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 ryeairfield on Feb 15, 2020 18:27:01 GMT -5
He always seemed to perform well against the Sox. Looking forward to see the adjusted outfield.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,920
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 15, 2020 22:11:43 GMT -5
It would be completely worthless as a predictor of how many homers he might hit for the Red Sox, yes. He's popping up a lot more than he used to, so there's a suggestion that his launch angle may have changed, so what he did before June 18 is meaningless.
That he had no opposite-field HR power at all before the change may have factored into the decision to try changing his swing.
He still has little opposite field power. His power is to the pull side now with the swing change. He will be abusing that LF wall!! Yeah, my thinking is that with the Blue Jays, they kept his swing as it was, either in the hopes he would develop some oppo-power, or just to keep him as a well-rounded hitter in the abstract. Whereas the Giants realized, his skill is on the pull side, so let's go all in on that and have him try and pull and lift the ball.
This is a textbook consequence of one if Bill James' maxims: stop worrying about what your player can't do, and focus on what he can do. The consequence of that is, you may well get a bigger improvement by maximizing a guy's potential strengths than by trying to shore up the weak part of his game.
Another way of thinking about this: everyone gets that there's a point with a pitcher where you junk his weakest pitches and concentrate on ways to make his good pitches even more effective (even if this means turning an OK starter into a great reliever). The Giants seem to have done something similar with Pillar and his ability to pull for some power.
And now I am making myself too interested ... I'm resisting the urge to look at BrooksBaseball to see how he handled outside pitches after the change in approach (and to check Statcast for a launch-angle comparison).
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,382
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 15, 2020 22:36:58 GMT -5
He still has little opposite field power. His power is to the pull side now with the swing change. He will be abusing that LF wall!! Yeah, my thinking is that with the Blue Jays, they kept his swing as it was, either in the hopes he would develop some oppo-power, or just to keep him as a well-rounded hitter in the abstract. Whereas the Giants realized, his skill is on the pull side, so let's go all in on that and have him try and pull and lift the ball.
This is a textbook consequence of one if Bill James' maxims: stop worrying about what your player can't do, and focus on what he can do. The consequence of that is, you may well get a bigger improvement by maximizing a guy's potential strengths than by trying to shore up the weak part of his game.
Another way of thinking about this: everyone gets that there's a point with a pitcher where you junk his weakest pitches and concentrate on ways to make his good pitches even more effective (even if this means turning an OK starter into a great reliever). The Giants seem to have done something similar with Pillar and his ability to pull for some power.
And now I am making myself too interested ... I'm resisting the urge to look at BrooksBaseball to see how he handled outside pitches after the change in approach (and to check Statcast for a launch-angle comparison).
I am curious about the argument he made an adjustment midseason — is that on record? His splits don’t really break down like that. He looks more JBJish. His July (25 games) OPS was .639. Then a great August (27 games) with an OPS of 1.018. Then Sept/Oct (26 games) back to an OPS of .647. Did something change, or did he just have a hot streak? In the first half, too, he had respective OPS of .613, .566, and .845 by month. I guess I am not expecting someone who has changed... he is what he is. That is not a complaint, but I don’t expect much more than Steamer’s projection of mostly defensive value.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 16, 2020 18:29:03 GMT -5
Trying to figure out the differences: JDM: Cots has him as $22M, RSP has $23.5M (RSP +$1.5M) I believe Cots is correct. I think RSP is calculating how opt-outs count incorrectly. They are considered guaranteed unless the buyout is more than half of the salary if the player opts in.Eovaldi: Cots $17M, RSP $16.88M (RSP +$1.38M) I think RSP is mistaken here because the contract was originally reported as 4/67.5, but later reports had it as 4/68.Pedroia: Cots $13.75M, RSP $13.3M (RSP +$0.93M) Not sure why RSP has this. Maybe it has something to do with the deferred money in the deal?Peraza: Cots $2.85M, RSP $3M (RSP +$1.08M) RSP is assuming he earns performance bonus for plate appearances.Cots budgets $7.7M for Osich, other 0-3 year players and other 40-man players. RSP budgets $10.28M. (RSP +$3.66M) Not sure where the other million is coming from. Does someone want to check my math? Anyway, a healthy portion of the difference is the estimate for the fringe players, which is guesswork at this point.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Feb 16, 2020 20:42:50 GMT -5
Trying to figure out the differences: JDM: Cots has him as $22M, RSP has $23.5M (RSP +$1.5M) I believe Cots is correct. I think RSP is calculating how opt-outs count incorrectly. They are considered guaranteed unless the buyout is more than half of the salary if the player opts in.Eovaldi: Cots $17M, RSP $16.88M (RSP +$1.38M) I think RSP is mistaken here because the contract was originally reported as 4/67.5, but later reports had it as 4/68.Pedroia: Cots $13.75M, RSP $13.3M (RSP +$0.93M) Not sure why RSP has this. Maybe it has something to do with the deferred money in the deal?Peraza: Cots $2.85M, RSP $3M (RSP +$1.08M) RSP is assuming he earns performance bonus for plate appearances.Cots budgets $7.7M for Osich, other 0-3 year players and other 40-man players. RSP budgets $10.28M. (RSP +$3.66M) Not sure where the other million is coming from. Does someone want to check my math? Anyway, a healthy portion of the difference is the estimate for the fringe players, which is guesswork at this point. Barnes: Cots $3, RSP $3.1M Cots agrees it's a 1 year 3.1M contract. Other sites agree with 3M AAV.RSP budgets $11.08M ($0.80-Devers, $0.58-Verdugo, $0.58-Weber, $0.56-Lin, $0.56-Arauz, $8mil-MiLB Salaries and Bonuses) The BIG discrepancy is that RSP has ~$5.7M allotted for additional players (past the 26-man roster) while Cots has $2.25M. That's a huge spread. We can't really know what's going to happen based on injuries or released players, but I just went through the 2019 roster and based on those results came to ~$4.7M.Here's the 2019 sheet - in-case anyone wants to come up with their own guesstimate. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mVYyinHlYUI0gE98AgFFb5tDFIoEatCfqEo2xDfv1NI/edit#gid=573401688
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 16, 2020 20:54:53 GMT -5
RSP fixed JDM and Eovaldi after we talked via DM.
His Pedroia number is, in fact, based on deferred money.
But yeah, the functional difference is in the fringe player estimate, so I'd say these represent the ballpark range.
|
|
|
Post by caseytins on Feb 16, 2020 22:15:23 GMT -5
I can't do the math right now, but Cot's is more accurate. It depends a lot on the specific contract language.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Feb 18, 2020 10:27:48 GMT -5
RSP fixed JDM and Eovaldi after we talked via DM. His Pedroia number is, in fact, based on deferred money. But yeah, the functional difference is in the fringe player estimate, so I'd say these represent the ballpark range. I just think this is pretty neat that Chris got SPR to change their numbers with a message. And thanks to Chris and wcsox for solving the mystery on the discrepancy with the fringe players.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 18, 2020 17:16:54 GMT -5
To be clear, it's not me getting him to change things. When we all cooperate we all get better info.
|
|
|