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 pedrofanforever45 on Aug 10, 2017 14:08:49 GMT -5
Honestly, I wasn't wrong about anything I said in that paragraph. Pedrioa is on his way to to a season that's worth 2-3 fWAR. Which is twice the amount of fWAR that Kole Coulhoon has been worth (not a good trade prediction). Pedrioa has been worth more than Kole every year besides 2014.
I'm not going to get into a argument with you in the Chavis thread about Pedrioa. It doesn't honestly matter in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 14:42:18 GMT -5
So here are the numbers showing how Chavis has improved at 3B.
High A 27 games, 11 errors and a .853 fielding %
AA 26 games, 3 errors and a .963 fielding %
Moncada last year before he was called up to majors
AA 3B 10 games 3 errors, .909 fielding %
AA 2B 34 games, 6 errors, .957 fielding%
High A 2B 58 games, 11 errors, .958 fielding%
2017 AAA 2B 80 games, 11 errors, .969 fielding%
As Chavis has got healthy his D at 3B has improved. By a very large margin.
I would be really interested in Ian opinion of what that looks like on the field. Has he improved his foot work, instincts, or feel for 3B? Or is he just making the regular plays now?
Does anyone that has seen Chavis play in person have a comp of a player he reminds you at 3B defensively ?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 10, 2017 14:46:10 GMT -5
So here are the numbers showing how Chavis has improved at 3B. High A 27 games, 11 errors and a .853 fielding % AA 26 games, 3 errors and a .963 fielding % Moncada last year before he was called up to majors AA 3B 10 games 3 errors, .909 fielding % AA 2B 34 games, 6 errors, .957 fielding% High A 2B 58 games, 11 errors, .958 fielding% 2017 AAA 2B 80 games, 11 errors, .969 fielding% As Chavis has got healthy his D at 3B has improved. By a very large margin. I would be really interested in Ian opinion of what that looks like on the field. Has he improved his foot work, instincts, or feel for 3B? Or is he just making the regular plays now? Does anyone that has seen Chavis play in person have a comp of a player he reminds you at 3B defensively ? That's like a Yankee's fan argument trying to prove that Jeter was a good fielding SS. Advanced fielding metrics take 2 years to be meaningful. Errors and fielding percentage will tell you barely more than nothing after an entire career.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 10, 2017 15:14:26 GMT -5
The sample sizes are almost insignificant and some of you will say they are definitely insignificant but we are comparing a guy who had a hand injury with a guy who apparently has an improved health condition. A single person, with himself a few months later. It's not Jeter, with the league. It's not a 3 year UZR sample size, of course, but I don't think any of us are even calling him an above average fielder anyway. I'm just saying the small data sample we have is encouraging that he can be an acceptable 3rd base / 2nd base utility guy who even has a good chance to start somewhere. In AA, even though his BABIP has dropped significantly, he still has major extra base pop and he appears to maybe have continued to improve defensively.
He's cheap and if he comes anywhere near Dan Uggla numbers we would all be happy as hell. That right handed power bat would play up in Fenway maybe. I say take what he is giving. Don't trade him. Encourage him. Don't try to fit a square peg in a round hole. What he is projecting is a decent value and I think we need what he is selling.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 15:31:38 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won.
If you think those two sets of numbers for Chavis tell us nothing. Good for you. They clearly tell us something. He is playing better. That is crystal clear. It doesn't tell us what type of defender he is, but it does tell us something. He is making a bunch more routine plays, while committing a lot less errors.
Do you really think career fielding numbers tell us barely anything? A guy with a .963 and a .853 career numbers tells us a ton exactly. Sure if you compare two guys and they both have a .963 it tells you almost nothing. It's not even close to an end all stat. Just a piece of the puzzle, when judging and ranking D.
Did I use advanced defensive metrics? Baseball Refrence doesn't have them for minor leagues.
Also go read up on DRS for example. You always bring up the two year thing. It takes two years to use DRS to rate a player defensive overall. The more data the better. It does not mean something like DRS is meaningless in smaller sample sizes. Just that it won't give you a clear picture of a players true defensive value. Example Travis Shaw last year. He had great DRS numbers to start the year. It wasn't meaningless. It told you he was playing good D. It wasn't enough data to tell us that Shaw was an above average 3B, just that he was currently playing that way. Now that we close in on 2 years of data, we can say Shaw is above average at 3B.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Aug 10, 2017 15:33:36 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won. I'm lost without italics. That was sarcasm right?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 15:34:45 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won. I'm lost without italics. That was sarcasm right? Yes
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 10, 2017 15:55:20 GMT -5
I would be really interested in Ian opinion of what that looks like on the field. Has he improved his foot work, instincts, or feel for 3B? Or is he just making the regular plays now? Does anyone that has seen Chavis play in person have a comp of a player he reminds you at 3B defensively ? Bud, literally five posts before yours! C'mon man! forum.soxprospects.com/post/273429/thread
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 10, 2017 16:10:06 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won. If you think those two sets of numbers for Chavis tell us nothing. Good for you. They clearly tell us something. He is playing better. That is crystal clear. It doesn't tell us what type of defender he is, but it does tell us something. He is making a bunch more routine plays, while committing a lot less errors. Do you really think career fielding numbers tell us barely anything? A guy with a .963 and a .853 career numbers tells us a ton exactly. Sure if you compare two guys and they both have a .963 it tells you almost nothing. It's not even close to an end all stat. Just a piece of the puzzle, when judging and ranking D. Did I use advanced defensive metrics? Baseball Refrence doesn't have them for minor leagues. Also go read up on DRS for example. You always bring up the two year thing. It takes two years to use DRS to rate a player defensive overall. The more data the better. It does not mean something like DRS is meaningless in smaller sample sizes. Just that it won't give you a clear picture of a players true defensive value. Example Travis Shaw last year. He had great DRS numbers to start the year. It wasn't meaningless. It told you he was playing good D. It wasn't enough data to tell us that Shaw was an above average 3B, just that he was currently playing that way. Now that we close in on 2 years of data, we can say Shaw is above average at 3B. You aren't using DRS. You're using errors and fielding percentage for less than 30 games. If you think that's significant and shows a continued improvement, then go ahead. Doesn't make you right. In fact in the most recent scouting scratch, he made a bad throw to 1B and was bailed out because it was picked out of the dirt. If that didn't happen, it would have been his error. What does the lack of error tell you there about his defense other than nothing? How many times did this happen? Errors and fielding percentage in 27 games doesn't tell you that. How many times did someone with a worse fielding percentage make a play that Chavis never would have reached and then threw the ball away for an error? Fielding percentage and errors will NEVER tell you this over 100 years of data. Jeter won gold gloves because people looked at the same meaningless #s and it told them what they wanted to hear.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 16:24:35 GMT -5
I would be really interested in Ian opinion of what that looks like on the field. Has he improved his foot work, instincts, or feel for 3B? Or is he just making the regular plays now? Does anyone that has seen Chavis play in person have a comp of a player he reminds you at 3B defensively ? Bud, literally five posts before yours! C'mon man! forum.soxprospects.com/post/273429/threadI've read that report more than 5 times. I love the information. Not sure how that answers my question though. It doesn't list the times Ian has scouted him, only that it was a recent game. So I take it that's a report from Portland from mid to late July? Did Ian scout him in Salem? Not sure how much he travels to scout players. I was interested in his improvements from High A to AA. Where that report seems to be a snapshot of a current game.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 17:36:22 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won. If you think those two sets of numbers for Chavis tell us nothing. Good for you. They clearly tell us something. He is playing better. That is crystal clear. It doesn't tell us what type of defender he is, but it does tell us something. He is making a bunch more routine plays, while committing a lot less errors. Do you really think career fielding numbers tell us barely anything? A guy with a .963 and a .853 career numbers tells us a ton exactly. Sure if you compare two guys and they both have a .963 it tells you almost nothing. It's not even close to an end all stat. Just a piece of the puzzle, when judging and ranking D. Did I use advanced defensive metrics? Baseball Refrence doesn't have them for minor leagues. Also go read up on DRS for example. You always bring up the two year thing. It takes two years to use DRS to rate a player defensive overall. The more data the better. It does not mean something like DRS is meaningless in smaller sample sizes. Just that it won't give you a clear picture of a players true defensive value. Example Travis Shaw last year. He had great DRS numbers to start the year. It wasn't meaningless. It told you he was playing good D. It wasn't enough data to tell us that Shaw was an above average 3B, just that he was currently playing that way. Now that we close in on 2 years of data, we can say Shaw is above average at 3B. You aren't using DRS. You're using errors and fielding percentage for less than 30 games. If you think that's significant and shows a continued improvement, then go ahead. Doesn't make you right. In fact in the most recent scouting scratch, he made a bad throw to 1B and was bailed out because it was picked out of the dirt. If that didn't happen, it would have been his error. What does the lack of error tell you there about his defense other than nothing? How many times did this happen? Errors and fielding percentage in 27 games doesn't tell you that. How many times did someone with a worse fielding percentage make a play that Chavis never would have reached and then threw the ball away for an error? Fielding percentage and errors will NEVER tell you this over 100 years of data. Jeter won gold gloves because people looked at the same meaningless #s and it told them what they wanted to hear. Then why did you bring DRS? Why did you reply to my post yet again trying to prove I'm wrong? First I gave my opinion of what I think Chavis better numbers mean. Which I asked if Ian could shed some light on those numbers. Add some context. You then feel the need to say those numbers are meaningless. Fielding % and Errors aren't meaningless stats. They aren't an end all. They don't give you the complete picture. That doesn't mean they tell you nothing. I'm not using them to judge two players, to tell who is better defensively. Or who should win a GG. Or even to rate Chavis D. I am using them to show it sure seems Chavis is getting better playing 3B. Just Chavis. If the numbers were meaningless that would mean that 100% of the difference was related to something other than Chavis playing better. I don't see how that could be true. Not a massive difference like that. When you add in he is now healthy. It makes sense. He is able to play in back to back games. Get a rhythm defensively. I don't think the 1B at Portland for example is the sole reason Chavis numbers are a lot better. Sure he could have helped. Ock is now in Portland, so we will be able to mintor that. There is a big difference in something not telling 100% of the story and something being meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Aug 10, 2017 18:14:55 GMT -5
You say 100% a lot in world where almost 0% of things are 100% anything.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Aug 10, 2017 19:23:35 GMT -5
I think there is a causation versus correlation thing with first base height. The shorter guys moved their later in their careers as they moved down the defensive spectrum. If there is any chance at all that the player can play somewhere else, they'll start at that position. Two, since defense is traditionally viewed as less important at first, (or rather good defenders generally will start off another position) first base needs to have a better bat to crack the lineup. Better hitters are generally (though not universally) taller. Thus you will see less mobile sluggers stuck at first since they are not able to play anywhere else. Those guys are usually taller. If Ripper Collins (5-9) were on this team, he'd be starting at first.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 10, 2017 19:35:20 GMT -5
No Yankee fan argues Jeter was a good fielding SS. He was great, look at all the GG he won. If you think those two sets of numbers for Chavis tell us nothing. Good for you. They clearly tell us something. He is playing better. That is crystal clear. It doesn't tell us what type of defender he is, but it does tell us something. He is making a bunch more routine plays, while committing a lot less errors. Do you really think career fielding numbers tell us barely anything? A guy with a .963 and a .853 career numbers tells us a ton exactly. Sure if you compare two guys and they both have a .963 it tells you almost nothing. It's not even close to an end all stat. Just a piece of the puzzle, when judging and ranking D. Did I use advanced defensive metrics? Baseball Refrence doesn't have them for minor leagues. Also go read up on DRS for example. You always bring up the two year thing. It takes two years to use DRS to rate a player defensive overall. The more data the better. It does not mean something like DRS is meaningless in smaller sample sizes. Just that it won't give you a clear picture of a players true defensive value. Example Travis Shaw last year. He had great DRS numbers to start the year. It wasn't meaningless. It told you he was playing good D. It wasn't enough data to tell us that Shaw was an above average 3B, just that he was currently playing that way. Now that we close in on 2 years of data, we can say Shaw is above average at 3B. I don't necessarily agree with the overall argument you're making, but fewer errors is not proof of better play. Ex: A player who makes one error on twenty five chances (of say, 100 balls hit in his "zone") modifies his footwork and makes five on fifty chances hit in exactly the same zone. He made five times as many errors, but also made 21 more outs (45, or 50-5, versus 24, or 25-1). It could be any number of things. It might *suggest* that he's playing better defense, but it's not close to proof. Edit: oops, meant to say that "I don't necessarily *disagree*"
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Aug 10, 2017 20:12:29 GMT -5
I see we are sometimes still nitpick heaven. Fewer errors at least indicates better defense. Especially 3 compared to 11 in roughly the same number of innings, with other defensive data also correlative. Yet we need 5-6 posts to discuss the issue.
None of us need primers in the statistical sample size requirements of defensive metrics.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Aug 10, 2017 21:31:58 GMT -5
I see we are sometimes still nitpick heaven. Fewer errors at least indicates better defense. Especially 3 compared to 11 in roughly the same number of innings, with other defensive data also correlative. Yet we need 5-6 posts to discuss the issue. None of us need primers in the statistical sample size requirements of defensive metrics. Fewer errors absolutely does not mean better defense.. That's exactly what I just showed. Again: Two players, fielding **exactly the same balls in play**: Player 1: 1000 balls hit his way. 500 chances. 50 errors. He makes 450 outs. Player 2: 1000 balls hit his way.. 400 chances. 10 errors. He makes 390 outs. Player 1 is the better defensive player. He got your team **60 more outs**. That's not nitpicking, it's understanding how to interpret data. It's knowing how NOT to be unduly influenced by simple statistics, like errors, that are recorded essentially totally without context. Or FLD%, which is essentially "BA" for errors. In the case of Chavis, it probably *suggests* it, given the large difference and similar data sample size, but there are lots of other issues at play.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 10, 2017 23:00:39 GMT -5
Maybe the official scorer in Portland is more generous to the lads than the one in Salem?
Similar to how if you wear a green uniform at a Celtics game, you touch the ball and the home team scores a bucket, you get an assist.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 23:11:53 GMT -5
It's nitpicking unless someone has information that Chavis has made a major change. We are talking about Chavis, not players in general. It did cross my mind that Chavis might have reduced his range to stop making errors and improve his numbers. That's why I asked for Ian opinion. Did some research and a 2015 scouting report list his range as the same as Ian current one. So if his range is the same, is he just taking less chances? Holding balls rather than trying to make risky plays?
Is there data his chances per inning or game is down? If not I don't get why we are even discussing this.
Edit: His range factor per 9 innings, putouts and assists has increased in Portland, 3.2 from 2.5 at Salem per BR.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Aug 10, 2017 23:15:13 GMT -5
even if he is playing better defense now (he likely is), it doesn't necessarily signify defensive growth since his defensive struggles in Salem had a lot to do with injuries.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 10, 2017 23:17:31 GMT -5
Maybe the official scorer in Portland is more generous to the lads than the one in Salem? Similar to how if you wear a green uniform at a Celtics game, you touch the ball and the home team scores a bucket, you get an assist. I thought about that, but Devers numbers don't show that. He is considered a much better defender, yet had worst numbers than Chavis while in Portland. So I don't think it's the official scorer.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 11, 2017 6:46:21 GMT -5
It's nitpicking unless someone has information that Chavis has made a major change. We are talking about Chavis, not players in general. It did cross my mind that Chavis might have reduced his range to stop making errors and improve his numbers. That's why I asked for Ian opinion. Did some research and a 2015 scouting report list his range as the same as Ian current one. So if his range is the same, is he just taking less chances? Holding balls rather than trying to make risky plays? Is there data his chances per inning or game is down? If not I don't get why we are even discussing this. Edit: His range factor per 9 innings, putouts and assists has increased in Portland, 3.2 from 2.5 at Salem per BR. It's nitpicking that I question when you are suggesting that fewer errors in less than 30 games are a good indication that a player is getting better defensively? I honestly don't understand why I'm even being questioned. You cannot just assume what you want to believe and put it on everyone else to prove you wrong with scouting reports. Even if you end up being right in the long run (and I hope you are), there is no proof offered when looking at number of errors in under 30 games. It's statistically meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Aug 11, 2017 8:02:33 GMT -5
I believe that Chavis's defensive abilities will be graded out by the Portland coach febles, not sure on spelling, he is the best judge of his defense. Dave and the organization will make their eval's based on this. I would be concerned with the comments in Ian's write up. avg range, need lots of work on fundamentals, and his baseball IQ. The IQ has to do with making the easy decision on making a play. Making a poor throw to first when he could have stepped on 3rd. Interesting , but not impossible. Range is not necessarily tied to putouts and assists. Quality of pitching and getting the ball thrown to the right spot where the defense is set up has a lot to do with it. AA pitching is much more consistent. The first thing that chavis has accomplished is that he is healthy. Absolutely great. The second thing he has accomplished is that he has power hitting skills. Will his defense improve to an average level and will he get moved to another position to get his bat in the lineup? Time will tell. Maybe by next year at this time his defense will have come up some to his hitting.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 11, 2017 9:39:02 GMT -5
Honestly, I wasn't wrong about anything I said in that paragraph. Pedrioa is on his way to to a season that's worth 2-3 fWAR. Which is twice the amount of fWAR that Kole Coulhoon has been worth (not a good trade prediction). Pedrioa has been worth more than Kole every year besides 2014. I'm not going to get into a argument with you in the Chavis thread about Pedrioa. It doesn't honestly matter in the first place. 'Honestly' you are acting like David Price doubling down after he's been exposed. You directly contradicted yourself that is a fact and not an opinion. Calhoun was never what this was about, it was an example of 1 piece in a trade for Pedroia not 'Pedrioa'. Years ago when Mookie was knocking on the door we had a shortage of OF'ers and Mookie was a second baseman, my proposed deal (was more than Kole btw) was an attempt to cover 2 birds with 1 stone AND again that is not the point. You are in red below. -Predicting that a player in his 30's will get injured isn't all that impressive.
-Pedrioa isn't actually limited on the field when he does play [he just needs more time off,
You appear to have a very 'selective' memory as you said the opposite a mere seven month ago. You clearly talked out of both sides of your mouth and that is why I have issues with you. Either be consistent or admit Mea Culpa. See the post below with your responses in red. He's actually had surgery nearly every year of his career, mostly off-season. I predicted several years ago that he's likely to be more injury prone because he plays all out diving for balls when the team is up ten in the ninth and he was on the wrong side of 30.Edit: He actually had surgery on his knee this offseason a few days after the season ended. I don't share your pessimistic view of Pedrioa. I just saw Adrian Beltre literally get better into his mid 30's and he plays just like Pedrioa. I don't see how that factors into injury risk. I'm no more worried of Mookie getting injured than I am with Pedrioa than I am with anyone else with this roster. Injuries are such a random variance, there's no way of knowing or trying to predict it. If I'm a betting man, I'm betting on Pedrioa and the Sox are too. So really that's all that matters to me. Pedrioa is a rock.
For one your Beltre comparison has no merit other than you want it to. Beltre "improved" because he left the worst stadium for him as a hitter, Seattle. I actually mentioned years before the Sox acquired him that they should trade for him how he'd be a perfect fit at Fenway and successfully argued against about 30 people over on SoSH about that. Pedrioa has had surgery nearly every year (mostly off-season) he's played and his style of play, balls out, and body size does not make that a good recipe from staying away from more injuries ESPECIALLY as he'll turn 34 during this season. You can make any point you want but you cannot refute that.All apologies to the board in making the point here, should this continue I'll take it to the throw down forum. To me being accountable for your actions and words means something.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 11, 2017 9:45:40 GMT -5
I'm not discussing this on the Chavis thread. You just can't let something go and have to go through 10 different fonts and bold sentences to prove a point literally no one cares about. Have fun buddy.
Just to add for every one spelling mistake I make here, I could point out the 10 grammar mistakes with you but I could careless.
Just like I could careless about your past threads or posts, because I can move on from things. I'll leave it at that.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by gerry on Aug 11, 2017 10:02:24 GMT -5
I believe that Chavis's defensive abilities will be graded out by the Portland coach febles, not sure on spelling, he is the best judge of his defense. Dave and the organization will make their eval's based on this. I would be concerned with the comments in Ian's write up. avg range, need lots of work on fundamentals, and his baseball IQ. The IQ has to do with making the easy decision on making a play. Making a poor throw to first when he could have stepped on 3rd. Interesting , but not impossible. Range is not necessarily tied to putouts and assists. Quality of pitching and getting the ball thrown to the right spot where the defense is set up has a lot to do with it. AA pitching is much more consistent. The first thing that chavis has accomplished is that he is healthy. Absolutely great. The second thing he has accomplished is that he has power hitting skills. Will his defense improve to an average level and will he get moved to another position to get his bat in the lineup? Time will tell. Maybe by next year at this time his defense will have come up some to his hitting. Assuming with healthy reps, experience and good coaching, that his "D" becomes around Major League average, we will have a very good player. Lets also assume by this time next year, with Devers on 3B, and Travis at 1B, that Hanley will not get enough PA's to vest for 2019. That could, maybe should, make Chavis the DH, with good enough "D" to spell both Devers and Travis. For just a few $M, the Sox could add the big bats of Devers, Travis, Chavis, and Brentz as the 4th OF, to Benny, Betts, XB, Bradley, Pedey, Nunez, which would make a pretty amazing team. And one which could afford to extend the core. I am hoping on some good years from Chavis, Brentz and Travis.
|
|
|