like tomorrow. I mean, really. A pitcher retires the first 10 batters, five on strikes and two on popups, and then gives up 2B, 1B, HR, 1B, 1B, 2B, 1B, SF LD, and is known to have been tipping his pitches from the stretch position only. No, you must include that game as predictive, you may not discount it! And after you eliminate that and a previous similar game, you have: 12 G: 0 or 1 ER allowed 5 G: 2 or 3 ER allowed ... for a 1.87 ERA 1 game with 7 ER in 1.2 IP 1 game with 8 ER in 5 IP ... for a 33.75 ERA. Yes, sometimes pitchers have a game where they just are terrible. They don't happen at random. They are caused by a neurological inability to execute procedural memory routines. (It would not surprise me at all if Price has something going on his personal life that is messing with getting a good night's sleep.) Now, if you can't find a well-defined set of circumstances that would explain why a pitcher might be neurologically subpar in a set of games, you indeed have to treat the games as random variation. But if there is a well-defined cause -- all the starts on long rest for a pitcher who didn't have a regular rotation role, for instance -- you should eliminate the data if the situation that caused them is easily avoidable. In this case, the two starts in question were his only day starts on the road, the first after a rained out day game in Anaheim, and the second after a night game in Miami. The two cities in America with the greatest reputation for nightlife -- the latter with the #1 reputation for Latino nightlife. Which is the more rational explanation? 1) E-Rod had no interest in going to LA, a city he's never visited in his life, for the evening after the rainout, or in going out at night in Miami, ditto. (Because, presumably, he is an automaton without conscious experience.) And he was neurologically subpar the next afternoon for some other reason than that he didn't get enough sleep those two nights (e.g., battery recharging for automata is bad in Anaheim and Miami). 2) He partied and paid the price, and presumably has learned his lesson (or can be expected to learn it, like Pedroia did after his rookie season).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 18, 2016 17:56:31 GMT -5
Yeah, if you take out all of a pitcher's poor games - look at that - he looks like a good pitcher. Look Mom, no hands! Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out? A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jul 18, 2016 18:48:14 GMT -5
Yeah, if you take out all of a pitcher's poor games - look at that - he looks like a good pitcher. Look Mom, no hands! Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out? Yeah, Julio Lugo was a sensation
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Jul 18, 2016 18:55:44 GMT -5
Yeah, if you take out all of a pitcher's poor games - look at that - he looks like a good pitcher. Look Mom, no hands! Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out? No question, you've been right about Wright (and if you had better self-awareness, you would even cop to being more right than you even knew)
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 18, 2016 19:46:58 GMT -5
I'm with some of the others here- not a big fan of ERod but am open to insights. I think along the lines in which Eckersley was incredulous as to ERod throwing nothing but fastballs. And I haven't heard anyone tipping his pitches as much as it's been publicized with ERod.
At the end of last year eric brought up a brilliant point as to Rich Hill's stuff. Man-- we should have kept him. Well how is ERod's secondary pitches and why does he sometimes go into a cocoon with any of his pitches other than his fastball? IS his secondary stuff real good and he just has had mental block like many young guys do?
IMO the best overall idea is to keep the young guys as much as you can. But if his secondary stuff is weak then let someone else think he is a 2 or at least work on him to get to that level. It would be nice for Sox to show some patience (Ben was too much though) but they are trying to win now and tired of last place finishes. They won't babysit.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 18, 2016 20:04:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about Rodriguez stuff it's very good. Still see him long term as a very good #2, think a young Lester. He's young, been injured and seems to be playing not at 100%.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jul 18, 2016 20:11:13 GMT -5
I realize what you are saying umass _ I want to believe. But "don't worry?" -- I do. Why is his secondary stuff like Lester's? If it is then why does he go into a cocoon with the secondaries?
Anyhow I don't want to keep repeating. I'll just add - I hope you're right!! We become a much stronger team - maybe a beast if he is a legit 2.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 18, 2016 20:29:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out? A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
Not really meaningful at all, because that would be a list of possible or potential breakouts. When you identify a guy who is suddenly playing much better, that's the word you use, but you don't necessarily conclude it's for real. I know I was never particularly high on Almanzar and Coyle, for instance, but obviosly when their numbers spiked I got interested and talked about them. I championed Chiang for years before he had his breakout (based on his splits by months) and remain more than half convinced that the Mariners did something to mess him up, since he stopped hitting instantly after the trade. Doubront is definitely a guy where the cherry-picking let me down. Gibson I liked just because his overall numbers had gotten so much better, especially his Iso. I still love Asauje because of his reported off-the-charts makeup, and he has continued to outperform his pedigree big-time with the Padres. Technical note: You know I'm not a big believer in random variation where the effect is large and easy to explain externally; a one-year spike in Iso makes much more sense to me as a guy who did a lot of weight training for a year but stopped for any one of a number of good reasons, than a guy who just got really, really lucky. Now, keep in mind that the observed year-to-year variance in a stat like that includes all such external factors. If we controlled for them, how much Y2Y variation would we actually see? Nobody knows, but it's certainly less than we do observe. And now consider this: the standard methods of regressing a small sample to the mean, which assume that the observed variance is all random, do not work. A raw sample -- say, BABIP plotted against sample size (balls in play) indeed shows increasing variance as the sample size gets smaller. A properly regressed sample should have no correlation between the regressed figure and the SS. The standard methodology used by Tango, et al, gives a strong inverse correlation -- it's a major over-correction. Again, real variation is being mistaken for random variation.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 19, 2016 11:37:47 GMT -5
Now, keep in mind that the observed year-to-year variance in a stat like that includes all such external factors. If we controlled for them, how much Y2Y variation would we actually see? Nobody knows, Eh... it's actually pretty easy to build a theoretical model to figure this out. In what deepjohn would call super-advanced stochastics there is this thing called the "binomial distribution".
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 19, 2016 12:20:11 GMT -5
A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
Not really meaningful at all, because that would be a list of possible or potential breakouts. When you identify a guy who is suddenly playing much better, that's the word you use, but you don't necessarily conclude it's for real. I know I was never particularly high on Almanzar and Coyle, for instance, but obviosly when their numbers spiked I got interested and talked about them. I championed Chiang for years before he had his breakout (based on his splits by months) and remain more than half convinced that the Mariners did something to mess him up, since he stopped hitting instantly after the trade. Doubront is definitely a guy where the cherry-picking let me down. Gibson I liked just because his overall numbers had gotten so much better, especially his Iso. I still love Asauje because of his reported off-the-charts makeup, and he has continued to outperform his pedigree big-time with the Padres. Technical note: You know I'm not a big believer in random variation where the effect is large and easy to explain externally; a one-year spike in Iso makes much more sense to me as a guy who did a lot of weight training for a year but stopped for any one of a number of good reasons, than a guy who just got really, really lucky. Now, keep in mind that the observed year-to-year variance in a stat like that includes all such external factors. If we controlled for them, how much Y2Y variation would we actually see? Nobody knows, but it's certainly less than we do observe. And now consider this: the standard methods of regressing a small sample to the mean, which assume that the observed variance is all random, do not work. A raw sample -- say, BABIP plotted against sample size (balls in play) indeed shows increasing variance as the sample size gets smaller. A properly regressed sample should have no correlation between the regressed figure and the SS. The standard methodology used by Tango, et al, gives a strong inverse correlation -- it's a major over-correction. Again, real variation is being mistaken for random variation. You were right on 3 out of 13. I guess that's something!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 19, 2016 13:02:47 GMT -5
This from Keith Law's new Mid Season Top 5 organizational rankings - in which the Sox were #3, jumped by San Diego, which is now rife with former Sox prospects. What the Sox lack is starting pitching prospects, with only Michael Kopech, who hit 105 mph on the radar gun last week but has limited innings, and Brian Johnson, currently working his way back from a DL stint for anxiety disorder, projecting as major league starters within the next two or three seasons.He added that his piece was too late to include Groome, but interesting to note that Law was high on Owens for a few years, but has jumped off that train, as well. Full article here (insider) espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post/_/id/5382
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 19, 2016 13:12:22 GMT -5
Now, keep in mind that the observed year-to-year variance in a stat like that includes all such external factors. If we controlled for them, how much Y2Y variation would we actually see? Nobody knows, Eh... it's actually pretty easy to build a theoretical model to figure this out. In what deepjohn would call super-advanced stochastics there is this thing called the "binomial distribution". Yeah, I was aware that BABIP was probably not a good example because it can be modeled as a binomial, but I'd already typed it. ERA- and the like of course can't be modeled that way. Things like K and BB rate are on trickier ground since they are actually two of a bunch of mutually exclusive outcomes ... although I'm sure there are techniques to handle it if one assumes that each outcome has a fixed rate of ocurrence and all observed variation is random. The point I didn't go into is that the standard method involves empirically finding the sample size where stats "stabilize" (in terms of adequate Y2Y correlation) and then adding outcomes at league average to get to that sample size. That's the technique that doesn't seem to work, and it doesn't use binomial distributions (although IIRC Tango et al did use them in place in The Book.)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 19, 2016 13:12:36 GMT -5
I don't think that has anything to do with Law not liking Owens anymore, as it has to do with he's not a prospect anymore. Law is talking about prospects, guys like Owens don't qualify so he doesn't talk about them.
I still see Owens at worst being a very good #4/5 starter in the long run. Looks like he's going to be more like Bradley than Betts in his development path.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 19, 2016 13:29:47 GMT -5
This from Keith Law's new Mid Season Top 5 organizational rankings - in which the Sox were #3, jumped by San Diego, which is now rife with former Sox prospects. What the Sox lack is starting pitching prospects, with only Michael Kopech, who hit 105 mph on the radar gun last week but has limited innings, and Brian Johnson, currently working his way back from a DL stint for anxiety disorder, projecting as major league starters within the next two or three seasons.He added that his piece was too late to include Groome, but interesting to note that Law was high on Owens for a few years, but has jumped off that train, as well. Full article here (insider) espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post/_/id/5382 Pretty silly in my opinion....SD is greatly improved and would #1 or #2 in terms of most improved this year, but #2 overall? I don't think so. I mean their two best prospects are Espinoza and Margot, who if still in our system would probably be #3 and #4/#5. They're not better than our system based off the strength of the Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 19, 2016 14:04:06 GMT -5
This from Keith Law's new Mid Season Top 5 organizational rankings - in which the Sox were #3, jumped by San Diego, which is now rife with former Sox prospects. What the Sox lack is starting pitching prospects, with only Michael Kopech, who hit 105 mph on the radar gun last week but has limited innings, and Brian Johnson, currently working his way back from a DL stint for anxiety disorder, projecting as major league starters within the next two or three seasons.He added that his piece was too late to include Groome, but interesting to note that Law was high on Owens for a few years, but has jumped off that train, as well. Full article here (insider) espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post/_/id/5382 Pretty silly in my opinion....SD is greatly improved and would #1 or #2 in terms of most improved this year, but #2 overall? I don't think so. I mean their two best prospects are Espinoza and Margot, who if still in our system would probably be #3 and #4/#5. They're not better than our system based off the strength of the Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades. I just made a comment to that effect on the article ... and (without realizing I was getting it from you) called it "silly."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 19, 2016 14:05:35 GMT -5
This from Keith Law's new Mid Season Top 5 organizational rankings - in which the Sox were #3, jumped by San Diego, which is now rife with former Sox prospects. What the Sox lack is starting pitching prospects, with only Michael Kopech, who hit 105 mph on the radar gun last week but has limited innings, and Brian Johnson, currently working his way back from a DL stint for anxiety disorder, projecting as major league starters within the next two or three seasons.He added that his piece was too late to include Groome, but interesting to note that Law was high on Owens for a few years, but has jumped off that train, as well. Full article here (insider) espn.go.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post/_/id/5382 Pretty silly in my opinion....SD is greatly improved and would #1 or #2 in terms of most improved this year, but #2 overall? I don't think so. I mean their two best prospects are Espinoza and Margot, who if still in our system would probably be #3 and #4/#5. They're not better than our system based off the strength of the Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades. I believe it's an overall system ranking and he alludes to San Diego being very active in the international market in the last year. Not a lot of MLB-close talent, but in his opinion, a lot of talent at the low end. Rankings were: Atlanta San Diego Boston Texas Los Angeles at Los Angeles (i.e. Dodgers)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 19, 2016 15:57:36 GMT -5
Not really meaningful at all, because that would be a list of possible or potential breakouts. When you identify a guy who is suddenly playing much better, that's the word you use, but you don't necessarily conclude it's for real. I know I was never particularly high on Almanzar and Coyle, for instance, but obviosly when their numbers spiked I got interested and talked about them. I championed Chiang for years before he had his breakout (based on his splits by months) and remain more than half convinced that the Mariners did something to mess him up, since he stopped hitting instantly after the trade. Doubront is definitely a guy where the cherry-picking let me down. Gibson I liked just because his overall numbers had gotten so much better, especially his Iso. I still love Asauje because of his reported off-the-charts makeup, and he has continued to outperform his pedigree big-time with the Padres. Technical note: You know I'm not a big believer in random variation where the effect is large and easy to explain externally; a one-year spike in Iso makes much more sense to me as a guy who did a lot of weight training for a year but stopped for any one of a number of good reasons, than a guy who just got really, really lucky. Now, keep in mind that the observed year-to-year variance in a stat like that includes all such external factors. If we controlled for them, how much Y2Y variation would we actually see? Nobody knows, but it's certainly less than we do observe. And now consider this: the standard methods of regressing a small sample to the mean, which assume that the observed variance is all random, do not work. A raw sample -- say, BABIP plotted against sample size (balls in play) indeed shows increasing variance as the sample size gets smaller. A properly regressed sample should have no correlation between the regressed figure and the SS. The standard methodology used by Tango, et al, gives a strong inverse correlation -- it's a major over-correction. Again, real variation is being mistaken for random variation. You were right on 3 out of 13. I guess that's something! I imagine that's a pretty good hit rate on predicting an actual breakout vs. a lucky hot streak.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 20, 2016 5:39:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm sure you had the same complaint when I did this last winter, with, frankly, less justification. How did that work out?The fact is, the way you identify undervalued players is to look for outliers in their career and see if they are explainable by hard evidence. (Or by reasonable guesses, if those guesses generate predictions that can be verified with hard evidence). Many years ago the Red Sox had a breakout hitter, and there were folks like you who were skeptical ( like you, to the point of contempt) that it was for real. I looked at his history and discovered a mixture of great stretches of hitting intercut with lousy stretches. I quickly found that every bad stretch but one -- and they were startlingly bad compared to the good stuff, a clear bimodal pattern -- was immediately followed (or preceded by, IIRC) by a DL stint. The irony was that the exception was a slump at the tail end of the previous season> Last straw: his team non-tendered him. I threw out almost half his career to argue that a guy with a 108 OPS+ in 1693 previous PA but was approaching 140 for the Sox was for real. You would have had an aneurysm. How did that one work out? A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
Much like a gambler they only recall the wins.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Jul 20, 2016 5:58:19 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about Rodriguez stuff it's very good. Still see him long term as a very good #2, think a young Lester. He's young, been injured and seems to be playing not at 100%. Yes in addition i've quoted Ted Williams ad nasuem that it usually takes young players what is the equivalent to 2 seasons before they find their own level. I too love E-Rod's upside and believe he will be a #2 but warned on the how to improve the Red Sox thread that relying on him right now to shoulder the load of a #2 is not the wisest of moves. Far more often than not Ted is right. Even most all -star players take 2 years to become all-stars calibre players. Mike Trout is not just rare for the level of player he is but how quickly he reached that level.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 20, 2016 6:04:31 GMT -5
A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
Much like a gambler they only recall the wins. I for one really appreciate that I haven't noticed Eric saying lately "and only an idiot would disagree with me." Excellent improvement on that score.
|
|
|
Post by ryantoworkman on Jul 20, 2016 7:30:54 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about Rodriguez stuff it's very good. Still see him long term as a very good #2, think a young Lester. He's young, been injured and seems to be playing not at 100%. Yes in addition i've quoted Ted Williams ad nasuem that it usually takes young players what is the equivalent to 2 seasons before they find their own level. I too love E-Rod's upside and believe he will be a #2 but warned on the how to improve the Red Sox thread that relying on him right now to shoulder the load of a #2 is not the wisest of moves. Far more often than not Ted is right. Even most all -star players take 2 years to become all-stars calibre players. Mike Trout is not just rare for the level of player he is but how quickly he reached that level. With Price at 12, Pomeranz at 16, Wright at 26, and Porcello at 32 in fWAR rankings for 2016, why would we need ERod to perform as a #2 starter? Seems to me all he has to do is be a decent 5.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 20, 2016 12:59:25 GMT -5
A search for your posts on these forums containing the word "breakout" includes your touting of the following players, in chronological order, with no players omitted: - Felix Doubront
- Michael Almanzar
- Christian Vazquez
- Daniel Nava
- Steven Wright
- Mike Carp
- Carlos Asuaje
- Chih-Hsien Chiang
- Marco Hernandez
- Derrik Gibson
- Sean Coyle
- Jackie Bradley Jr.
- Joe Kelly
I wasn't going to bother with this, but since it's been quoted so often, here's the breakout breakdown: Doubront: Actually never talked about as a "breakout," but I did argue for his upside after he showed promise. Almanzar: "has a chance to have a bat that will play as a regular MLB 1B. I'm not saying that that upside is likely, but I definitely think it's there." This was in an argument to protect him in the Rule 5, saying I thought he'd be drafted and probably returned otherwise. Vazquez: just posted some numbers to endorse another poster's observation about a strong second half in 2013. I did argue that his bat was not terrible, but a lot of other people did, too. Nava: I liked him, but he was in MLB before I started posting here. I mentioned Chiang in a post where I was citing Nava as a guy who was missed by scouts but a hit for stat projections. Wright, Carp: made strong arguments for them. And you missed Travis Shaw, whom I spent an entire winter defending when at least one poster thought he didn't deserve a 40-man spot. Asauje: used the word to describe him as a guy that went from nowhere to an apparent prospect. I later argued that it was likely real, largely because of makeup reports. Chiang: talked about my having believed in his breakout, years ago. Chris (not Marco) Hernandez, Derrik Gibson: "potential breakout." Which they were. I spend a lot of time identifying non-prospects who are worth paying attention to. That's what we do here. I did a bit more analysis of Gibson. Coyle: used the word "breakout" as shorthand for his having a surprisingly good year; no analysis or defense. Bradley. Yeah. Kelly. I argued that his new pitch mix was responsible for his 2015 breakout ... which he abandoned this year. Ranking the amount of time and degree of passion I spent championing guys: continually: Wright Bradley quite a bit: Shaw about equal: Doubront Carp Kelly less: Asauje Vazquez (as a hitter) mentions as possibilities (ranked by degree of interest) Gibson Almanzar Hernandez Coyle Doubront and Carp were misses. I absolutely think I over-did the cherry-picking with Doubront to a degree that now embarrasses me (hey, I did something similar with Wily Mo Pena for the Sox, wasting a lot of time that I could have saved if it had ocurred to me that his crazy hardness-of-contact (by stats or scouting) was, shall we say, externally boosted.) I still think something real was happening with Carp, although obviously it wasn't predictive; the stats show he needed regular PT and other evidence suggested he benefited a ton from scouting, looking at video, etc. I'm not sure he ever had that again ... you have to think you have a role with a club before you put in the time in the video room. Heck, I still think Roberto Petagine could rake; there are many factors that have to converge for a guy's talent to turn into results (above all, a team that will be patient with him if they give him regular PT and he starts slowly), and I think we saw them converge briefly for Carp and then never come together again. The jury is still out on Kelly and will probably still be out when we land a man on Mars.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 20, 2016 14:21:33 GMT -5
Well, he did explain why he took out the bad games. Not that agree with his point anyway, I'd package E-Rod with Devers for a sensible upgrade in the rotation like tomorrow. I mean, really. A pitcher retires the first 10 batters, five on strikes and two on popups, and then gives up 2B, 1B, HR, 1B, 1B, 2B, 1B, SF LD, and is known to have been tipping his pitches from the stretch position only. No, you must include that game as predictive, you may not discount it! And after you eliminate that and a previous similar game, you have: 12 G: 0 or 1 ER allowed 5 G: 2 or 3 ER allowed ... for a 1.87 ERA 1 game with 7 ER in 1.2 IP 1 game with 8 ER in 5 IP ... for a 33.75 ERA. Yes, sometimes pitchers have a game where they just are terrible. They don't happen at random. They are caused by a neurological inability to execute procedural memory routines. (It would not surprise me at all if Price has something going on his personal life that is messing with getting a good night's sleep.) Now, if you can't find a well-defined set of circumstances that would explain why a pitcher might be neurologically subpar in a set of games, you indeed have to treat the games as random variation. But if there is a well-defined cause -- all the starts on long rest for a pitcher who didn't have a regular rotation role, for instance -- you should eliminate the data if the situation that caused them is easily avoidable. In this case, the two starts in question were his only day starts on the road, the first after a rained out day game in Anaheim, and the second after a night game in Miami. The two cities in America with the greatest reputation for nightlife -- the latter with the #1 reputation for Latino nightlife. Which is the more rational explanation? 1) E-Rod had no interest in going to LA, a city he's never visited in his life, for the evening after the rainout, or in going out at night in Miami, ditto. (Because, presumably, he is an automaton without conscious experience.) And he was neurologically subpar the next afternoon for some other reason than that he didn't get enough sleep those two nights (e.g., battery recharging for automata is bad in Anaheim and Miami). 2) He partied and paid the price, and presumably has learned his lesson (or can be expected to learn it, like Pedroia did after his rookie season). Wow, just noticing this. This argument is amazingly bad! Let's all speculate on what drug or drink was interfering with Eric's own neurological processes that made him make such a bad argument.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 20, 2016 14:44:17 GMT -5
I mean, really. A pitcher retires the first 10 batters, five on strikes and two on popups, and then gives up 2B, 1B, HR, 1B, 1B, 2B, 1B, SF LD, and is known to have been tipping his pitches from the stretch position only. No, you must include that game as predictive, you may not discount it! And after you eliminate that and a previous similar game, you have: 12 G: 0 or 1 ER allowed 5 G: 2 or 3 ER allowed ... for a 1.87 ERA 1 game with 7 ER in 1.2 IP 1 game with 8 ER in 5 IP ... for a 33.75 ERA. Yes, sometimes pitchers have a game where they just are terrible. They don't happen at random. They are caused by a neurological inability to execute procedural memory routines. (It would not surprise me at all if Price has something going on his personal life that is messing with getting a good night's sleep.) Now, if you can't find a well-defined set of circumstances that would explain why a pitcher might be neurologically subpar in a set of games, you indeed have to treat the games as random variation. But if there is a well-defined cause -- all the starts on long rest for a pitcher who didn't have a regular rotation role, for instance -- you should eliminate the data if the situation that caused them is easily avoidable. In this case, the two starts in question were his only day starts on the road, the first after a rained out day game in Anaheim, and the second after a night game in Miami. The two cities in America with the greatest reputation for nightlife -- the latter with the #1 reputation for Latino nightlife. Which is the more rational explanation? 1) E-Rod had no interest in going to LA, a city he's never visited in his life, for the evening after the rainout, or in going out at night in Miami, ditto. (Because, presumably, he is an automaton without conscious experience.) And he was neurologically subpar the next afternoon for some other reason than that he didn't get enough sleep those two nights (e.g., battery recharging for automata is bad in Anaheim and Miami). 2) He partied and paid the price, and presumably has learned his lesson (or can be expected to learn it, like Pedroia did after his rookie season). Wow, just noticing this. This argument is amazingly bad! Let's all speculate on what drug or drink was interfering with Eric's own neurological processes that made him make such a bad argument. It's generally standard practice to explain why an argument is "amazingly bad" rather than just proclaiming it be one. Which of the components in the argument are untrue? I'll cut you some slack and assume that you get a very consistent amount of sleep from night to night, and that you don't do anything mentally or physically that's so challenging that it requires you to be at your best (the latter, at least, being easy to believe). So you may be personally unaware of the fact that day-to-day variation in sleep quality / quantity is easily the biggest influence on day-to-day neurological function. And yes, analysis of that, and recommendations for improvements, do work at the MLB level. So what does that leave us with? If you were visiting the L.A. area for the first time in your life and had the choice of staying in your Anaheim hotel room alone all evening or accompanying your friends to L.A., what would you do? Honestly, now. I believe you're characterizing it as "amazingly bad" because I had to make a lot of stuff up that I had no way of knowing for certain. But either explain to me the science that says that neurological function is actually random rather than caused (hint: you can't, because it's not), or that pitching is not a neurological function (hint: you can't, because it is), or explain why it's likelier that the extraordinary disruption to his neurological functioning on these two occasions was caused by something else that is likely to reoccur at random ... including in that argument the odds that the two times it has occurred at random just happened to be in the identified circumstances.
|
|
|