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 umassgrad2005 on Sept 6, 2020 23:10:13 GMT -5
baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/jose-peraza-606299?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlbEric what are the chances that statcast can measure Peraza if for six years they have his xwOBA higher than his xOBA every year by a fairly wide margin? His Barrell% was 0, 1.9, 1.7 and then a whopping 2.5% in 2018, with league average 6.4%. His statcast numbers are horrible besides whiff%, K% and sprint speed everything else is below average. Let's also not forget his 2.5 bwar was at SS, which adjusts for position. So even if he did 2018 again he's not a 2.5 player at 2B. Overall I have trust in Bloom, yet even the best GMs are wrong all the time. Yet if his Barrell percentage is why they signed him, I won't trust him!
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 6, 2020 23:18:51 GMT -5
I trust-ish Bloom, but a) there are plenty of GMs who make moves that don’t work out. b) this past off season seems like the MO was mass — lots of utility guys, lots of pitchers. See if any work, knowing many would not. No problem that many didn’t.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 7, 2020 3:29:01 GMT -5
baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/jose-peraza-606299?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlbEric what are the chances that statcast can measure Peraza if for six years they have his xwOBA higher than his xOBA every year by a fairly wide margin? His Barrell% was 0, 1.9, 1.7 and then a whopping 2.5% in 2018, with league average 6.4%. His statcast numbers are horrible besides whiff%, K% and sprint speed everything else is below average. Let's also not forget his 2.5 bwar was at SS, which adjusts for position. So even if he did 2018 again he's not a 2.5 player at 2B. Overall I have trust in Bloom, yet even the best GMs are wrong all the time. Yet if his Barrell percentage is why they signed him, I won't trust him! The xwOBA / wOBA thing means he's consistently hitting the ball to CF more than other players, to an unusual degree. And that may be something they think they can fix with his swing.
My only point with Barrel% is that he actually did hit the ball harder in 2018. So you're cherry-picking all the other stuff in my response that you can credibly argue against. But none of that was the point of my disagreement with you.
I just looked at Win Probability Added for the team and decided that Peraza is the front-runner for Least Valuable Player. I've already said that they should non-tender him and resign him to a minor league (actually split) contract.
Yes, even the best GMs are wrong frequently when it comes to results. But in identifying potential upside, I don't think a guy like Bloom is ever wrong. I have never looked into a underwhelming player the Sox have acquired without being able to see why they were intrigued. Now, Bloom has acquired so many of those that I've looked into just a handful in detail, but the four guys I did, Pillar, Pivetta, Perez, and Puello, were all exciting to look at (relative to appearances, e.g., Puello was a dirt-cheap total nobody who seemed to have 4th OF upside, at a time when dirt-cheap was super valuable).
So I just don't think you can make your argument that says, OK, that was a failure, let's move on. That's just an emotional reaction to the LVP that has no defensible logic behind it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he played himself onto the roster next spring and ended up starting some games at 2B -- even if I'd put the odds of that at 10%, it's not a surprise when you know it's completely possible.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 7, 2020 9:03:49 GMT -5
Not being snarky, but potential upside that doesn’t yield results gets a guy fired. Don’t all these guys gave potential upside? They made the majors. I think the bigger question is likelihood of bridging the gap between that upside and results — and in a necessary time frame.
That is why there are guys like Buchholz who everyone knows was never going to reach his potential. He was still a very good pitcher, but between head and health, you’d gave been crazy to rely on him being as good as his scouting report.
Add: put differently, this is upsiding management and development. Another guy I think of a lot is Allen Webster. When I first saw him, I was in heaven. Near 100 mph sinker, decent secondaries? Surely he gad upside galore. But multiple teams failed to bring it out. I am sure they saw it, and I’m sure they had the requisite data. But humans fail. And in baseball, they fail far more often than they succeed.
I am a believer in two things that will so frequently throw a wrench in analysis: chaos theory and character. Crazy stuff happens (which can produce fluke seasons) and some guys don’t have the mentality to reach their potential— and conversely some guys will themselves to exceed it.
Add: one last thought. Of all the spaghetti Bloom has thrown this season, what has stuck? I don’t mean via micro-analysis that shows an ERA is higher than EV shows it should be or whatever: I mean who has been *good*? Perez was a great get. Phillips Valdez was a decent get. Godley, Mazza, Springs etc etc have all been terrible. In the lineup, a higher success rate with Plawecki, Arauz, Pillar. But Peraza has been bad. So it is hit and miss. That’s fine, but it suggests, again, that the hypothetical of ability is a hypothetical that pans out only part of the time — boy genius or no. If Bloom “knowing stuff” were entirely meaningful, these guys would all be doing better.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 7, 2020 11:29:45 GMT -5
Not being snarky, but potential upside that doesn’t yield results gets a guy fired. Don’t all these guys gave potential upside? They made the majors. I think the bigger question is likelihood of bridging the gap between that upside and results — and in a necessary time frame. That is why there are guys like Buchholz who everyone knows was never going to reach his potential. He was still a very good pitcher, but between head and health, you’d gave been crazy to rely on him being as good as his scouting report. Add: put differently, this is upsiding management and development. Another guy I think of a lot is Allen Webster. When I first saw him, I was in heaven. Near 100 mph sinker, decent secondaries? Surely he gad upside galore. But multiple teams failed to bring it out. I am sure they saw it, and I’m sure they had the requisite data. But humans fail. And in baseball, they fail far more often than they succeed. I am a believer in two things that will so frequently throw a wrench in analysis: chaos theory and character. Crazy stuff happens (which can produce fluke seasons) and some guys don’t have the mentality to reach their potential— and conversely some guys will themselves to exceed it. Add: one last thought. Of all the spaghetti Bloom has thrown this season, what has stuck? I don’t mean via micro-analysis that shows an ERA is higher than EV shows it should be or whatever: I mean who has been *good*? Perez was a great get. Phillips Valdez was a decent get. Godley, Mazza, Springs etc etc have all been terrible. In the lineup, a higher success rate with Plawecki, Arauz, Pillar. But Peraza has been bad. So it is hit and miss. That’s fine, but it suggests, again, that the hypothetical of ability is a hypothetical that pans out only part of the time — boy genius or no. If Bloom “knowing stuff” were entirely meaningful, these guys would all be doing better. I agree with almost all of that. I just think it's screamingly obvious that 117 PA is not a "necessary" (meaning, sufficient) time frame to declare failure on a guy you thought had upside. I mean, that's a patently ludicrous assertion, even for a season without altered training and coaching.
Sometimes you do find a season whose outlier nature you can't explain. But if you can find one, it's not a fluke. In Peraza's case, we know that there's an explanation and that Bloom found it. I don't see how you can belabor the "fluke" point without realizing that it amounts to claiming to know more than he does despite knowing 1% (rounding up) of the relevant available data versus his 100%.
What you call "character" is usually called "makeup," a more inclusive term, and it is indeed crucial, counting more at this point in a player's career than Sage Yogi's famous 45% estimate. I have long pointed out that the unusually high success rate of Sox prospects who make the top 50 indicates they do an outstanding job of assessing makeup. Of course, I'm cheating, since they told me they were trying to do just that back in 2005. It's also true that at the time, the guy with the best score ever on their makeup test was ... Michael Bowden. So it's not everything.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 7, 2020 12:23:26 GMT -5
Add: one last thought. Of all the spaghetti Bloom has thrown this season, what has stuck? I don’t mean via micro-analysis that shows an ERA is higher than EV shows it should be or whatever: I mean who has been *good*? Perez was a great get. Phillips Valdez was a decent get. Godley, Mazza, Springs etc etc have all been terrible. In the lineup, a higher success rate with Plawecki, Arauz, Pillar. But Peraza has been bad. So it is hit and miss. That’s fine, but it suggests, again, that the hypothetical of ability is a hypothetical that pans out only part of the time — boy genius or no. If Bloom “knowing stuff” were entirely meaningful, these guys would all be doing better. I think the problem is that the plan was never to use this much of the pitching spaghetti, and he didn't have the budget to go get any meatballs or fresh-shaved parmesan. They've got a better rotation on IL right now than actually pitching. These guys were supposed to be auditioning for a single bulk reliever job and spots at the back of the bullpen. It wasn't supposed to be three of them starting each time through the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 7, 2020 12:29:07 GMT -5
baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/jose-peraza-606299?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlbEric what are the chances that statcast can measure Peraza if for six years they have his xwOBA higher than his xOBA every year by a fairly wide margin? His Barrell% was 0, 1.9, 1.7 and then a whopping 2.5% in 2018, with league average 6.4%. His statcast numbers are horrible besides whiff%, K% and sprint speed everything else is below average. Let's also not forget his 2.5 bwar was at SS, which adjusts for position. So even if he did 2018 again he's not a 2.5 player at 2B. Overall I have trust in Bloom, yet even the best GMs are wrong all the time. Yet if his Barrell percentage is why they signed him, I won't trust him! The xwOBA / wOBA thing means he's consistently hitting the ball to CF more than other players, to an unusual degree. And that may be something they think they can fix with his swing.
My only point with Barrel% is that he actually did hit the ball harder in 2018. So you're cherry-picking all the other stuff in my response that you can credibly argue against. But none of that was the point of my disagreement with you.
I just looked at Win Probability Added for the team and decided that Peraza is the front-runner for Least Valuable Player. I've already said that they should non-tender him and resign him to a minor league (actually split) contract.
Yes, even the best GMs are wrong frequently when it comes to results. But in identifying potential upside, I don't think a guy like Bloom is ever wrong. I have never looked into a underwhelming player the Sox have acquired without being able to see why they were intrigued. Now, Bloom has acquired so many of those that I've looked into just a handful in detail, but the four guys I did, Pillar, Pivetta, Perez, and Puello, were all exciting to look at (relative to appearances, e.g., Puello was a dirt-cheap total nobody who seemed to have 4th OF upside, at a time when dirt-cheap was super valuable).
So I just don't think you can make your argument that says, OK, that was a failure, let's move on. That's just an emotional reaction to the LVP that has no defensible logic behind it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he played himself onto the roster next spring and ended up starting some games at 2B -- even if I'd put the odds of that at 10%, it's not a surprise when you know it's completely possible.
Sure you can if you just believe in hot streaks and small sample size outliers. You think everything in small sample sizes is meaningful. Like Holt goes on a mini power surge and now he's a new hitter, to me it's just luck or a hot streak which happens for every player. Frankly looking at statcast Peraza I just see luck, you see something you think you can get him back to doing. Yet you can't recreate luck. Eric you always see positives in every player, because you believe in small sample sizes being meaningful. Which just isn't true the majority of the time. No way of knowing if it was an actual increase in skill/ability or just a hot streak and luck. I swear you'd find positives if Bloom brought in Pablo. I didn't mind the signing. It was certainly worth a shot, yet it was always a long shot with a fairly limited upside of around an average player. We had limited money, so it made sense. I don't have an issue keeping him. I do have an issue playing him everyday if it means others guys don't play like Chavis and Dalbec. Guys that need playing time and offer much more upside in my book, nevermind many more years of cheap control. Like I'm shocked a guy like Chatham hasn't been given a chance. He's very similar to Peraza yet will cost basically nothing for years. We have a ton of options that seem like better choices than Peraza.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 7, 2020 12:37:12 GMT -5
Add: one last thought. Of all the spaghetti Bloom has thrown this season, what has stuck? I don’t mean via micro-analysis that shows an ERA is higher than EV shows it should be or whatever: I mean who has been *good*? Perez was a great get. Phillips Valdez was a decent get. Godley, Mazza, Springs etc etc have all been terrible. In the lineup, a higher success rate with Plawecki, Arauz, Pillar. But Peraza has been bad. So it is hit and miss. That’s fine, but it suggests, again, that the hypothetical of ability is a hypothetical that pans out only part of the time — boy genius or no. If Bloom “knowing stuff” were entirely meaningful, these guys would all be doing better. I think the problem is that the plan was never to use this much of the pitching spaghetti, and he didn't have the budget to go get any meatballs or fresh-shaved parmesan. They've got a better rotation on IL right now than actually pitching. These guys were supposed to be auditioning for a single bulk reliever job and spots at the back of the bullpen. It wasn't supposed to be three of them starting each time through the rotation. Sure, and I wasn’t criticizing Bloom. Just meant that flyers are flyers for a reason. And some orgs are surely better at reclamation projects than others but there comes a point when a guy’s ability simply can’t be drawn out. Or, as I said elsewhere, it is no longer cost efficient. In Peraza’s case, running him out to second might straighten him out ... maybe. But it means fewer reps for Chavis or Arauz, which is a big expense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 7, 2020 12:40:29 GMT -5
Yup, don't disagree with any of it and I was kind of wondering about that myself the other day, so I wanted to share the conclusion I came to.
I think there's a non-zero chance Peraza is DFA by the end of the season, although they're so close they probably just roll with it, especially if Munoz is going to miss time.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 7, 2020 13:24:17 GMT -5
The xwOBA / wOBA thing means he's consistently hitting the ball to CF more than other players, to an unusual degree. And that may be something they think they can fix with his swing.
My only point with Barrel% is that he actually did hit the ball harder in 2018. So you're cherry-picking all the other stuff in my response that you can credibly argue against. But none of that was the point of my disagreement with you.
I just looked at Win Probability Added for the team and decided that Peraza is the front-runner for Least Valuable Player. I've already said that they should non-tender him and resign him to a minor league (actually split) contract.
Yes, even the best GMs are wrong frequently when it comes to results. But in identifying potential upside, I don't think a guy like Bloom is ever wrong. I have never looked into a underwhelming player the Sox have acquired without being able to see why they were intrigued. Now, Bloom has acquired so many of those that I've looked into just a handful in detail, but the four guys I did, Pillar, Pivetta, Perez, and Puello, were all exciting to look at (relative to appearances, e.g., Puello was a dirt-cheap total nobody who seemed to have 4th OF upside, at a time when dirt-cheap was super valuable).
So I just don't think you can make your argument that says, OK, that was a failure, let's move on. That's just an emotional reaction to the LVP that has no defensible logic behind it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he played himself onto the roster next spring and ended up starting some games at 2B -- even if I'd put the odds of that at 10%, it's not a surprise when you know it's completely possible.
Sure you can if you just believe in hot streaks and small sample size outliers. You think everything in small sample sizes is meaningful. Like Holt goes on a mini power surge and now he's a new hitter, to me it's just luck or a hot streak which happens for every player. Frankly looking at statcast Peraza I just see luck, you see something you think you can get him back to doing. Yet you can't recreate luck. Eric you always see positives in every player, because you believe in small sample sizes being meaningful. Which just isn't true the majority of the time. No way of knowing if it was an actual increase in skill/ability or just a hot streak and luck. I swear you'd find positives if Bloom brought in Pablo. I didn't mind the signing. It was certainly worth a shot, yet it was always a long shot with a fairly limited upside of around an average player. We had limited money, so it made sense. I don't have an issue keeping him. I do have an issue playing him everyday if it means others guys don't play like Chavis and Dalbec. Guys that need playing time and offer much more upside in my book, nevermind many more years of cheap control. Like I'm shocked a guy like Chatham hasn't been given a chance. He's very similar to Peraza yet will cost basically nothing for years. We have a ton of options that seem like better choices than Peraza. Chatham's entire argument for being even a good MLB backup MI rests on his last 61 PA in AA before his promotion, when he hit .316 / .361 / .491. He was hitting .294 / .328 / .386 before that. The overall line does not project him to be worth a serious look, and what he did at Pawtucket matches it.
Now, if I had some report that he had changed his hitting approach on July 27, or some data that I could only explain by hypothesizing that he had, I could dismiss his return to his overall level after his promotion as a typical post-promotion adjustment period. If our GM had acquired him over the winter, I would consider that as evidence that there was some change in approach.
But neither of those things is the case, so I have to conclude that it was just a random streak. I agree that Chavis should get as much of the 2B PT as possible the rest of the way, and Arauz the rest, but I don't see the point of Chatham playing at all.
Does that make your mind melt a little? (When I look at someone's numbers and see nothing, I usually don't bother posting).
Jose Peraza, by the way, was a hugely better minor league hitter than C. J. Chatham. As in a .256 Peak Translated EqA versus .232. As in every one of Peraza's 7 seasons or half-seasons is better than any of Chatham's.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 7, 2020 14:02:39 GMT -5
Sure you can if you just believe in hot streaks and small sample size outliers. You think everything in small sample sizes is meaningful. Like Holt goes on a mini power surge and now he's a new hitter, to me it's just luck or a hot streak which happens for every player. Frankly looking at statcast Peraza I just see luck, you see something you think you can get him back to doing. Yet you can't recreate luck. Eric you always see positives in every player, because you believe in small sample sizes being meaningful. Which just isn't true the majority of the time. No way of knowing if it was an actual increase in skill/ability or just a hot streak and luck. I swear you'd find positives if Bloom brought in Pablo. I didn't mind the signing. It was certainly worth a shot, yet it was always a long shot with a fairly limited upside of around an average player. We had limited money, so it made sense. I don't have an issue keeping him. I do have an issue playing him everyday if it means others guys don't play like Chavis and Dalbec. Guys that need playing time and offer much more upside in my book, nevermind many more years of cheap control. Like I'm shocked a guy like Chatham hasn't been given a chance. He's very similar to Peraza yet will cost basically nothing for years. We have a ton of options that seem like better choices than Peraza. Chatham's entire argument for being even a good MLB backup MI rests on his last 61 PA in AA before his promotion, when he hit .316 / .361 / .491. He was hitting .294 / .328 / .386 before that. The overall line does not project him to be worth a serious look, and what he did at Pawtucket matches it.
Now, if I had some report that he had changed his hitting approach on July 27, or some data that I could only explain by hypothesizing that he had, I could dismiss his return to his overall level after his promotion as a typical post-promotion adjustment period. If our GM had acquired him over the winter, I would consider that as evidence that there was some change in approach.
But neither of those things is the case, so I have to conclude that it was just a random streak. I agree that Chavis should get as much of the 2B PT as possible the rest of the way, and Arauz the rest, but I don't see the point of Chatham playing at all.
Does that make your mind melt a little? (When I look at someone's numbers and see nothing, I usually don't bother posting).
Jose Peraza, by the way, was a hugely better minor league hitter than C. J. Chatham. As in a .256 Peak Translated EqA versus .232. As in every one of Peraza's 7 seasons or half-seasons is better than any of Chatham's.
This is why my view of the system is the Chatham-meter. No offense to the guy, but the more he slides down the rankings the better. If he is a top-10, top-15 guy, you have shallow system. 17? Progress!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 7, 2020 14:12:45 GMT -5
Sure you can if you just believe in hot streaks and small sample size outliers. You think everything in small sample sizes is meaningful. Like Holt goes on a mini power surge and now he's a new hitter, to me it's just luck or a hot streak which happens for every player. Frankly looking at statcast Peraza I just see luck, you see something you think you can get him back to doing. Yet you can't recreate luck. Eric you always see positives in every player, because you believe in small sample sizes being meaningful. Which just isn't true the majority of the time. No way of knowing if it was an actual increase in skill/ability or just a hot streak and luck. I swear you'd find positives if Bloom brought in Pablo. I didn't mind the signing. It was certainly worth a shot, yet it was always a long shot with a fairly limited upside of around an average player. We had limited money, so it made sense. I don't have an issue keeping him. I do have an issue playing him everyday if it means others guys don't play like Chavis and Dalbec. Guys that need playing time and offer much more upside in my book, nevermind many more years of cheap control. Like I'm shocked a guy like Chatham hasn't been given a chance. He's very similar to Peraza yet will cost basically nothing for years. We have a ton of options that seem like better choices than Peraza. Chatham's entire argument for being even a good MLB backup MI rests on his last 61 PA in AA before his promotion, when he hit .316 / .361 / .491. He was hitting .294 / .328 / .386 before that. The overall line does not project him to be worth a serious look, and what he did at Pawtucket matches it.
Now, if I had some report that he had changed his hitting approach on July 27, or some data that I could only explain by hypothesizing that he had, I could dismiss his return to his overall level after his promotion as a typical post-promotion adjustment period. If our GM had acquired him over the winter, I would consider that as evidence that there was some change in approach.
But neither of those things is the case, so I have to conclude that it was just a random streak. I agree that Chavis should get as much of the 2B PT as possible the rest of the way, and Arauz the rest, but I don't see the point of Chatham playing at all.
Does that make your mind melt a little? (When I look at someone's numbers and see nothing, I usually don't bother posting).
Jose Peraza, by the way, was a hugely better minor league hitter than C. J. Chatham. As in a .256 Peak Translated EqA versus .232. As in every one of Peraza's 7 seasons or half-seasons is better than any of Chatham's.
Chatham in 266 minor league games .739 OPS, Peraza in 553 minor league games .731 OPS. I don't have huge expectations for Chatham. Yet the two are crazy similar, Chatham has dealt with injuries which limited his games and has the better size. I'd certainly give him a shot and see if he can develop 10-15 HR power. If not he's Peraza where it's all just his batting average and he's a utility guy. What makes my mind melt is you thinking because our GM does something it changes small sample sizes. Like he has some ability to know that, when in reality he's likely just taking a flyer hoping it's true. DD is one of the best GMs at identifying talent I've ever seen. He traded Travis Shaw thinking he was selling high, he was dead wrong. The hardest thing in Baseball is telling if small sample sizes are real or just luck. Look at Tampa trading Cronenworth after his big 2019 year. One of the smartest teams in Baseball just made what currently looks like a massive mistake. You are giving GMs way too much credit.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 8, 2020 12:46:53 GMT -5
I don't think the Peraza/Chatham minor league comp tells us much. Peraza made his MLB debut at 21. Chatham was drafted at 21. Peraza was a speed guy, Chatham wasn't. They're very different players. Just throwing out their respective OPS's doesn't tell us much.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2020 13:33:00 GMT -5
I don't think the Peraza/Chatham minor league comp tells us much. Peraza made his MLB debut at 21. Chatham was drafted at 21. Peraza was a speed guy, Chatham wasn't. They're very different players. Just throwing out their respective OPS's doesn't tell us much. If only there was a system that accounted for that age difference ... Preferably one devised by a top-10 (top 5 in terms of influence) all-time sabermetrics guy!
Oh, you mean, like the numbers I quoted in the preceding post?
Things never change: the folks who 30 years ago would have been quoting BA as a rebuttal to someone citing OBP and SA are now citing OPS as a rebuttal for advanced sabermetrics. The puzzling thing to me is that they don't seem to realize what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 8, 2020 15:01:03 GMT -5
I don't think the Peraza/Chatham minor league comp tells us much. Peraza made his MLB debut at 21. Chatham was drafted at 21. Peraza was a speed guy, Chatham wasn't. They're very different players. Just throwing out their respective OPS's doesn't tell us much. If only there was a system that accounted for that age difference ... Preferably one devised by a top-10 (top 5 in terms of influence) all-time sabermetrics guy!
Oh, you mean, like the numbers I quoted in the preceding post?
Things never change: the folks who 30 years ago would have been quoting BA as a rebuttal to someone citing OBP and SA are now citing OPS as a rebuttal for advanced sabermetrics. The puzzling thing to me is that they don't seem to realize what they're doing.
I’m on your side in the Peraza/Chatham comparison, but I think the battle of the “Moderns” vs. the “Ancients” (to put it in Swiftian terms) is so dogmatic that it comes to defy reality. In the cases you cite, while it is not 50/50, there are, in fact, times when the ye olds can tell you something important that gets distorted in the modern view. To wit: a guy with great speed who hits for high average but low power actually *will* be underrated by OPS, because the extra bases he gets are via steals, not extra base hits. So a guy with a .710 OPS who has an OBP of .360 but a slugging of .350 — but steals 35-40 bases — has, in effect, had 35-40 doubles removed from his slugging (along with other speed advantages that don’t show up in any of those stats, obviously). I’m not taking one side or the other — but the dichotomy overestimates the degree to which new statistics make older ones obsolete. All statistics still require a ton of context.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 8, 2020 15:09:47 GMT -5
I don't think the Peraza/Chatham minor league comp tells us much. Peraza made his MLB debut at 21. Chatham was drafted at 21. Peraza was a speed guy, Chatham wasn't. They're very different players. Just throwing out their respective OPS's doesn't tell us much. If only there was a system that accounted for that age difference ... Preferably one devised by a top-10 (top 5 in terms of influence) all-time sabermetrics guy!
Oh, you mean, like the numbers I quoted in the preceding post?
Things never change: the folks who 30 years ago would have been quoting BA as a rebuttal to someone citing OBP and SA are now citing OPS as a rebuttal for advanced sabermetrics. The puzzling thing to me is that they don't seem to realize what they're doing.
Maybe it's a person smart enough to know that advanced stats aren't close to perfect and an end all like some people think. Useful? Absolutely, yet front offices aren't judging their rosters 100% off of advanced stats. There is so much more that goes into building a team and looking at players. If there is one thing I've learned in my years studying Baseball is that every player is different. How a player develops is much more important than age. What Peraza did in the minors means nothing now, not with four years in the majors. He wasn't able to build on the power he showed in 2014 that made him a top prospect and his hit tool isn't good enough to make up for no power. He's had a negative bwar for 3 out of the last four years. He's been worth 1 bwar in 553 games in the majors, with a .683 OPS. Chatham is just like him, a contact hitter who shows very little power, yet produces a very good average. He's had limited games to develop and the bar for him to be a similar player is crazy low. Basically a guy you don't want to play. One might have looked better when he was younger, it doesn't mean for one second he's going to be the better player going forward.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 8, 2020 22:53:42 GMT -5
So, are marshmallow Easter eggs better or candy corn ?
Once a year, both have some value.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 8, 2020 23:55:54 GMT -5
If only there was a system that accounted for that age difference ... Preferably one devised by a top-10 (top 5 in terms of influence) all-time sabermetrics guy!
Oh, you mean, like the numbers I quoted in the preceding post?
Things never change: the folks who 30 years ago would have been quoting BA as a rebuttal to someone citing OBP and SA are now citing OPS as a rebuttal for advanced sabermetrics. The puzzling thing to me is that they don't seem to realize what they're doing.
Maybe it's a person smart enough to know that advanced stats aren't close to perfect and an end all like some people think. Useful? Absolutely, yet front offices aren't judging their rosters 100% off of advanced stats. There is so much more that goes into building a team and looking at players. If there is one thing I've learned in my years studying Baseball is that every player is different. How a player develops is much more important than age. What Peraza did in the minors means nothing now, not with four years in the majors. He wasn't able to build on the power he showed in 2014 that made him a top prospect and his hit tool isn't good enough to make up for no power. He's had a negative bwar for 3 out of the last four years. He's been worth 1 bwar in 553 games in the majors, with a .683 OPS. Chatham is just like him, a contact hitter who shows very little power, yet produces a very good average. He's had limited games to develop and the bar for him to be a similar player is crazy low. Basically a guy you don't want to play. One might have looked better when he was younger, it doesn't mean for one second he's going to be the better player going forward. Umm, we were talking about Chatham. You've completely changed the topic of discussion back to how bad Peraza has been, when we actually barely disagree about him, in that I want to sign him to a split contract and bring him back as an NRI and you apparently don't. A trivial difference, and it's absolutely impossible to defend your position given that his taking a roster spot at Pawtucket is meaningless, and given the fact that someone who has 100x the info about him that you do thought he was an MLB starter just 120 PA ago in the most f-ed up season in MLB history. Either you actually agree with me about the NRI and are unwilling to admit it, or you're arguing against some kind of strawman.
Maybe it's a person smart enough to know that advanced stats aren't close to perfect and an end all like some people think. Useful? Absolutely ...
Of course they're not close to perfect. But they are better than primitive stats. Do you deny that? I mean, raw OPS in the minors without considering park effects and how old the player was relative to level ... that's of very limited use.
(I should mention that the Davenport Peak Translation don't just take the numbers and adjust them for age and level and ballpark. It's an actual projection, based on what sorts of numbers predict MLB success. That's how it called Will Middlebrooks as not remotely deserving #1 status; too many K's relative to his power, it seems. The fact that Dalbec has much better numbers despite his high K rate is very encouraging. In my own work I've found that minor league SA is much more predictive than OBP. You can learn to take pitches. You can't learn how to hit the ball 108 mph.)
I quoted an advanced stat with a very good track record to show that Chatham wasn't remotely as good a hitter in the minors as Peraza had been ... and you rebutted me with a primitive stat.
As for the meaning of that difference: Peraza in the minors projected to be a .256 EqA hitter but he has been .234 or below in 3 of his last 4 seasons. But Chatham in the minors has projected to be a .232 hitter. He projects to be as good as the bad version of Peraza. The difference between them is that as far as we can tell from the best information:
1) Peraza was supposed to be much better than that, and was for one year (a bit better in fact, .267), and there's a chance he might still be, as Bloom thought so last winter.
2) Chatham has a chance to hit in MLB only if his last 61 PA at Portland last year represented a real advance in skill. Now, they did promote him ... but he went back to hitting like he had.
You don't seem to be aware that saying Chatham and Peraza are similar hitters, which is absolutely true if you remove the one MLB season where Peraza did hit well, is not any kind of argument for Chatham. Unless I'm misreading you.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 9, 2020 13:51:49 GMT -5
Eric using age adjusted stats against two players in the minors makes sense. Take the two guys we got from the Padres, not great but they are young. Yes I included Peraza current stats, because his projected minor league numbers mean nothing now. Just like a guy like Swihart. What they once we're doesn't matter, it's what they currently are. When you reach almost 750 games in the MLB and AAA, what you did in the lower leagues means nothing. The upside is basically gone with Peraza. He was a top prospect because he showed good power in 2014, which people projected to improve. It hasn't and it's not like you just need to unlock raw power to game power, he doesn't have it. Statcast shows you that with below average exit velocity and Barrell percentage, even in 2018 he wasn't good.
Chatham is still young in his development because of injuries, even though he's older. Something your advanced stats don't take into account. Even then you make my case for me, saying if he just reaches his projections which don't include all the information, he'd be Peraza in the majors. Never mind the biased in age related stats because they will always favor international guys and high school guys over college guys. Peraza reaches the majors with five years in minor leagues at age 21, Chatham is still in College. Then misses a whole year with a hamstring injury if I remember right, which greatly effect his age based results. If you move him up a level without injury, his age based results would be better. Last year instead of AA then AAA, he could have gone AAA then September call up. Every player is different and you need to account for those things. Like it might nail a Middlebrooks, yet likely will miss just as many as it nails. That's the story of advanced stats when you adjust them to fit the whole group of players.
Advanced stats are likely better than regular stats when looking at the whole league. Some are much better than others. Yet the big issues comes at looking at individual players and using one advanced stat to compare two players without context. Which is what you are doing. The more you adjust numbers the more chances you have for errors. Just look at bwar and fwar, they can be close or they can be crazy different. The correct way in my opinion to use them, is along with regular stats and scouting. It's the combo of the three. Plus the more information you have the better with advanced stats because it allows you to judge if the stats can accurately rate a player. As in if Chatham ever get 750 games in AAA and the majors without showing power, I'm not going to to look at his scouting report that says he has 10-15 HR upside. Peraza has reached that level, Chatham hasn't come close.
My point from the start of this is Chatham is a very similar player to the Peraza we currently have, still has a little upside due to lack of games and will cost peanuts for years. So yes I'd give him a chance over Peraza next year and going forward. Not that I expect much, yet Peraza sucks.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Sept 9, 2020 22:26:15 GMT -5
Hasn't been announced, but the Red Sox transaction page is showing Peraza optioned to the ATS.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 10, 2020 9:41:13 GMT -5
Hasn't been announced, but the Red Sox transaction page is showing Peraza optioned to the ATS. I think we're going to see a number of transactions today. Seven guys traveled to St. Pete from the ATS, but the taxi squad is capped at 5, at least I think. The seven are Grullon, Puello, Covey, Hall, Houck, Stock, and Tapia. Grullon, Hall, and Stock can only replace someone going on IL. Anyone other than Plawecki or Munoz a candidate for the IL?
|
|
|
Post by funkybuddha on Sept 10, 2020 13:40:14 GMT -5
IMO the way the FO is managing the roster at this point is odd. It is definitely different. The entire season is different I get. I have thought the same as many have stated here... It seems like Bloom is throwing a ton of spag on the wall and hoping it sticks. Not much has stuck.
Recently the team has fielded an OF with Peraza, Lin and even Chavis. Two of the 3 at the same time. None are OF's by trade. Looking at the 40 man there are 13 I count who could easily be released. Looking at Jaren Durran I just have no clue why he isn't on the team now? Service time? If he was the prospect status of Wander Franco then okay I could see the delay but he isn't. We all HOPE he can play at the MLB level but an uber prospect in the overall scheme of things? No way. With Benny a massive ? now... JBJ possibly not here next year... JD could really be a part of the puzzle next year. Seems really illogical to me to not have him playing with the MLB club now. It's only a handful of games left so that might be the justification? Anyway, I really have a hard time trying to follow Bloom's management so far.
He was handcuffed to a bad situation coming in. He was handcuffed to a bad draft situation coming in. Still kind of a confidence lacking approach compared to the last 3 GM's who each seemed to have a much more clear approach to building a team than this seems to be so far.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 10, 2020 14:18:13 GMT -5
Hasn't been announced, but the Red Sox transaction page is showing Peraza optioned to the ATS. I think we're going to see a number of transactions today. Seven guys traveled to St. Pete from the ATS, but the taxi squad is capped at 5, at least I think. The seven are Grullon, Puello, Covey, Hall, Houck, Stock, and Tapia. Grullon, Hall, and Stock can only replace someone going on IL. Anyone other than Plawecki or Munoz a candidate for the IL? Godley.
I think Puello has to be here to be added to the 40-man, and getting someone off it is holding up the move. Hart or Triggs? Or even Walden or Chatham?
The second move would be Covey or Stock active, either replacing Triggs or with Godley to the IL. And maybe Tapia or Houck to the 40 man and active if they clear 2 spots on the 40. Or both if they clear 3!
Too many combinations to run them all down. What's the most extreme?
Puello for open spot (Hart or Chatham DFA) + Houck, Triggs DFA + Tapia, Walden DFA
But I'd guess one less DFA and Godley on the IL instead of Triggs or Walden DFA, and Covey or Hall active instead of Houck or Tapia.
Edit: to make that clear, my best guess:
Puello for open spot (Hart DFA, or maybe Chatham)
Houck or Tapia selected, Triggs (or Walden) DFA. Covey (or Stock) activated, Godley to IL
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,521
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 10, 2020 15:58:56 GMT -5
I think we're going to see a number of transactions today. Seven guys traveled to St. Pete from the ATS, but the taxi squad is capped at 5, at least I think. The seven are Grullon, Puello, Covey, Hall, Houck, Stock, and Tapia. Grullon, Hall, and Stock can only replace someone going on IL. Anyone other than Plawecki or Munoz a candidate for the IL? Godley. I think Puello has to be here to be added to the 40-man, and getting someone off it is holding up the move. Hart or Triggs? Or even Walden or Chatham?
The second move would be Covey or Stock active, either replacing Triggs or with Godley to the IL. And maybe Tapia or Houck to the 40 man and active if they clear 2 spots on the 40. Or both if they clear 3! Too many combinations to run them all down. What's the most extreme? Puello for open spot (Hart or Chatham DFA) + Houck, Triggs DFA + Tapia, Walden DFA But I'd guess one less DFA and Godley on the IL instead of Triggs or Walden DFA, and Covey or Hall active instead of Houck or Tapia. Edit: to make that clear, my best guess:
Puello for open spot (Hart DFA, or maybe Chatham)
Houck or Tapia selected, Triggs (or Walden) DFA. Covey (or Stock) activated, Godley to IL
Close, Covey and Stock recalled, Peraza optioned to the ats, Brice put in the IL with a lat strain.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 10, 2020 19:44:19 GMT -5
Godley. I think Puello has to be here to be added to the 40-man, and getting someone off it is holding up the move. Hart or Triggs? Or even Walden or Chatham?
The second move would be Covey or Stock active, either replacing Triggs or with Godley to the IL. And maybe Tapia or Houck to the 40 man and active if they clear 2 spots on the 40. Or both if they clear 3! Too many combinations to run them all down. What's the most extreme? Puello for open spot (Hart or Chatham DFA) + Houck, Triggs DFA + Tapia, Walden DFA But I'd guess one less DFA and Godley on the IL instead of Triggs or Walden DFA, and Covey or Hall active instead of Houck or Tapia. Edit: to make that clear, my best guess:
Puello for open spot (Hart DFA, or maybe Chatham)
Houck or Tapia selected, Triggs (or Walden) DFA. Covey (or Stock) activated, Godley to IL
Close, Covey and Stock recalled, Peraza optioned to the ats, Brice put in the IL with a lat strain. Since when does Glenn Close pitch, and wouldn't she put us over the 28-man roster limit?
Seriously, they did also IL Godley, only they activated Hall to replace them. Nobody off the 40 man.
Three of the four taxi squad guys are not on the 40-man: Puello, Houck, Tapia. So any injury except to C will force a 40-man move.
|
|
|