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 rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 9:34:57 GMT -5
I think the thing there is that some positions are easier to save runs than other positions. The best 1B is never going to equal the best OF. A great OF can rob a guy of a multiple runs on one play by reaching over a wall and talking away a HR for example. There is certainly an element to this but it's also not as extreme as the numbers would indicate. Beyond that you have the sample size problem. Add: I also question (due to ignorance, so maybe someone can help me out with this) the quality of the data. Who watches every play and makes these determinations? Do they treat all runners not scoring from second on a single the same or do they make a judgement on what type of play there is, etc? For example, a ball that you don't know if it's going to fall or not is different than a ground ball thru the hole you don't need to think about.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 10:34:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 18, 2017 10:38:14 GMT -5
Defensive metrics are context-neutral. Simplifying some, every batted ball is assigned an expected run value - the defender "responsible" for that ball is either credited/debited with that run value based on whether it's an out or not; the 27 24 base/out contexts are ignored
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 11:13:55 GMT -5
Thanks wise guy... when I have a couple hours I'll sort back thru all the fan-graphs crap again. Doubt they are going to answer who the video scouts are though because I couldn't find it the first time.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 11:37:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 12:07:13 GMT -5
So what they get interns to watch baseball and collect the data... that's the best I could piece together from that search.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2017 12:19:53 GMT -5
So what they get interns to watch baseball and collect the data... that's the best I could piece together from that search. Then you have a serious problem with words? Your last few posts here are the equivalent of "well I don't understand astrophysics, must be ancient aliens." I'm serious. Nobody cares that YOU don't want to take the two hours or whatever to understand DRS. If that's not how you enjoy the game, nobody is going to fault you for that. But don't come back at people by saying that numbers are made up just because you lack intellectual curiosity. If it's not something you understand or care to understand, why the heck would you interject yourself into the conversation? That's the reason for the snark. There are totally valid criticisms of DRS, but "I'll read fangraphs some other time" is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 12:33:12 GMT -5
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'll post the below, which was linked in the first link I posted above:
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 13:01:56 GMT -5
So what they get interns to watch baseball and collect the data... that's the best I could piece together from that search. Then you have a serious problem with words? Your last few posts here are the equivalent of "well I don't understand astrophysics, must be ancient aliens." I'm serious. Nobody cares that YOU don't want to take the two hours or whatever to understand DRS. If that's not how you enjoy the game, nobody is going to fault you for that. But don't come back at people by saying that numbers are made up just because you lack intellectual curiosity. If it's not something you understand or care to understand, why the heck would you interject yourself into the conversation? That's the reason for the snark. There are totally valid criticisms of DRS, but "I'll read fangraphs some other time" is not one of them. Edit: deleted not necessary Edit 2: what you wrote above was below your standards and my response wasn't much better. What I will say is your post is way off from what I was even questioning. Never once did I say anything was close to made up. And beyond that, when you make a statement like "he's fourth among all center fielders in defensive runs saved", you might want to step back from criticizing someone.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 13:03:09 GMT -5
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'll post the below, which was linked in the first link I posted above: Thank you
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Apr 18, 2017 13:10:19 GMT -5
And what, pray tell, do you think the "implications" of DRS are (the statement itself is some combination of poor English/understanding)?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 13:17:15 GMT -5
And what, pray tell, do you think the "implications" of DRS are (the statement itself is some combination of poor English/understanding)? Idk I deleted my original response bc I was rage writing. I'm not about to claim my use of the written word is top notch and I certainly wasn't proof reading that post.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 18, 2017 14:45:35 GMT -5
I think the thing there is that some positions are easier to save runs than other positions. The best 1B is never going to equal the best OF. A great OF can rob a guy of a multiple runs on one play by reaching over a wall and talking away a HR for example. There is certainly an element to this but it's also not as extreme as the numbers would indicate. Beyond that you have the sample size problem. Add: I also question (due to ignorance, so maybe someone can help me out with this) the quality of the data. Who watches every play and makes these determinations? Do they treat all runners not scoring from second on a single the same or do they make a judgement on what type of play there is, etc? For example, a ball that you don't know if it's going to fall or not is different than a ground ball thru the hole you don't need to think about. Those 1399 include him standing at 1B and catching the ball thrown from 2B, SS and 3B to record an out. He didn't make 1399 plays in the field. It's why a 1B has such a high number compared to 3B.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Apr 18, 2017 14:56:41 GMT -5
The point is that it's hard to look at the last two weeks of Manuel Margot's career and be like "yeah, good thing they traded that dude while the getting was good!" He's been really very good. You can defend Kimbrel and you can make the defense that the value was worth it for a variety of reasons, but trying to pretend that it's a good trade because Margot turned out to be a bum is not a good take right now. Margot is not a bum, neither is the Closer. Early trade return, you have to like what Kimbrel has brought to Boston. The stats don't lie in regards to Kimbrel Moncada Kopech Espinoza Margot for Sale Kimbrell Pomeranz is not an overpay in my book.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 14, 2017 11:06:44 GMT -5
I've been lightly supportive of DD - it seems like more because I haven't been overall against what he's done thus I defend him for not being incompetent like I feel Ben was. But I'm starting to see warning signs. Am I looking at things wrong?
1--- Kyle Kendrick. I have to say the moment I saw him, he looked bad. The people that work for DD- what were they thinking? Am I wrong to think - that without a doubt Johnson is better? He doesn't look like he has any angle on his pitches. I read recently how early vs Milwaukee the exit velocity was low. But from what I saw- most of his pitches were "up." He can't live "up." He was "lucky." And a bit off-topic -- John Farell just awful. I know to some John can do no wrong-- -- but for many of us, isn't it logical that Kendrick can't face a lineup 3 times? Especially good hitting lineups? Why is it that John doesn't understand this? Or am I being too hard?
2--- I know I was wrong with wanting to keep Clay. I wasn't wrong though imo for wanting another starting pitcher. A cheaper one though I was more for Clay. I suppose a minor pass for trying ot get a cheaper pitcher though- beucase maybe DD held out for Johnson, Owens or Elias in case other starters falter and believed one could eventually step up. But if Kendrick was "the answer" and what we saw early on -- it kind of makes me question if he or his staff really knows what they are doing? Or am I being too hard?
3-- Pomeranz-- I just read before his start vs Milwaukee he threw just TEN cutters for the season. And the crazy thing is -- he thinks that is okay. I look at him sometimes on the mound and he appears to continually have a glazed look about him. If he thinks TEN cutters is okay, I guess in this case I can tell a book by it's cover. Shouldn't he be throwing more cutters? Shouldn't Farell and staff and DD and staff and others be all over him for this?
As for the trade I believe DD and his staff believed Pomeranz was a 2 or 3. I am not as confident as many are on here that treat Espinoza as though he is a future lock to be a good pro-- I don't know. But I've said and I think many agree - If Pomeranz is more of a 4/5 starter - that trade DD made year over year was pretty dumb. We could have gotten a 4/5 starter without giving up a top 20 prospect. Pomeranz refusing to throw his cutter is not a 2/3 starter. I would have thought there would have been certain expectations set forth with Pomeranz. And if he refuses to throw his cutter, shouldn't soemone come down on him hard? Or am I being too hard?
4-- Rutledge/Hernandez/Shaw What is happening at 3b is comical. Rutledge and Henrnadez -- they could not play there. I know some on here down on Shaw.But Shaw could hit .230 with some power and defend. I didn't realize Rutleedge hardly played 3b after high school. You mean our scouting system couldn't tell Rutledge and Hernandez might be terrible at 3rd? Or am I being too hard on the employed evaluators?
5--- Panda and Holt. I said it a while ago and still say it now. Holt is better player than Panda. Panda is a defensive disaster imo even when comes back. But the worst thing about Panda is that the Red Sox now are more of a team that is going to try to win close games with defense and pitching and late timely hitting. It's too easy to get Panda out now by bringing in an average lefty. He's an awful defender in which I think Holt can improve enough to be at worst below average. But not awful. When you add up Panda's awful defense, his inability to hit lefties so late in games he is near useless, and he's not much of a hitter vs righties either, plus he is slow on the bases, why wouldn't Holt be better? Or am I reaching here and being too hard on Panda? Panda can't hit lefties. If we had a viable 3b, can Panda be sent down to the minors and not be a hit against the cap?
6-- If 3b disaster continues or one pitcher doesn't perform or gets hurt-- who is DD going to trade? I'm not saying I would do it. Candidates are Swihart, Chavez and Ockimey. Hopefully no trades will be needed.
But overall I'm getting a little concerned if DD knows what he is doing. Though it's just a concern as of now. We need Price back - badly. And we need a 3b that isn't pathetic. And to get a bench so we can rest some guys and a bullpen pitcher or two to help out Barnes and Hembree.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 14, 2017 11:27:26 GMT -5
I think you're being a little harsh on starting pitching. We had 6 guys that looked very good. It's kind of crazy to want 7 guys in my opinion. Injuries happen and it's just too bad both Price and Wright are injured at same time. Johnson though should be getting starts over Kendrick in my opinion. He's pitching well give him a chance. It's certainly not crazy to have guys like Johnson and Owens as your 7th and 8th starters in my opinion. Some teams would kill for that type of depth.
I didn't want to trade Shaw. I really liked having that insurance. After he did, it's on DD for not bringing in another guy. The numbers always showed that Hernandez was a bad defensive 3b and like you said Rutledge hasn't played there a ton. Now if Holt wasn't injured things wouldn't be that bad. Thing is 3b is Holt's worst defensive position. Injuries have really killed us at 3b this year. While Hernandez and Holt aren't great defenders, there bats would help us. Playing Marrero really hurts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 14, 2017 11:31:26 GMT -5
I've been lightly supportive of DD - it seems like more because I haven't been overall against what he's done thus I defend him for not being incompetent like I feel Ben was. But I'm starting to see warning signs. Am I looking at things wrong?
2--- I know I was wrong with wanting to keep Clay. I wasn't wrong though imo for wanting another starting pitcher. A cheaper one though I was more for Clay. I suppose a minor pass for trying ot get a cheaper pitcher though- beucase maybe DD held out for Johnson, Owens or Elias in case other starters falter and believed one could eventually step up. But if Kendrick was "the answer" and what we saw early on -- it kind of makes me question if he or his staff really knows what they are doing? Or am I being too hard? How exactly would you go about trying to find a good 7th starter who couldn't be on the major league roster if everyone was healthy? The only possible way is to find a good starter prospect with options who is in AAA. Who trades those pitchers? And if a team were to trade a pitcher like that, is it worth giving up what it would cost for a 7th starter?
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 14, 2017 12:08:07 GMT -5
I've been lightly supportive of DD - it seems like more because I haven't been overall against what he's done thus I defend him for not being incompetent like I feel Ben was. But I'm starting to see warning signs. Am I looking at things wrong?
2--- I know I was wrong with wanting to keep Clay. I wasn't wrong though imo for wanting another starting pitcher. A cheaper one though I was more for Clay. I suppose a minor pass for trying ot get a cheaper pitcher though- beucase maybe DD held out for Johnson, Owens or Elias in case other starters falter and believed one could eventually step up. But if Kendrick was "the answer" and what we saw early on -- it kind of makes me question if he or his staff really knows what they are doing? Or am I being too hard? How exactly would you go about trying to find a good 7th starter who couldn't be on the major league roster if everyone was healthy? The only possible way is to find a good starter prospect with options who is in AAA. Who trades those pitchers? And if a team were to trade a pitcher like that, is it worth giving up what it would cost for a 7th starter? Attached was a list of pitchers available on the market after last year. Maybe some had team options which were untouchable. But for the ones that were not untouchable up to $10m which Clay would have made -- is every one of them a bust?
www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/2017/starting-pitcher/
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 14, 2017 12:35:03 GMT -5
We didn't have 10 million to spend on a #7 starter, that's why they traded Clay. We needed to get under luxury tax and have money for in season moves.
How many teams spend anywhere near 10 million on a #7 starter? Your #7 starters are usually guys like Kendricks or minor league guys.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 14, 2017 13:13:35 GMT -5
Soxjim,
Like others have said: re point 1 & 2, there's not much the Sox could do to get a higher quality #7 starter than Kendrick. Most guys of any quality aren't going to sign if they're not guaranteed a spot unless there's a ton of money involved and the Sox didn't have that money available or else Buchholz wouldn't have been dealt.
As far as point 3 goes, I agree with you. With Espinoza's injuries, he's a bit of a question mark, too, but I'd take my chances that he develops well over a six year stretch of control than Pomeranz, because if Pomeranz does require major surgery, he wouldn't be back until 2019 when he was no longer under the Red Sox' control. Obviously Dombrowski thought he was getting a front-line starter. He looks more like a backend to me, certainly not worth a prospect of Espinoza's caliber. I'm wrong about a lot of stuff, but I was screaming bloody murder on that one the day that trade was made.
Re: point 4, Shaw was the definition of replacement level last season - he got replaced in September because he was so damn bad. Competent defensively yet, but pretty mediocre to useless last season. I'd take Tyler Thornburg's 2016 season over Travis Shaw's 2016 season anytime, and I wish the Sox had 2016 Thornburg (or 2015 Carson Smith) setting up for dominant (AND "elite" - ha!!) Craig Kimbrel.
What happened was that the Sox got three guys to back up and ALL three got hurt. That's crazy. It's not shocking that any of them got hurt - but all three at the same time!
Dombrowski figured that Sandoval was shaping up and he was and that he had Holt to back up. He tried to get Plouffe but like most others he wanted more money and guaranteed ABs.
Holt is not better than a reasonably healthy Sandoval. Holt starts off well and fades drastically and he is hardly a good defensive 3b himself. He's a really good utility guy but not a good starting player.
I do question why Dominguez hasn't gotten the call. Yes, he's not been really good at Pawtucket, but he's been in the bigs, been thoroughly mediocre to be charitable, but can at least play 3b and perhaps platoon with Rutledge. Otherwise, why did the Red Sox even bother to sign him? What kind of depth is he if he can't get an opportunity with all this stuff going on?
I do share your concern that Dombrowski makes a deal to secure a 3b for this season if Sandoval can't hack it or if Devers isn't ready and those 3 guys you mentioned are exactly who I thought DD would dangle - I'd also add Lakins as a candidate to be dealt too.
Unfortunately the Red Sox look top-heavy, kind of the way Dombrowski's team were in Detroit and kind of how Dan Duquette's late 1990s Red Sox were built, so I share your concern. I see this team as an 87 win team that plays as the 2nd wild card team. A healthy David Price, a competent 3b, and a reliable reliever in front of Kimbrel, and some good health, and that equation can change drastically.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on May 14, 2017 13:52:33 GMT -5
How many teams spend anywhere near 10 million on a #7 starter? Well, they spend it on a 7th, and 8th, outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 14, 2017 14:11:17 GMT -5
How exactly would you go about trying to find a good 7th starter who couldn't be on the major league roster if everyone was healthy? The only possible way is to find a good starter prospect with options who is in AAA. Who trades those pitchers? And if a team were to trade a pitcher like that, is it worth giving up what it would cost for a 7th starter? Attached was a list of pitchers available on the market after last year. Maybe some had team options which were untouchable. But for the ones that were not untouchable up to $10m which Clay would have made -- is every one of them a bust?
www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/2017/starting-pitcher/
How many of those pitchers are going to sign up with a team to be their 7th starter as opposed to another team offering them a spot in the rotation?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 14, 2017 14:20:33 GMT -5
How many teams spend anywhere near 10 million on a #7 starter? Well, they spend it on a 7th, and 8th, outfielder. Well not really. Yes in cash value, but it doesn't count against Luxury tax. Nevermind the fact those guys weren't brought in to be #7 and #8 OF. They were brought in to start. It just didn't work out that way.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on May 14, 2017 14:25:39 GMT -5
We didn't have 10 million to spend on a #7 starter, that's why they traded Clay. We needed to get under luxury tax and have money for in season moves. How many teams spend anywhere near 10 million on a #7 starter? Your #7 starters are usually guys like Kendricks or minor league guys. IMO calling someone "a 7th starter" is irrelevant when you factor in that Wright and Pomeranz are coming back from injuries in which they are unknown and ERod is an unknown for the entire season. In that context, the Sox are trying to win it all. Pomeranz and Wright and ERod have not ever had to carry a full load for a full MPB season. It could be considered way too wild to have to rely on all of them. SO calling him "7th starter" when you had so many questions form starters and you have built your team with the idea that the starters would be your strength, you left your team too short.
Also - not sure how much we are under-- but Abad was a waste for the $2m. Farrell really doesn't use Ross like he should so if you are pinching for dollars you could have moved/passed with him. Thornburgh - giving up so much for a reliever - especially Shaw was a waste. I think you can recall that there wasn't very much excitement at all with Mitch Moreland. Could have gotten Thames for less. OFC its hindsight but imo what you are suggesting us being over $10m is hindsight too but you are accepting DD's possible less-than-stellar decisions-- yet it didn't have to be. That's how a GM partly should get evaluated, shouldn't he?
Therefore, the number 7 starter in which the Red Sox are trying to compete for a championship in which they are built on starters in which three (4,5 and 6) were questionable, is a lot more important under these circumstances than normal and as a result- imo the GM can be questioned for his prior salary cap/signing decisions.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 14, 2017 14:38:38 GMT -5
We didn't have 10 million to spend on a #7 starter, that's why they traded Clay. We needed to get under luxury tax and have money for in season moves. How many teams spend anywhere near 10 million on a #7 starter? Your #7 starters are usually guys like Kendricks or minor league guys. IMO calling someone "a 7th starter" is irrelevant when you factor in that Wright and Pomeranz are coming back from injuries in which they are unknown and ERod is an unknown for the entire season. In that context, the Sox are trying to win it all. Pomeranz and Wright and ERod have not ever had to carry a full load for a full MPB season. It could be considered way too wild to have to rely on all of them. SO calling him "7th starter" when you had so many questions form starters and you have built your team with the idea that the starters would be your strength, you left your team too short.
Also - not sure how much we are under-- but Abad was a waste for the $2m. Farrell really doesn't use Ross like he should so if you are pinching for dollars you could have moved/passed with him. Thornburgh - giving up so much for a reliever - especially Shaw was a waste. I think you can recall that there wasn't very much excitement at all with Mitch Moreland. Could have gotten Thames for less. OFC its hindsight but imo what you are suggesting us being over $10m is hindsight too but you are accepting DD's possible less-than-stellar decisions-- yet it didn't have to be. That's how a GM partly should get evaluated, shouldn't he?
Therefore, the number 7 starter in which the Red Sox are trying to compete for a championship in which they are built on starters in which three (4,5 and 6) were questionable, is a lot more important under these circumstances than normal and as a result- imo the GM can be questioned for his prior salary cap/signing decisions. It's easy to second guess. No teams in MLB had 6 better starters than the Red Sox had entering the season. Teams just don't spend resources on 7th and 8th starters. If you have an excess of good AAA starter prospects, your team will have better depth than any other team, but those pitchers are almost never traded, except to improve the major league team. In other words, you'd have to subtract from the major league team to add good 7th and 8th starters. And that's pretty dumb. What rotations in baseball have sure things in the rotation at #4, 5, 6, 7 and 8? Feel free to go back several seasons. If you find a team, look and see how they were built, and I'll bet that it's mostly homegrown, so that is not something you can do in an offseason or two.
|
|
|