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.
Red Sox Sign Kenley Jansen (2 years, 32 million)
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 22, 2023 0:49:38 GMT -5
He's been the 10th best reliever in baseball by fWAR and 13th by WPA over the last three years, so I mean, as far as relievers go, the bolded is just inaccurate. fWAR not withstanding, he’s clearly not the same guy that he was in the 2016-2018 timeframe. The only problem is that they are paying him as if he IS still that guy. Actually, his monster years were 2015-2017. It sure as heck looks like the incompetent Red Sox F.O. figured out the reason for the decline and fixed it, as much as possible given that he's 6 years older. I just took a look at all the Stacast data from March / April of every available year, which fortunately starts at 2016. (I could have gone back further with pitch/fx data, but the different methodologies add noise.) That eliminates the possibility that he always throws harder in April.
2016 and '17 are very much alike. There's some variance in the less-good years but no good reason not to lump them together.
This is, of course, his cutter, which he throws most of the time.
Years Vert Rel Hor Rel Velo Perc. Spin Sink Fade Mvm
2016-17 6.29 -2.02 93.0 94.3 2543 17.0 6.9 10.8
2018-22 6.31 -1.65 91.7 93.0 2608 15.5 7.4 10.7
2023 6.27 -2.05 94.9 95.7 2614 18.1 3.4 7.8
The first thing you see is that they restored / fixed his horizontal release point, which had been reduced by 36%.
In the less-good years, his cutter had the same total movement (calculated by me; thank you, Pythagoras) as in his prime , but it lost vertical movement and gained horizontal. The cutter is not a chase pitch, it's a miss-in-zone pitch. A small change in horizontal movement to the gloveside is just going to tweak the position on the bat towards or away from the bat end. A change vertically helps you get weaker contact or miss bats entirely. It's the same thing as with a four-seamer, where the amount of "hop" or rise (relative to gravity) is exalted, while the degree of armside run is more like a footnote.
This year he's getting more sink on the cutter than ever, at the expense of gloveside run, which is half what it was in his prime. He's lost 27% of his total movement.
I had assumed that his big boost in velo was a restoration to his prime but in fact, he's throwing harder than ever. The change in perceived velo is smaller -- 1.4 rather than 1.9, which suggests some change in mechanics.
The question I can't answer is how these changes relate to one another, since I know nothing of pitching biomechanics. That velo and movement are a trade-off seems like a reasonable guess (a 1.0 or 1.5 mph gain in velo is actually very big in terms of getting results). Obviously, if he could have changed his horizontal release point back to his prime, he would have done so long ago, so it seems that the Sox came up with a mechanics tweak that allowed him do that did that. It's also possible that the "correct" release point follows from doing other things better, that is, it's not directly causative but is instead a marker that his mechanics are optimized.
I kind of suspect that they made two separate tweaks, because a one-tweak fix would have likely occurred to someone already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Apr 22, 2023 9:23:03 GMT -5
Whatever change Jansen has made, it has worked great! It is so refreshing for a closer to come in and close the door 1-2-3! Last year’s heart breaking losses in the 8 and 9th innings form either a lead or tie (and extra inning losses) were unbelievable in frequency! Jansen is worth every penny and then some……,
|
|
|
|
Post by keninten on Apr 22, 2023 12:56:39 GMT -5
I thought Kenley was the big mistake of the offseason. Glad I was wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2023 11:31:56 GMT -5
Thought this was a spot on piece by Tomase: www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/kenley-jansen-has-helped-saved-red-sox-season-crucial-late-game-impactAs he noted, "[the Red Soc have] blown two saves, and then won both of those games anyway. At this point last year, they had already blown eight saves and been walked off four times." I was curious actually and looked at the games where we had the highest "win probability" per Baseball Reference that we've ended up losing so far this year. Those games were: -4/11 vs the Rays where it was 0-0 in the 8th (it was basically a coin flip according to the model) and Martin gave up a homer to Lowe -the game vs the Rays where we were up 3-1 (75% win probability) and Jeffrey Springs got hurt in like the 3rd inning -the game vs Baltimore where we had a 4-0 lead early vs Baltimore (80+ % win probability), and then Sale imploded in like the 4th That's honestly pretty mild. No games where we've had it in the bag in the late innings and blown it away. We're definitely due for a heartbreak loss at some point - so far thank God for Kenley. |
|
|
|
Post by 0ap0 on May 8, 2023 11:38:01 GMT -5
"Walked off" or "walk-offed"?
|
|
|
|
Post by bensbrothersbrother on May 8, 2023 17:36:25 GMT -5
Thought this was a spot on piece by Tomase: Pffffttttt. #PatriotsTapedTheRamsPractice You literally could not pay me to read anything he's written. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 9, 2023 0:22:21 GMT -5
As the team wins, while moving up in a brutal AL East, Tomase and the others will spin whatever lame justification they can find for why that's happening. Jansen wasn't conjured out of thin air. He was one of a number of acquisitions - major and minor leaguers - that are fitting together very well so far. The notion that there's a single savior for the season is self-serving pap. He'd be wise to dig deep into the players, the work they do to improve, and what their stats, standard and advanced, have to say about them. That's what Speier does.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on May 9, 2023 10:25:28 GMT -5
As the team wins, while moving up in a brutal AL East, Tomase and the others will spin whatever lame justification they can find for why that's happening. Jansen wasn't conjured out of thin air. He was one of a number of acquisitions - major and minor leaguers - that are fitting together very well so far. The notion that there's a single savior for the season is self-serving pap. He'd be wise to dig deep into the players, the work they do to improve, and what their stats, standard and advanced, have to say about them. That's what Speier does. I totally hear what your saying Norm. I had to stop reading/listening to (the other Boston blowhard) Bill Simmons, as most of his talking points are hindsight narratives - based upon the lowest common denominator devoid of any real nuance. Hot takes and sensationalism dumb down sports journalism for me these days. |
|
|
|
Post by kingstephanos on May 9, 2023 10:31:21 GMT -5
Speaking of Kenley, it's refreshing reading about him taking exception to his perceived inability to adapt to the pitch clock.
He seems to still have a lot in the tank and has been more than they could have hoped for to the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 9, 2023 14:02:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 10, 2023 21:53:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on May 10, 2023 23:29:16 GMT -5
Worth every penny….
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 11, 2023 16:39:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on May 12, 2023 9:18:50 GMT -5
This is super cool, my favorite thing about this team might be the chemistry which just seems way better than last year |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 16, 2023 10:18:11 GMT -5
I was enjoying being wrong about this signing, but then Jansen blew two games in a row and now his WPA is the seventh-worst among 193 qualified relievers, at -0.94.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 16, 2023 10:22:02 GMT -5
I was enjoying being wrong about this signing, but then Jansen blew two games in a row and now his WPA is the seventh-worst among 193 qualified relievers, at -0.94. I think you are still half wrong. I agree that Jansen himself is not a great signing… this is a guy who has melted down and lost his closer role in the past. I have never trusted him. But… until this stretch, hasn’t the *sense* of having to worry about only 8 innings instead of 9 been great? I am a devotee of the “established closer” concept. And I don’t buy numbers for them, because they are so easily skewed by bad outings. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 16, 2023 10:49:52 GMT -5
I was enjoying being wrong about this signing, but then Jansen blew two games in a row and now his WPA is the seventh-worst among 193 qualified relievers, at -0.94. I think you are still half wrong. I agree that Jansen himself is not a great signing… this is a guy who has melted down and lost his closer role in the past. I have never trusted him. But… until this stretch, hasn’t the *sense* of having to worry about only 8 innings instead of 9 been great? I am a devotee of the “established closer” concept. And I don’t buy numbers for them, because they are so easily skewed by bad outings. See, this gets at my whole frustration with the closer concept. Yes, It absolutely feels better to have this "sense" that you don't have to worry about the 9th inning. (Though how chill are you going to feel next time Jansen comes in for a save?) I'm sure that's as true for the players and manager as it is for the fans.
And it absolutely feels worse to lose a game in the 9th inning than, say, in the 5th or 6th (like they did last night).
But that's the thing - the whole closer role seems built around these feelings - not around maximizing the team's win probability. Losing games in the 9th inning feels especially bad, so the team spends a ton of money specifically on a guy who's job is "don't lose games in the 9th inning."
And because this role has been structured around the save statistic (a truly egregious case of Goodhart's Law), you end up bringing this guy into a bunch of low-leverage 2- and 3-run leads, but you don't allow yourself to bring him into high-leverage ties or 1-run deficits. That's why Jansen's WPA is so bad: he's added up tiny little additions to win probability in those low-leverage situations, but lost huge chunks of win probability in these two losses where he came in with 90% chances to win.
Anyway... I, like everyone, really truly did enjoy Good Jansen as long as it lasted, and I hope this was just a blip, maybe related to his getting too amped up for his 400th save (the "closer's mentality"... a complaint for another day). But now he has a big hole to dig out of in WPA terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 16, 2023 10:59:25 GMT -5
I think you are still half wrong. I agree that Jansen himself is not a great signing… this is a guy who has melted down and lost his closer role in the past. I have never trusted him. But… until this stretch, hasn’t the *sense* of having to worry about only 8 innings instead of 9 been great? I am a devotee of the “established closer” concept. And I don’t buy numbers for them, because they are so easily skewed by bad outings. See, this gets at my whole frustration with the closer concept. Yes, It absolutely feels better to have this "sense" that you don't have to worry about the 9th inning. (Though how chill are you going to feel next time Jansen comes in for a save?) I'm sure that's as true for the players and manager as it is for the fans.
And it absolutely feels worse to lose a game in the 9th inning than, say, in the 5th or 6th (like they did last night).
But that's the thing - the whole closer role seems built around these feelings - not around maximizing the team's win probability. Losing games in the 9th inning feels especially bad, so the team spends a ton of money specifically on a guy who's job is "don't lose games in the 9th inning."
And because this role has been structured around the save statistic (a truly egregious case of Goodhart's Law), you end up bringing this guy into a bunch of low-leverage 2- and 3-run leads, but you don't allow yourself to bring him into high-leverage ties or 1-run deficits. That's why Jansen's WPA is so bad: he's added up tiny little additions to win probability in those low-leverage situations, but lost huge chunks of win probability in these two losses where he came in with 90% chances to win.
Anyway... I, like everyone, really truly did enjoy Good Jansen as long as it lasted, and I hope this was just a blip, maybe related to his getting too amped up for his 400th save (the "closer's mentality"... a complaint for another day). But now he has a big hole to dig out of in WPA terms.
I guess where we disagree then is on how much win probability is added by psychology, which can’t be measured in a statistic. I always think of facing the A’s with Eck or Yankees with Mo: if you are down 1 in the 7th, you start thinking about only having a couple innings before it is lights out. It changes how guys manage, how guys hit. I believe the intimidation factor is big. Is it merited? Maybe not analytically. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 16, 2023 11:14:48 GMT -5
See, this gets at my whole frustration with the closer concept. Yes, It absolutely feels better to have this "sense" that you don't have to worry about the 9th inning. (Though how chill are you going to feel next time Jansen comes in for a save?) I'm sure that's as true for the players and manager as it is for the fans.
And it absolutely feels worse to lose a game in the 9th inning than, say, in the 5th or 6th (like they did last night).
But that's the thing - the whole closer role seems built around these feelings - not around maximizing the team's win probability. Losing games in the 9th inning feels especially bad, so the team spends a ton of money specifically on a guy who's job is "don't lose games in the 9th inning."
And because this role has been structured around the save statistic (a truly egregious case of Goodhart's Law), you end up bringing this guy into a bunch of low-leverage 2- and 3-run leads, but you don't allow yourself to bring him into high-leverage ties or 1-run deficits. That's why Jansen's WPA is so bad: he's added up tiny little additions to win probability in those low-leverage situations, but lost huge chunks of win probability in these two losses where he came in with 90% chances to win.
Anyway... I, like everyone, really truly did enjoy Good Jansen as long as it lasted, and I hope this was just a blip, maybe related to his getting too amped up for his 400th save (the "closer's mentality"... a complaint for another day). But now he has a big hole to dig out of in WPA terms.
I guess where we disagree then is on how much win probability is added by psychology, which can’t be measured in a statistic. I always think of facing the A’s with Eck or Yankees with Mo: if you are down 1 in the 7th, you start thinking about only having a couple innings before it is lights out. It changes how guys manage, how guys hit. I believe the intimidation factor is big. Is it merited? Maybe not analytically. I can believe this! But see my original comment on this signing back in December:
I do think your point applies to the handful of closers in major league history, Mariano chief among them, who actually were reliable over the course of many seasons. But that's really rare; at any given time there are maybe one or two guys in the league like that, and even they tend to suddenly lose it. I am deeply informed/scarred here by what we saw with Kimbrel, who came very close to singlehandedly tanking a magical season.
(And let's just agree to ignore my Taylor Rogers comment, yes? He's been terrible...)
--- Also, listen, I don't mean to come off as all "Ha! I was right and Jansen stinks!" I sincerely was enjoying what he was doing for the team through last Wednesday, and I did sincerely think he might turn out to be a good signing after all. And I still think he might, and I very much HOPE that he does. Go Jansen! He's a cool dude!
|
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 16, 2023 11:25:14 GMT -5
I guess where we disagree then is on how much win probability is added by psychology, which can’t be measured in a statistic. I always think of facing the A’s with Eck or Yankees with Mo: if you are down 1 in the 7th, you start thinking about only having a couple innings before it is lights out. It changes how guys manage, how guys hit. I believe the intimidation factor is big. Is it merited? Maybe not analytically. I can believe this! But see my original comment on this signing back in December:
I do think your point applies to the handful of closers in major league history, Mariano chief among them, who actually were reliable over the course of many seasons. But that's really rare; at any given time there are maybe one or two guys in the league like that, and even they tend to suddenly lose it. I am deeply informed/scarred here by what we saw with Kimbrel, who came very close to singlehandedly tanking a magical season.
(And let's just agree to ignore my Taylor Rogers comment, yes? He's been terrible...)
--- Also, listen, I don't mean to come off as all "Ha! I was right and Jansen stinks!" I sincerely was enjoying what he was doing for the team through last Wednesday, and I did sincerely think he might turn out to be a good signing after all. And I still think he might, and I very much HOPE that he does. Go Jansen! He's a cool dude!
I think we basically agree. Hopefully, this is just a bump, Jansen gets rolling again, and he intimidates. |
|
|
