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.
9/12-9/14 Red Sox vs. Orioles Series Thread
|
Post by Coreno on Sept 12, 2016 21:37:58 GMT -5
OMG, Buck Showalter is such a putz. Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. I continue to be perplexed by your combined revere for Farrell and bitter distaste for guys like Showalter and Maddon.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 12, 2016 22:21:43 GMT -5
Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. I continue to be perplexed by your combined revere for Farrell and bitter distaste for guys like Showalter and Maddon. Yeah me too. Everyone acknowledges Showalter and Maddon are annoying but they're far superior managers to Farrell.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 12, 2016 22:44:29 GMT -5
Perplexing as it may be, I'm flat out honest on how much I dislike guys like Maddon and Showalter and love guys like Farrell, Bochy or heck even Ned Yost. In my defense, life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything. Everyone acknowledges Showalter and Maddon are annoying but they're far superior managers to Farrell. Everyone but me I guess. Wake me up when they win anything that counts.
|
|
|
Post by swooptech on Sept 12, 2016 23:17:33 GMT -5
Eckersley had some great one liner tonight besides "I'm sizzled", any one remember what it was?
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Sept 12, 2016 23:35:45 GMT -5
Right. Screw the 6 combined MOTY awards.
I want the guy with a record just over .500 because he has a ring engraved "You're Welcome -Papi"
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Sept 12, 2016 23:58:10 GMT -5
We are guaranteed a non losing season. Been a while since we could say that. You just made the entire city of Pittsburgh blush. Two years is not "a while."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2016 0:35:59 GMT -5
OMG, Buck Showalter is such a putz. Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the manager, but this is an absolute fact: if we had been as efficient as them, and they as us, we would be THIRTY GAMES IN FRONT OF THEM INSTEAD OF THREE.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,673
|
Post by gerry on Sept 13, 2016 0:37:10 GMT -5
Eckersley had some great one liner tonight besides "I'm sizzled", any one remember what it was? He was funny tonite. He was reminiscing about his feelings about hanging them up. He said he came in one day to the clubhouse and rap music was playing. What? There he was a forty year old among twenty something's and he felt done, finished, sizzled. Funny guy. A tough transition.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2016 1:31:26 GMT -5
Beginning August 12, the Sox have gone 20-10, outscoring their opponents 193 - 101, which is a Pythagorean .774 (23 - 7).
They have played 20 of those 30 games on the road, which reduces their expected wins by 0.5 (hence giving them a .790 adjusted Pythagorean). Their opponents have average .504 in schedule-adjusted BaseRuns (but .490 if you include karma).
In half of the losses, they blew a 75% chance of winning.
They have done this essentially without Steven Wright, who started twice, pitched in pain, and gave up 9 ER in 10 IP. And essentially without Koji Uehara, who pitched three times and only once with a LI of more than 0.3. And without Andrew Benintendi for the last 17 games.
Furthermore, they have also added Joe Kelly to the bullpen, and he has pitched four times with LI of .01, .34, .44, and .43, so his contribution to the streak is a whole 0.06 wins above average (WPA). However, he has a an 0.81 xFIP and 1.35 SIERA, thanks to a 40% K - W.
|
|
|
Post by telluricrook on Sept 13, 2016 1:36:05 GMT -5
I remember when Chris young and Justin Upton were the future in Arizonas outfield. Did not work out. Young hit 32 Homers and stole 20 something bags in 2007 and then was eventually sent down to the minors a couple years later after struggling at the plate. I have a feeling he is going to be the unsung hero for this team in the postseason if they make it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 13, 2016 5:46:14 GMT -5
Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the manager, but this is an absolute fact: if we had been as efficient as them, and they as us, we would be THIRTY GAMES IN FRONT OF THEM INSTEAD OF THREE.This is just not true. Our starting pitching and bullpen woes have occured in sequence and have been the biggest detriment to the team's success. To the extent Farrell has cost us games. and there isn't really a question, that is open for interpretation. There just is no way a manager can overcome the pitching difficulties that he has faced with his staff to the extent your claiming.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Sept 13, 2016 6:22:27 GMT -5
Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the manager, but this is an absolute fact: if we had been as efficient as them, and they as us, we would be THIRTY GAMES IN FRONT OF THEM INSTEAD OF THREE.Showalter, like Girardi has a healthy, competent bullpen. There is no absolute FACT that efficiency (statistical) can be applied to teams that have obvious differences in talent, front office and field management. As for your "30 games instead of 3", put that stat where the sun don't shine.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 13, 2016 6:45:23 GMT -5
Buck Showalter will absolutely never win anything relevant in this league and it baffles my mind that some people would like this a**hole managing the Red Sox. I get not liking Farrell, but let's face it Showalter sucks. He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the managerIs there any evidence for this being a managerial skill?
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 13, 2016 7:18:41 GMT -5
He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins . It's hard to say how much of that is the managerIs there any evidence for this being a managerial skill? On the contrary, the logic may go in the other direction. Win efficiency could be considered evidence of managerial skill, though correlation doesn't imply causation. A comment on Papi. I've been astounded by his farewell season, but to me it isn't the most astounding performance of the year. That distinction now has to go to Leon imo. It's gotten to the point where this can't be shrugged off as a fluke anymore, and the guy shows absolutely no signs of slowing down with less than three weeks left in the regular season. It is one thing to wonder if a guy who has been one of the best hitters of the era can keep it going at age 40. It is quite another to watch Sandy Leon turn into The reincarnation of Mike Piazza. J
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2016 7:42:38 GMT -5
I thought it was pretty hilarious that the league basically gave Showalter the middle finger when he challenged the last play of the game and he was obviously right about it.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 13, 2016 7:56:29 GMT -5
It looked like Shaw did barely nick his jersey. Probably not enough to see to overturn.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Sept 13, 2016 8:09:16 GMT -5
Beginning August 12, the Sox have gone 20-10, outscoring their opponents 193 - 101, which is a Pythagorean .774 (23 - 7). They have played 20 of those 30 games on the road, which reduces their expected wins by 0.5 (hence giving them a .790 adjusted Pythagorean). Their opponents have average .504 in schedule-adjusted BaseRuns (but .490 if you include karma). In half of the losses, they blew a 75% chance of winning. They have done this essentially without Steven Wright, who started twice, pitched in pain, and gave up 9 ER in 10 IP. And essentially without Koji Uehara, who pitched three times and only once with a LI of more than 0.3. And without Andrew Benintendi for the last 17 games. Furthermore, they have also added Joe Kelly to the bullpen, and he has pitched four times with LI of .01, .34, .44, and .43, so his contribution to the streak is a whole 0.06 wins above average (WPA). However, he has a an 0.81 xFIP and 1.35 SIERA, thanks to a 40% K - W. Question for Eric: DOes volatility figure into Pythagorean analysis? The Sox seem to have periods of high run games (blow-outs alternating with lower scoring periods and this situation could create a false impression of expected wins if the numbers are smoothed by some kind of averaging function. In fact you could do this sort of analysis for pitchers as well to see if the team maybe has a volatility "problem" that causes them to underpreform. I don't have the background to do the math for this and perhaps it's alreaady accounted for, but it's something that I've seen in my former day job. Or, in keeping with the zeitgeist, maybe its' Farrrell.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 13, 2016 8:48:32 GMT -5
There are two things that are certain. Missing pythag by so much is not 100% Farrell's fault. It's also not 0% his fault.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 13, 2016 8:53:57 GMT -5
Is there any evidence for this being a managerial skill? On the contrary, the logic may go in the other direction. Win efficiency could be considered evidence of managerial skill, though correlation doesn't imply causation. Nah, you can't just assume win efficiency in a single season is evidence for managerial skill. You'd have to show that it follows managers around, that certain managers are consistently better at it than other managers. Otherwise, it's just noise, or possibly related to something else, and you would be making an a priori assertion unsupported by real world evidence. I'm skeptical, but I'm open to some evidence otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 13, 2016 10:00:42 GMT -5
Red Sox lead the AL in all three of the triple slash #s, and they have scored 98(!) runs more than the second place team (Indians), 802-704. There's a bigger difference between the Sox in #1 and the Indians in #2 than there is between the Indians and the 11th place team (Yankees).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2016 10:09:19 GMT -5
Beginning August 12, the Sox have gone 20-10, outscoring their opponents 193 - 101, which is a Pythagorean .774 (23 - 7). They have played 20 of those 30 games on the road, which reduces their expected wins by 0.5 (hence giving them a .790 adjusted Pythagorean). Their opponents have average .504 in schedule-adjusted BaseRuns (but .490 if you include karma). In half of the losses, they blew a 75% chance of winning. They have done this essentially without Steven Wright, who started twice, pitched in pain, and gave up 9 ER in 10 IP. And essentially without Koji Uehara, who pitched three times and only once with a LI of more than 0.3. And without Andrew Benintendi for the last 17 games. Furthermore, they have also added Joe Kelly to the bullpen, and he has pitched four times with LI of .01, .34, .44, and .43, so his contribution to the streak is a whole 0.06 wins above average (WPA). However, he has a an 0.81 xFIP and 1.35 SIERA, thanks to a 40% K - W. Question for Eric: DOes volatility figure into Pythagorean analysis? The Sox seem to have periods of high run games (blow-outs alternating with lower scoring periods and this situation could create a false impression of expected wins if the numbers are smoothed by some kind of averaging function. In fact you could do this sort of analysis for pitchers as well to see if the team maybe has a volatility "problem" that causes them to underpreform. I don't have the background to do the math for this and perhaps it's alreaady accounted for, but it's something that I've seen in my former day job. Or, in keeping with the zeitgeist, maybe its' Farrrell. Teams with a high standard deviation of RS do underperform their Pythag. That's definitely a part of it. It's kind of surprising that nobody has redone the Pythag formula to include standard deviations (teams with a low SD of RA also underperform). About 10% of Pythagorean Win Efficiency is predictive. Some of that is almost certainly the closer, because terrible teams who change their closer the next year don't correlate, but teams that don't make a change do (that was easier to study than teams with a great closer, for obvious reasons). It's reasonable to think that the manager contributes as well.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 13, 2016 10:30:40 GMT -5
About 10% of Pythagorean Win Efficiency is predictive. Some of that is almost certainly the closer, because terrible teams who change their closer the next year don't correlate, but teams that don't make a change do (that was easier to study than teams with a great closer, for obvious reasons). It's reasonable to think that the manager contributes as well. So, it's 90% non-predictive, and the other 10% is only predictive relative to closers, not managers. So, there's no evidence of managerial contribution to this? I mean, sure, it sounds reasonable that managers would contribute, but if the data isn't there ...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2016 10:40:02 GMT -5
He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the manager, but this is an absolute fact: if we had been as efficient as them, and they as us, we would be THIRTY GAMES IN FRONT OF THEM INSTEAD OF THREE.This is just not true. Our starting pitching and bullpen woes have occured in sequence and have been the biggest detriment to the team's success. To the extent Farrell has cost us games. and there isn't really a question, that is open for interpretation. There just is no way a manager can overcome the pitching difficulties that he has faced with his staff to the extent your claiming. Everything in my post was as true as the sun shining at day but not at night. You're disagreeing with things you think the facts imply, when I went out of my way to say that it was hard to say whether they implied that or not. He sucks so bad that the O's have been 13.7 games better than us at turning their stats into wins. It's hard to say how much of that is the manager, but this is an absolute fact: if we had been as efficient as them, and they as us, we would be THIRTY GAMES IN FRONT OF THEM INSTEAD OF THREE.Showalter, like Girardi has a healthy, competent bullpen. There is no absolute FACT that efficiency (statistical) can be applied to teams that have obvious differences in talent, front office and field management. As for your "30 games instead of 3", put that stat where the sun don't shine. I cited the size of the Win Efficiency gap to demonstrate how important a factor it is in the standings. Win Efficiency is what it is. I said nothing about where it came from. All I did was point out how the standings would be if we had been as efficient as the O's, and vice versa. I cited figures earlier that showed that our Win Efficiency was split pretty evenly between the hitters, the starting pitchers, and the bullpen. The inefficiency of the pitching staff can be very strongly tied to Farrell leaving starting pitchers in too long and to not correlating his relievers to situations (using better pitchers for higher leverage). Both of those truths can be demonstrated statistically and both are reflected in before the fact complaints in game threads. The stuff about our pen versus the Orioles is so wrong it's laughable. Our bullpen ranks 8th in MLB in ERA-, just ahead of the Orioles. It is 8th in FIP- and the Orioles rank 12th. It ranks 12th in xFIP- and the Orioles rank 16th.But the Orioles rank 2nd in Win Probability Added. The Red Sox rank 19th. Repeat. The Reds Sox bullpen ranks 8th in MLB at not allowing runs but 19th at helping the team win games. Gee, I wonder what might cause that? (The starters rank 6th in ERA- but 11th in WPA. Which is to say, way too many runs given up in high leverage.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 13, 2016 11:04:36 GMT -5
About 10% of Pythagorean Win Efficiency is predictive. Some of that is almost certainly the closer, because terrible teams who change their closer the next year don't correlate, but teams that don't make a change do (that was easier to study than teams with a great closer, for obvious reasons). It's reasonable to think that the manager contributes as well. So, it's 90% non-predictive, and the other 10% is only predictive relative to closers, not managers. So, there's no evidence of managerial contribution to this? I mean, sure, it sounds reasonable that managers would contribute, but if the data isn't there ... ... it doesn't actually tell you anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The biggest mistaken assumption here is that there are managers who mismanage their bullpens year after year, which is what it would take to find the evidence you want. A manager who did that would get fired before he could significantly affect the data. JF has managed the bullpen fairly well the last few weeks. He was not nearly this bad in the past. A manager's handling of his bullpen is dependent on what he believes about that specific group of relievers, and different groups will match up differently to his thinking style. JF's main problem is that he is slow to change his mind. That makes him a bad manager when his bullpen is full of genuinely surprising and volatile performers, but a good one for for a bullpen that is consistent. A manger with the opposite mindset might have handled this bullpen much better, but might screw up a pen that was actually consistent by over-reacting to short-term and small sample variations in performance. The bigger issue here is that there is actually no need to find global evidence of a causal relationship (i.e., that X tends to cause Y in general) when there is strong evidence for a local one (i.e., X has caused Y in this case). If X can cause Y but does so only rarely, it will probably never be true that X causes Y in general. That of course doesn't mean that X never causes Y. Most teams that have a bad Clutch number for their bullpen will, upon examination, turn out to be teams where guys pitched worse in high leverage more or less at random. But once in a while you will find a team where many bad pitchers were put into high-lev situations and failed predictably, where one of the better pitchers was seldom used in high-leverage situations (despite his succeeding remarkably when he was), where a pitcher was used in relatively low leverage (despite a superior track record) for a long stretch where he pitched exceptionally well, and then was moved to higher-leverage situations and kept there for an even longer time even though he almost immediately began pitching terribly, the change being so severe as to be unlikely to be random, and being part of a long-standing pattern of apparent fatigue caused by over-use. That's all objective data.And then when you find that a consensus of informed observers criticized all of these bullpen choices, in real time before the negative outcomes happened, you have a pretty open-and-shut case that X caused Y in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 13, 2016 11:14:39 GMT -5
Right. Screw the 6 combined MOTY awards. I want the guy with a record just over .500 because he has a ring engraved "You're Welcome -Papi" I get questionable math that says the Red Sox would be 423423 games better with Showalter as a manager. But you really want to go with MANAGER OF THE YEAR to back your point? He still has that ring that Showalter and Maddon aren't ever getting.
|
|
|