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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 23, 2014 9:39:55 GMT -5
Sandoval's wRC+ for 2012, 2013, and 2014: 118/116/117. He is what he is. He's got no incentive to take a pillow contract. Headley on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 22, 2014 17:25:33 GMT -5
The best thing I can say about Xander is that his walk rate is back up to about 8% in August after a couple months of 3%. On the other hand, his results on contact are awful, with the little power he was showing in June/July gone right now and his lowest BABIP yet. And of course his K rate went from bad to awful after May and hasn't changed much at all. He's definitely had a little bad BABIP luck this year, but he needs to be a high BABIP kind of player or else flash much more power to be valuable with those kind of strikeouts. The power should improve a bit with age, but how much can we reasonably expect?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 21, 2014 17:40:28 GMT -5
- They calculate the present value of the deferred payments and spread it over the term of the contract (I don't know what discount rate they use). Wait, so is it that salary over the life of the contract is not discounted, but payments after the term of the contract are discounted? If that's how it works, couldn't a team convince a player to take most of his salary from the final year of a deal in the following year, which would cause that payment to be discounted in calculating AAV? That could be pretty significant on longer deals if that's how it works. I'm sure I'm missing some nuance, though.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 18, 2014 11:34:00 GMT -5
I don't remember anything about controlling for umpire, although I know BIS talked a little bit about their proprietary system that used a similar technique to divide credit between the pitcher, catcher, batter, and umpire. I bet if you emailed him directly at brooksbaseball he'd get back to you, and I bet he would be interested to see any other research you have on it.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 17, 2014 20:05:27 GMT -5
If that's what it takes, there's no way the Sox are going to do that. I like Cespedes okay as a return for Lester, but he's not nearly as good as Hunter Pence. He has the kind of skillset that gets overpaid in free agency. It's still early, but I think the Sox let him walk after next year (if he isn't traded this offseason).
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 17, 2014 18:49:04 GMT -5
Carson was a published post before he was a baseball writer, I'm sure he's conscious of his wordy writing style. I really enjoy it, personally, especially considering the kind of posts he writes (like articles about weird, mediocre fringe prospects).
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 17, 2014 18:40:48 GMT -5
I was at Saberseminar in Boston this weekend, and today Dan Brooks gave a talk on his pitch framing model, which is the one that's on BP. As has been said earlier, it starts with a probability that a pitch will be called a strike at each point in the strike zone and gives credit from there. A few other things that he mentioned:
The model controls for the pitcher throwing, so while Koji might be easier to frame than Rubby, that shouldn't show up in the data since it's already accounted for.
The probability of the pitch being called a strike is adjusted for count, batter and pitcher handedness, and pitch type.
The results become reliable very quickly, in just a few games, so we can have good confidence that Vazquez is really, really good at this.
I'm sure there are a few things he mentioned that I'll rember later, but I left feeling very impressed with the model and pretty confident in its results.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 16, 2014 22:57:25 GMT -5
Warning: I'm about to show my baseball ignorance once again. I have a fee questions about pitch framing in general: 1) Is the work you're doing, Eric, based on the the camera / computerized strike zones like the ones we see in the graphics on TV? I ask that because I've often wondered how accurate those are. Are they different from park to park due to different camera angles? I read somewhere a while back that park differences can be a problem. Also I understand they need to be recalibrated from time to time and that doesn't always happen. Don't mean to get unto a technology discussion. Just wondering if that's what you use and how good is it. 2) If the automated systems are really more accurate than the home plate umps, isn't that really an indictment of MLB? If they have a way to do it better, shouldn't they be using it? Eric can give a more complete answer I'm sure, but this is all based on pitch f/x, which is the same technology that drives those strike zones on TV. It is optical camera based, but it's an advanced system with special cameras, not just TV cameras. I know some people have found park differences, but they're generally small and I think they are usually corrected for. I don't know if BP does, though. And yes, we should be on computerized strike zones by now, but that's not happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 11, 2014 20:56:37 GMT -5
We would be getting a full season of Stanton plus the rights to negotiate with him as a FA. Teixiera was 27, Stanton is only 24. Stanton is only on his first arbitration year; he won't be a free agent until after the 2016 season. If the Red Sox are getting Stanton, I want him locked up. I would have no problem giving him something like 10/200 or maybe even a little more. Even considering that it would be 2 arb years and 8 FA years, that would definitely be below market, and 24 year olds just don't hit free agency. If they had an idea that they could get something like that done, I would be happy to get something in the range of Cespedes/Betts/Owens/Ranaudo done. If Miami does put him on the trade market, it seems like that could get done. I can't see any other team with both the prospects and desire to win now that would give up that kind of a package for him.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 9, 2014 22:10:59 GMT -5
Your realistic choices are (1) sign a free agent (not Lester or Scherzer, in all likelihood) or (2) trade for a pitcher. So would you rather (1) sign Shields for 3/60 and give up a 2nd round draft pick (assuming the 1st rounder is protected), with a 4th year option or (2) trade Owens/2nd pitcher/Coyle for Hamels? Ideally, you sign Lester for 5/110 but I think that ship has sailed. I don't think people would be "happy" trading one of Betts, Swihart or Owens straight up for Hamels, but rather people acknowledge that trading for Hamels will cost a top 25 prospect, plus additional assets. If that's all it takes to get Shirelds, option 1 please. Shields isn't as good as Hamels, but he's cheaper in dollars by a lot, and costs no prospects (only a marginal draft pick). The Red Sox may be a high payroll team, but they could put that money to good use elsewhere (say, signing Chase Headley). I see no reason to overpay for Hameks even if Lester is, for whatever reason, not an option.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 9, 2014 21:12:01 GMT -5
It seems like most people here would be pretty happy trading one of Betts, Swihart, or Owens straight up for Hamels, but even that seems like too much to give up for him. Estimates have put the value of prospects of that caliber in the range of $30 million dollars, at least. Trading say, Betts for Hamels would be pretty much equivalent to giving Hamels 4/126 on the open market (if you ignore the option). Hamels is an excellent pitcher right now, probably equivalent to Lester, but if you include the value of prospects it looks like it will be cheaper to just sign Lester in free agency this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 5, 2014 20:47:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 5, 2014 6:19:33 GMT -5
Britton is out of options and has more walks than strikeouts as a reliever in AAA. I can't see how they keep him on the major league roster next year. He's gone.
Ramirez is the kind of guy that would definitely get scooped up in the Rule 5 draft - he's probably major league ready right now, at least for a bad team. There's always a chance he wouldn't stick, but most likely if he's not protected he'e gone. The Red Sox always need relievers with options (which was a problem earlier this year) so I really think he gets protected given that he's mostly a finished product right now.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 4, 2014 20:37:11 GMT -5
Cespedes has to be non-tendered after his pre-arb years, instead of being eligible for arbitration. Theoretically a prospect could do that here too, I believe, though it wouldn't make sense it most cases. It wouldn't apply for US free agents because they've already had their arb years. This is similar to when Boras was pushing for his drafted clients to be immediately placed on teams' 40 man rosters. However, that stunt stands a lesser chance of flying where a team receives a compensatory pick in the following draft for not signing a draft pick in the current year. That being said, I'm fairly certain he still got away with it with both Strasburg and Harper. Then again, those were extraordinary draft picks, even by the standard of #1 overall picks. Yep, that's not a bad comparison. The 6 years of team control is arbitrary and if players have any sort of leverage teams are willing to sacrifice it in unconventional ways. The latest CBA did rule out major league contracts for drafted players to avoid rushing, so no more of the Strasburg/Harper situation. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next CBA, teams can't include clauses similar to the one in the Cespedes contract.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 4, 2014 16:14:58 GMT -5
Also, preseason, Steamer projected Abreu for a 140 wRC+, ZiPS 135. He's been better than that, but even if he weren't he would most definitely be worth his small contract. "These folks" liked him quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 4, 2014 16:09:18 GMT -5
Cespedes has to be non-tendered after his pre-arb years, instead of being eligible for arbitration. Theoretically a prospect could do that here too, I believe, though it wouldn't make sense it most cases. It wouldn't apply for US free agents because they've already had their arb years.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 1, 2014 15:03:31 GMT -5
Only actual HRs are shown, but you can imagine there's some room for some more in LF.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 1, 2014 12:32:23 GMT -5
@dszymborski: Rest-of-season ZiPS for Cespedes in Boston is 274/326/483. His 2015 projection is very close to that - 274/327/486, 3.2 WAR.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 1, 2014 9:38:13 GMT -5
Can always trade that pick too this winter as a sweetener to a larger package too. Competitive balance picks can only be traded once, because MLB like making stupid, arbitrary rules that restrict markets.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 31, 2014 15:12:30 GMT -5
Yeah, where is Betts going to play next year at this rate?AAA again? I can't help but think an outfielder is going to get moved this offseason
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 31, 2014 11:53:19 GMT -5
So we got a 5th starter and a guy with negative trade value?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 30, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5
I'm skeptical. If the Orioles won't give up their top prospects to us for Lester what of value are they going to offer the third team?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 29, 2014 21:41:47 GMT -5
I know it's the right move for the team, but it's going to be sad to see him go, especially after he's made it clear how much he wants to be here. Plus, it's happened so fast that he never really got a farewell. We'll see what happens tomorrow if he's still on the team.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 28, 2014 16:39:22 GMT -5
Sure. I would trade Lester to the Orioles for Bundy in a heartbeat at this point. Ditto to Tor for a package including Stroman or Sanchez or straight-up for Encarnacion (who I'd stick in Left). With both teams dying to get back to the playoffs there may be true desperation by their GMs. Oh, and the only way Gomes gets traded to the Bronx this year is if Severino or Betances is coming back. And the MFYs aren't dumb or desperate enough to deal either for a rental platoon OF. Oh god, please not Aaron Sanchez... I think I would rather have the draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 27, 2014 16:20:50 GMT -5
I just can't believe these rumors that BC might trade Lester for Kemp. Even if they eat half his salary, that's still a worse value than just a draft pick. Kemp has been below replacement level for 2 years now. Can you really project him to be better overall than Nava in left? His defense is atrocious. Maybe top 50 prospect offers aren't on the table (though I would think they will be by Thursday) we should at least be able to get a couple of back end top 100 guys, which I would much prefer to Kemp.
|
|
|