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 Jul 22, 2019 6:48:11 GMT -5
They just lost 2 of 3 to the worst team in baseball. At this point, they should only be spending assets on an arm that’s controllable beyond this year to justify giving up anything or they should stand pat. I suppose taking a flyer on a guy that falls into their laps for basically nothing is fine too, but they just proved once again why putting more into this team makes little sense.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,080
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Jul 22, 2019 7:28:10 GMT -5
I just want feltman to be electric again
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 22, 2019 15:13:31 GMT -5
Darwinzon Hernandez so far is striking out 19.64 per 9. As a relief pitcher, slightly less, but with a higher k rate of 45.8%. His xwOBA is .266. His xwOBA in his first inning of work, 19 BFP total, is .132.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,400
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 22, 2019 15:27:23 GMT -5
Between Hernandez and Eovaldi, the bullpen is improved for free. Anyway, it isn’t like the Sox are a bullpen arm away more or less. If they are going to get a WC, they need to hit more and get good starts.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 22, 2019 16:08:55 GMT -5
Overwhelming weakness might have been true a week ago, but you now have: Eovaldi - Our closer until further notice, quite sure he can handle the role if he's healthy Barnes - 4 bad games in June don't take away from him being an extremely good reliever Workman - Just keeps doing his thing Hernandez - Has been literally unhitable as a reliever so far, think he'll continue to be dominant Taylor - This year's Brasier Hembree - If he were on the Padres we'd all be talking about trading for him Walden - Ideal as a long reliever Brewer - Not bad for the very last guy out of the bullpen The top 5 guys are legit with Eovoldi and Hernandez now in the fold. Houck could be an option in a week or two if necessary and there's always Feltman. Kind of looks stocked from my perspective, not sure I'd even bother to go after another relief arm at this point. Eovaldi has never been a closer or able to stay healthy. It's silly to just consider him the end of closer issues before he's thrown a pitch in that role, or any pitches in 3 months. Hernandez has some ridiculous potential, but as of now, he's still walked nearly a batter per inning on the year (including minor leagues). I like Taylor, but no way has he earned the right to be considered a 2019 version of Brasier. Hembree has a whole career of being a below average relief pitcher and right now looks like he's having arm issues. Walden is 30 and is experiencing his first couple of months of being an average relief pitcher. He also seems to need his usage carefully monitored. Brewer is nothing special at all. Now, there's a chance this will all work out into a good bullpen. I really hope it does. But just declaring it a solved problem is too much of a rose colored glasses scenario for me. Personally, I would ride with most of those guys but try to get better at a couple of spots if possible (Hembree and Brewer) so that if things go south with some of the others there is enough to make up for it. Even if you're right, and all the bullpen issues are solved, that really doesn't negate my point anyway. What I was saying is I wouldn't bypass the chance to put in bullpen arms that are needed just to save roster spots for Wright and Hembree. You don't even have a spot for Wright in your scenario (you could argue the Brewer spot, but that could also go to Johnson when he's back). General notes:
1) People understand that guys are more effective as relievers because they can throw harder, and because they face guys only once and therefore can concentrate on their two best pitches. But a factor that can be just as big or bigger, for certain guys, is that they've just warmed up and gotten their mechanics set. Perhaps the coolest finding in analytics in the last 5 or so years (for which Dave Smith of Retrosheet won best presentation at SABR) is that the home-field advantage is entirely due to the first inning, where the home team pitcher has a fixed, short break between his warmup and his game action, while the visiting pitcher sits for an unknown duration. The longer he sits, the less well he performs.
2) Everyone might get hurt. That's why you want to count up to a high number of guys that are good.
Eovaldi: early in his career he had first-inning problems, but not in 2016 or 2018, and this year's numbers aren't meaningful. Given his stuff, he is almost certain to be capable of pitching well in high leverage, and he projects to be the best of the bunch. The worst-case (healthy, which hereafter goes without saying) scenario is that he's interchangeable with Barnes and Workman.
Hernandez: He has terrible trouble maintaining his mechanics when he has to keep sitting down. But his numbers in his first inning of work this year at both levels are eye-popping. The team expected and projected this. He represents a second guy who credibly projects to be better than Barnes and Workman, and that's a huge overall upgrade.
Taylor's xwOBA is .253, and that includes getting hit hard his first call-up. Brasier last year was .259. Taylor so far has absolutely has been this year's version, and the sample size is already 75% as big. In 54% of the sample size (since the second call-up), he has a .218 xwOBA.
The data shows clearly that a properly handled / rested Walden is a 6th guy who can be trusted in high-leverage.
Hembree was indeed really bad in the clutch through 2016. He was good in 2017 and was good last year, pitching out of inherited runner situations, until Cora stuck with him too long, and he ended up average over the last two years. This year he's second on the team in WPA even though his overall numbers are average, because 7 of his 10 bad outings have come in garbage time. He is both a perfectly adequate 7th short man and a guy you wouldn't hesitate to upgrade if you had the chance and the price was right, i.e., minimal.
They have no need to acquire an arm, but a clear scenario where they could do so and make the pen even better. That's good.
Getting Porcello straightened out is the biggest thing they can do to get a W/C. That dwarfs adding a bullpen arm, in impact.
(One reason to add a real good bullpen arm is to keep open the possibility of Eovaldi moving back to the rotation and Porcello being the long man.)
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 22, 2019 23:17:36 GMT -5
So, one of the things that I find has made these bullpen discussions border on pointless is the way people want to go down each individual and point out how they could be fine. "this guy's been good, and this guy has potential, and maybe this guy will get healthy and that guy will revert to previous form' etc. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine.
Eovaldi has never been a closer before, has never been able to stay healthy and may be needed back in the rotation. Hernandez is a kid with control issues. Hembree and Brewer are mediocre at best. Walden, even with an out of nowhere season, is still about average. Taylor and Workman are having career years, Barnes seems fatigued. A small percentage of things could go wrong with these question marks and it could be crippling.
A smart organization that's trying to compete goes and gets someone else so that they can survive some things not going right.
If people want to just pretend the best-case scenarios are all sure to happen, we can just agree to disagree.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 23, 2019 2:25:17 GMT -5
So, one of the things that I find has made these bullpen discussions border on pointless is the way people want to go down each individual and point out how they could be fine. "this guy's been good, and this guy has potential, and maybe this guy will get healthy and that guy will revert to previous form' etc. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine. Eovaldi has never been a closer before, has never been able to stay healthy and may be needed back in the rotation. Hernandez is a kid with control issues. Hembree and Brewer are mediocre at best. Walden, even with an out of nowhere season, is still about average. Taylor and Workman are having career years, Barnes seems fatigued. A small percentage of things could go wrong with these question marks and it could be crippling. A smart organization that's trying to compete goes and gets someone else so that they can survive some things not going right. If people want to just pretend the best-case scenarios are all sure to happen, we can just agree to disagree. Except that nothing I said was a best-case scenario. It's you who are doing the opposite.
Let's just do Eovaldi. There are scouts who believe he has the best stuff of any pitcher in MLB, and that opinion is defensible when you look at data. Staying healthy after completing a rehab from a non-problematical injury is not a best-case scenario. It's what happens 9 times out of 10. Now, name me the #1/#2 quality starter who was unable to pitch well in relief. It just doesn't happen. He's a better pitcher than Barnes or Workman. Being a better reliever that Barnes or Workman is a median projection. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine.
Completely incorrect. They felt (correctly) that they would get significant help from the farm system at this time of year. They then lost a key piece unexpectedly when Wright was suspended. That probably had a trickle-down effect on the rotation, because they were seduced into thinking Velazquez could be a high-leverage replacement reliever and didn't stretch him out as a starter, and when Johnson and Eovalidi both got hurt quickly they were screwed.
You can bet they looked into acquiring someone to give them extra depth with Wright out, and that there was nothing that made sense.
Was this is a mistake? Well, overall the pen ranks 9th in MLB (6th in the AL).
How could this be the case? Well, to begin with, the team blown save stat is garbage, because multiple guys can get one in the same game.
And even the number of leads they lost late, which is among the worst figures in MLB, is misleading, because it's just half the story. The pen has also been epic great at keeping them in games they were trailing so that the offense could come back. If there were a stat for that -- collective holds or the like -- it would be even more impressive than the much-quoted negative ones. We know that because if you measure everything every reliever has done, it comes out to a win above average.
So they were a man short, and they had a pen that was terrific for long stretches with just three top guys (with Walden unexpectedly subbing for Brasier), one OK guy in Hembree, and a bunch of somewhat subpar guys (led by Brasier and Brewer). They had one awful stretch when the subpar guys were terrible, and another after Hembree, got hurt and Barnes and Walden got overworked as a result.
Now they've added Taylor, Eovaldi, and Hernandez -- the wild kid who has walked two of the 19 guys he has faced in his first inning of work. Since we understand perfectly why his control is so much better in his first inning ... you tell me, is his having adequate control a best-case scenario? Or a median projection?
Can you handle the truth? Or is your pessimism so important to you that it'll give you an aneurysm? The Sox bullpen has been the second best in the AL since July 1 (and 6th overall in MLB), which is to say, since they got back from London and the awful meltdown in game 2.
We can certainly agree to disagree, but it really does amount to disagreeing about the facts.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 23, 2019 4:44:46 GMT -5
So, one of the things that I find has made these bullpen discussions border on pointless is the way people want to go down each individual and point out how they could be fine. "this guy's been good, and this guy has potential, and maybe this guy will get healthy and that guy will revert to previous form' etc. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine. Eovaldi has never been a closer before, has never been able to stay healthy and may be needed back in the rotation. Hernandez is a kid with control issues. Hembree and Brewer are mediocre at best. Walden, even with an out of nowhere season, is still about average. Taylor and Workman are having career years, Barnes seems fatigued. A small percentage of things could go wrong with these question marks and it could be crippling. A smart organization that's trying to compete goes and gets someone else so that they can survive some things not going right. If people want to just pretend the best-case scenarios are all sure to happen, we can just agree to disagree. Except that nothing I said was a best-case scenario. It's you who are doing the opposite.
Let's just do Eovaldi. There are scouts who believe he has the best stuff of any pitcher in MLB, and that opinion is defensible when you look at data. Staying healthy after completing a rehab from a non-problematical injury is not a best-case scenario. It's what happens 9 times out of 10. Now, name me the #1/#2 quality starter who was unable to pitch well in relief. It just doesn't happen. First of all, Eovaldi's injuries are problematic. He's an injury risk. That was the number one red flag in his scouting report. The lose bodies in his arm has popped up 2 years in a row now. I hope he's fine, but calling it not problematic? What?!! Second, rehab stint?!! You mean the 2 bullpen side sessions and one rehab appearance? That stint?!! Eovaldi is a number 1 starter?!! On what planet?!! Earth? Maybe Mars, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 23, 2019 4:50:41 GMT -5
So, one of the things that I find has made these bullpen discussions border on pointless is the way people want to go down each individual and point out how they could be fine. "this guy's been good, and this guy has potential, and maybe this guy will get healthy and that guy will revert to previous form' etc. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine. Eovaldi has never been a closer before, has never been able to stay healthy and may be needed back in the rotation. Hernandez is a kid with control issues. Hembree and Brewer are mediocre at best. Walden, even with an out of nowhere season, is still about average. Taylor and Workman are having career years, Barnes seems fatigued. A small percentage of things could go wrong with these question marks and it could be crippling. A smart organization that's trying to compete goes and gets someone else so that they can survive some things not going right. If people want to just pretend the best-case scenarios are all sure to happen, we can just agree to disagree. Hernandez -- the wild kid who has walked two of the 19 guys he has faced in his first inning of work. Since we understand perfectly why his control is so much better in his first inning ... you tell me, is his having adequate control a best-case scenario? Or a median projection? JFC, 19 batters is a nothing sample size. Im rooting for the kid to be successful, and I think he has a way higher chance at being successful with his stuff ticking up a lot in 1 inning stints, but there is no median projection right now. There's no bullpen sample size in the minors to go off of. He just switched to the bullpen in the minors, made 3 appearances and came up because this bullpen is in "break in case of emergency" mode right now because of the talent situation in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Jul 23, 2019 7:18:19 GMT -5
If you want more samples of Hernandez being dominate in the bullpen look up his AFL stats last fall where pitched exclusively in relief.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 23, 2019 14:05:42 GMT -5
So, one of the things that I find has made these bullpen discussions border on pointless is the way people want to go down each individual and point out how they could be fine. "this guy's been good, and this guy has potential, and maybe this guy will get healthy and that guy will revert to previous form' etc. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine. Eovaldi has never been a closer before, has never been able to stay healthy and may be needed back in the rotation. Hernandez is a kid with control issues. Hembree and Brewer are mediocre at best. Walden, even with an out of nowhere season, is still about average. Taylor and Workman are having career years, Barnes seems fatigued. A small percentage of things could go wrong with these question marks and it could be crippling. A smart organization that's trying to compete goes and gets someone else so that they can survive some things not going right. If people want to just pretend the best-case scenarios are all sure to happen, we can just agree to disagree. Except that nothing I said was a best-case scenario. It's you who are doing the opposite.
Let's just do Eovaldi. There are scouts who believe he has the best stuff of any pitcher in MLB, and that opinion is defensible when you look at data. Staying healthy after completing a rehab from a non-problematical injury is not a best-case scenario. It's what happens 9 times out of 10. Now, name me the #1/#2 quality starter who was unable to pitch well in relief. It just doesn't happen. He's a better pitcher than Barnes or Workman. Being a better reliever that Barnes or Workman is a median projection. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine.
Completely incorrect. They felt (correctly) that they would get significant help from the farm system at this time of year. They then lost a key piece unexpectedly when Wright was suspended. That probably had a trickle-down effect on the rotation, because they were seduced into thinking Velazquez could be a high-leverage replacement reliever and didn't stretch him out as a starter, and when Johnson and Eovalidi both got hurt quickly they were screwed.
You can bet they looked into acquiring someone to give them extra depth with Wright out, and that there was nothing that made sense.
Was this is a mistake? Well, overall the pen ranks 9th in MLB (6th in the AL).
How could this be the case? Well, to begin with, the team blown save stat is garbage, because multiple guys can get one in the same game.
And even the number of leads they lost late, which is among the worst figures in MLB, is misleading, because it's just half the story. The pen has also been epic great at keeping them in games they were trailing so that the offense could come back. If there were a stat for that -- collective holds or the like -- it would be even more impressive than the much-quoted negative ones. We know that because if you measure everything every reliever has done, it comes out to a win above average.
So they were a man short, and they had a pen that was terrific for long stretches with just three top guys (with Walden unexpectedly subbing for Brasier), one OK guy in Hembree, and a bunch of somewhat subpar guys (led by Brasier and Brewer). They had one awful stretch when the subpar guys were terrible, and another after Hembree, got hurt and Barnes and Walden got overworked as a result.
Now they've added Taylor, Eovaldi, and Hernandez -- the wild kid who has walked two of the 19 guys he has faced in his first inning of work. Since we understand perfectly why his control is so much better in his first inning ... you tell me, is his having adequate control a best-case scenario? Or a median projection?
Can you handle the truth? Or is your pessimism so important to you that it'll give you an aneurysm? The Sox bullpen has been the second best in the AL since July 1 (and 6th overall in MLB), which is to say, since they got back from London and the awful meltdown in game 2.
We can certainly agree to disagree, but it really does amount to disagreeing about the facts.
I've seen enough of things like "accept only my framing of the subject or you hate facts" as a style of internet argument that I know better than waste my time on it, so this is the last I'll respond. The problem with the bullpen this year has been inconsistency. The stats you consistently use tend to boil down to "when they're not bad, they're not that bad". They'll be good for a couple of games, then blow a lead they have no business blowing. That's not great performance form a bullpen, no matter how you try to spin it. Overall, it hasn't been terrible, but it's cost the team too many games. They also have a bad record in games after the bullpen has blown a lead, which means there is a hangover effect from those losses. Win probability is obviously high with a lead late, and low in the inverse. Being bad in the former isn't balanced by being good in the latter. PS. While I was using it partly as hyperbolic shorthand, you don't seem to understand the phrase "best case scenario". The bullpen has looked good lately, I hope it will continue. Again, I would acquire another arm as insurance in case one of many possible bad things happen. That's all I've been saying and I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 23, 2019 16:07:00 GMT -5
When did Eovaldi become a #1/2 starter?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 23, 2019 16:12:05 GMT -5
Except that nothing I said was a best-case scenario. It's you who are doing the opposite.
Let's just do Eovaldi. There are scouts who believe he has the best stuff of any pitcher in MLB, and that opinion is defensible when you look at data. Staying healthy after completing a rehab from a non-problematical injury is not a best-case scenario. It's what happens 9 times out of 10. Now, name me the #1/#2 quality starter who was unable to pitch well in relief. It just doesn't happen. He's a better pitcher than Barnes or Workman. Being a better reliever that Barnes or Workman is a median projection. It's really the way this FO seemed to view the bullpen this offseason, if most things worked out real well, then it should be fine.
Completely incorrect. They felt (correctly) that they would get significant help from the farm system at this time of year. They then lost a key piece unexpectedly when Wright was suspended. That probably had a trickle-down effect on the rotation, because they were seduced into thinking Velazquez could be a high-leverage replacement reliever and didn't stretch him out as a starter, and when Johnson and Eovalidi both got hurt quickly they were screwed.
You can bet they looked into acquiring someone to give them extra depth with Wright out, and that there was nothing that made sense.
Was this is a mistake? Well, overall the pen ranks 9th in MLB (6th in the AL).
How could this be the case? Well, to begin with, the team blown save stat is garbage, because multiple guys can get one in the same game.
And even the number of leads they lost late, which is among the worst figures in MLB, is misleading, because it's just half the story. The pen has also been epic great at keeping them in games they were trailing so that the offense could come back. If there were a stat for that -- collective holds or the like -- it would be even more impressive than the much-quoted negative ones. We know that because if you measure everything every reliever has done, it comes out to a win above average.
So they were a man short, and they had a pen that was terrific for long stretches with just three top guys (with Walden unexpectedly subbing for Brasier), one OK guy in Hembree, and a bunch of somewhat subpar guys (led by Brasier and Brewer). They had one awful stretch when the subpar guys were terrible, and another after Hembree, got hurt and Barnes and Walden got overworked as a result.
Now they've added Taylor, Eovaldi, and Hernandez -- the wild kid who has walked two of the 19 guys he has faced in his first inning of work. Since we understand perfectly why his control is so much better in his first inning ... you tell me, is his having adequate control a best-case scenario? Or a median projection?
Can you handle the truth? Or is your pessimism so important to you that it'll give you an aneurysm? The Sox bullpen has been the second best in the AL since July 1 (and 6th overall in MLB), which is to say, since they got back from London and the awful meltdown in game 2.
We can certainly agree to disagree, but it really does amount to disagreeing about the facts.
I've seen enough of things like "accept only my framing of the subject or you hate facts" as a style of internet argument that I know better than waste my time on it, so this is the last I'll respond. The problem with the bullpen this year has been inconsistency. The stats you consistently use tend to boil down to "when they're not bad, they're not that bad". They'll be good for a couple of games, then blow a lead they have no business blowing. That's not great performance form a bullpen, no matter how you try to spin it. Overall, it hasn't been terrible, but it's cost the team too many games. They also have a bad record in games after the bullpen has blown a lead, which means there is a hangover effect from those losses. Win probability is obviously high with a lead late, and low in the inverse. Being bad in the former isn't balanced by being good in the latter. PS. While I was using it partly as hyperbolic shorthand, you don't seem to understand the phrase "best case scenario". The bullpen has looked good lately, I hope it will continue. Again, I would acquire another arm as insurance in case one of many possible bad things happen. That's all I've been saying and I'll leave it at that. The irony here is that we both think that picking up another real good arm at the right price would be an excellent move, and I'm sure you're onboard with trading Hembree to make room for him. We only differ, I think, in that if this doesn't happen I'll figure there was no one available who fit that description, while I think you'll lose sleep worrying about unlikely bad outcomes. (I lose sleep regardless of how the Sox play.) It's dessert for me, but dinner for you.
The stats you consistently use tend to boil down to "when they're not bad, they're not that bad"
Actually, they say that the bullpen has been either great or awful in decent-sized stretches, in about a 60 / 40 split, time-wise. And it's really hard to emotionally wrap your mind around that. We are hard-wired to remember the bad much more vividly.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 23, 2019 19:35:25 GMT -5
When did Eovaldi become a #1/2 starter? Gonna guess it had something to do with xwOBA in a small sample.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2019 22:21:57 GMT -5
Imagine if these stats were reversed, it would be allllllll because of the bullpen.
In 1 run games:
Yankees 11-12 Red Sox 15-11
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on Jul 23, 2019 22:43:30 GMT -5
Imagine if these stats were reversed, it would be allllllll because of the bullpen. In 1 run games: Yankees 11-12 Red Sox 15-11 Many of those one-run wins were specifically because the bullpen gave up runs. Just like tonight's game... Both their Era and FIP are almost a full run higher than in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2019 22:45:30 GMT -5
Imagine if these stats were reversed, it would be allllllll because of the bullpen. In 1 run games: Yankees 11-12 Red Sox 15-11 Many of those one-run wins were specifically because the bullpen gave up runs. Just like tonight's game... Both their Era and FIP are almost a full run higher than in 2018. Right, but it would be used like the blown saves stat to discredit them if it were reversed. And the Yankees have 2 fewer blown saves than the Red Sox and spend about 10 times as much. And by the way, runs are up almost a half run per game for every team in the league.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,330
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 23, 2019 22:51:40 GMT -5
The 9th inning tonight would've been a lot easier if Michael Chavis has hands made of bones and flesh instead of stone. My God, he got a tailor made double play ball and succeeded to turn it into a forceout at 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 23, 2019 22:56:02 GMT -5
The 9th inning tonight would've been a lot easier if Michael Chavis has hands made of bones and flesh instead of stone. My God, he got a tailor made double play ball and succeeded to turn it into a forceout at 2nd. Marco would have had it.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by gerry on Jul 24, 2019 3:31:34 GMT -5
The 9th inning tonight would've been a lot easier if Michael Chavis has hands made of bones and flesh instead of stone. My God, he got a tailor made double play ball and succeeded to turn it into a forceout at 2nd. Marco would have had it. It would have been close even with Marco or Brockstar. The good news: Chavis remains a young rookie with very limited experience at 2B. Yet he does a pretty good job there (and at 1B). Like Devers and Beni, he should improve with time and reps. And, we won the game anyway. Nice.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 25, 2019 2:12:03 GMT -5
When did Eovaldi become a #1/2 starter? Gonna guess it had something to do with xwOBA in a small sample. The meaning there, in the context of a relief conversion, is stuff. I should have made that clear. If you can see a SP has insane stuff (that's paramount) and he can sustain it consistently over two months, that's your baseline for his projection as a reliever.
He had a .230 xwOBA in the regular season from 9/11 on, after recovering from what seemed to be dead-arm period, and then had .238 in the post-season against some of the best hitters in baseball. That was 39 IP, which is about half a relief season. That's not that small a sample size.
Ken Giles has fewer BFP this year (137 vs. 149) and a .235 xwOBA versus Eovaldi's .234, but Eovaldi faced guys 2 and 3 times in a game and half his hitters were on teams with elite offenses. (Eovaldi also had a .204 wOBA versus Giles' .258, and that's such a large difference that some of it is likely to be skill that xwOBA doesn't measure, such as being tough to pull with power relative to overall talent). The only guys who have pitched better in MLB with a sample size as large or larger this year are Yates, Hader, and Emilio Pagan. Eovaldi's wOBA would edge Yates as best in MLB.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 25, 2019 7:38:32 GMT -5
When did Eovaldi become a #1/2 starter? Gonna guess it had something to do with xwOBA in a small sample. Seems that's exactly the case and let's use xwOBA to predict future performance when the people who compile the stat say that's not what it's designed for.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 25, 2019 9:12:07 GMT -5
Gonna guess it had something to do with xwOBA in a small sample. Seems that's exactly the case and let's use xwOBA to predict future performance when the people who compile the stat say that's not what it's designed for. What part of "scouting his stuff is paramount" don't you understand?
Oh, and last year I was the only guy on the board who had an accurate sense of how good he was going to be. By looking at xwOBA.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 25, 2019 9:14:00 GMT -5
But scouting his stuff at its best doesn't predict future performance. That's kind of the entire thing with Eovaldi. He's great at his best, and everyone knows that. Nobody questions whether he'll be good if everything is working.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 25, 2019 10:08:40 GMT -5
Seems that's exactly the case and let's use xwOBA to predict future performance when the people who compile the stat say that's not what it's designed for. What part of "scouting his stuff is paramount" don't you understand? Oh, and last year I was the only guy on the board who had an accurate sense of how good he was going to be. By looking at xwOBA.
I mean, yes, when you ignore the parts of last season when he wasn't as good, and also this entire season, you nailed it.
|
|
|