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 cologneredsox on May 31, 2015 11:20:46 GMT -5
My point is, wherever these projection systems are getting their numbers from, they're clearly not from Wright's stats. Give me one reason why I should be less skeptical about the PECOTA/ZiPS/Steamer projections than you are about the Marcel projection. I suspect the main reason those projections are so negative is that Wright is 30 (turns 31 in August) and his peripherals have never been that impressive. He puts up decent FIPs because he doesn't give up many homers, but that could just be small sample noise. His walk and strikeout numbers have been pretty meh in both the majors (9.6% K-BB%) and the minors (8.7% K-BB% since 2013), and he's not a huge ground ball guy. Regardless, my point is that there is absolutely objective evidence suggesting that Johnson might be a better rotation option than Wright. Here is some more-- since the start of 2013, minor league stats only: Wright: 273.1 IP, 18% K, 9.3% BB, 8.7% K-BB%, 3.26 ERA, 3.94 FIP Johnson: 295.0 IP, 24.1% K, 8% BB, 16.1% K-BB%, 2.38 ERA, 3.07 FIP ADD: all that said, I think neither Wright nor Johnson get a rotation spot-- they're working with a 6-man rotation at the moment, and Wright probably gets shifted to relief or optioned to the minors after he makes his next start. I'm not giving up on Joe Kelly and his 4.11 SIERA yet. Isn't that cherry picking a little? Not sure and on the road but the stats from wright seem all to come from pitching in AAA while Johnsons include AA and even high A if I'm not completely remembering it wrong...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 31, 2015 3:24:10 GMT -5
As much as I respect your knowledge of sabermetric aspects and value what info it can give, recently I really am perplexed how radical you use these infos as the only truth. While I love how this game get's analyzed with the numbers and how much info they provide, I really think sometimes it get's forgotten that it's still being played by human beings and sudden changes in performance (outside normal regression or progression norms) can happen. Of course it's possible that the underlying talent has changed. The issue here is that the 2 AB sample isn't going to confirm or deny that. Josh Hamilton homering twice off Steven Wright is much more likely to mean that Wright flukily threw two mistake pitches to the same guy rather than that Hamilton suddenly developed a magic ability to homer off any knuckleball. Recency bias is something that happens to human brains a lot. Would people be so vehement to defend their conclusions if we were talking about a 2 AB sample from a week ago rather than from the same day? Probably not. But there is no proof whatsoever that the 2 AB sample from the same day is at all special. It is just as random as any other sample. And the knuckleball really is a bit special here. I do think Farrell could theoretically see something like "hey, you're tipping off your slider to this guy and he's really good at hitting it, don't throw him any more sliders." But for knuckleballs? Nuh-uh. As Eric has preached so often, a perfect knuckleball will break randomly. It's possible a hitter might be particularily good at fouling those off, but hitting homers? I just don't believe it. I'm totally with you about the Knuckler making the two HRs potentially less likely a sign for Hamiltin figuring Wright out. But even Eric admitted that the Knuckler can be figured out if thrown with to much rotation. What if Hamilton is able to see which knucklers rotate more? Still, it's more likely the two HR were flukey. I wouldn't have brought Wright out, but an IBB seems logical. It doesn't matter anyways: As long as we're seeing these problems our offense is having, those decisions don't seem to have any affect at all...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 30, 2015 20:05:04 GMT -5
My disagreement is based on one very simple aspect: Your example completely ignores the time factor. There is one year between your 3-AB sample and the 2-AB sample. No, if I were ignoring the time factor I would be telling you that the 2 AB sample is no more meaningful than a 2 AB sample a year ago, rather than a 3 AB sample a year ago. Look, what I'm telling you is not that one is more meaningful than the other, it's that they're both equally meaningless. That is absolutely standard sabremetric orthodoxy. Tangotiger @tangotiger · May 26 New rule for me: anyone who cites anything fewer than 300 IP for a pitcher and 1000 PA for a batter will get an unfollow from me. Tangotiger @tangotiger · May 26 If you have 1000 PA, would you rather know the 300 most recent, or the 700 prior to that? For any metric of your choosing. Tangotiger @tangotiger · May 27 Usually, the most recent 400-450 tells you as much as the previous 550-600. The interesting ones are those outside this range. I'm not arguing against both a 2 AB sample and a 3 AB sample being relatively meaningless. And I never argued against sabermetric standards et al. Look again which sentence of yours I didn't agree with. The argument a 3 AB sample a year ago means more than a 2 AB sample today (or the other way around) just came off totally wrong to me, and I stand by that. As much as I respect your knowledge of sabermetric aspects and value what info it can give, recently I really am perplexed how radical you use these infos as the only truth. While I love how this game get's analyzed with the numbers and how much info they provide, I really think sometimes it get's forgotten that it's still being played by human beings and sudden changes in performance (outside normal regression or progression norms) can happen. It seems to me that every single little move that's made or not made get's analyzed how it stands sabermetricely. I think many of the decisions aren't being made only based on sabermetric evaluations, and I think that's not necessary a mistake. You have to find the right mix.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 30, 2015 18:54:19 GMT -5
Hey, feel free to get the data and show that 2 ABs from the same day have any sort of predictive value. The methodology should be easy enough - look at Chapter 2 of The Book where they found negligible predictive value for 5- and 7-game hot/cold streaks. Present your findings and start a sabremetric revolution! Don't worry, I'll let you work on that. I'm really not much of an revolutionary myself and even less so to competent in sabremetrics. My disagreement is based on one very simple aspect: Your example completely ignores the time factor. There is one year between your 3-AB sample and the 2-AB sample. Given that the people acting in that sample are baseball players, it seems obvious to me they very well are not the exact same players today in comparison to the people they were one year ago. Both could have improved their skills, both could've declined. Both could've changed their skills, one could've adjusted better, the other one less... If you really want to tell me that three ABs a year ago are more meaningful than two ABs which just happened, especially if they've been radical in their results, I think you're using saber metrics the wrong way because you totally ignore context. By that, IMO, you misuse something which can be totally helpful not to your advantage but let it steer you wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 30, 2015 4:43:01 GMT -5
Sure it's a sample size of two ABs, but it's two ABs in tonight's game. That's different than a manager making decisions based on a small number of ABs stretching over years. Absolutely not. 2 ABs today might tell you more than 2 ABs a year ago, but they don't tell you more than 3 ABs a year ago. I disagree
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 29, 2015 9:34:14 GMT -5
www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26472Him and Diaz got scouted by old friend Chris Mellen. Given I read Owens threw 92 already on some occasions this year, I think the projected peak velocity is a little low. To bad the slider wasn't thrown or not enough to be evaluated. Chris was always a little less enthusiastic about him than others, overall an encouraging report by him.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 27, 2015 13:48:19 GMT -5
Meatball
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 27, 2015 13:28:13 GMT -5
Who awakend pedey? Please don't stop with him, the others are sleeping, too.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 27, 2015 4:02:42 GMT -5
Yeah, wasn't Bogaerts in the Top 5 a few years ago? I'm tired of getting excited about our prospects, who end up either underperforming in the MLB or are just overrated. I'll get excited about them from now on when they start to actually produce. Dude... 22 year old league average SS with a lot of projection left and you think he doesn't produce? Most of the guys his age aren't even in AAA yet.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 27, 2015 3:47:19 GMT -5
news.soxprospects.com/2015/05/the-write-up-henry-owens.htmlNice writeup by Chaz, it's good to read that some of Hanks results this year may be based on him trying to develop his offerings which lag behind. And it really was a good point that he still is the 8th youngest SP in AAA, for still one of our prospects I regard very highly and continiue to dream on.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 24, 2015 16:16:39 GMT -5
Xander rocks!
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 17, 2015 5:12:33 GMT -5
Mitchel Lichtman @mitchellichtman · 4h4 hours ago One reason why most managers are terrible strategists: "[We] saw Cruz's first three at-bats, he was chasing some offspeed below the... Mitchel Lichtman @mitchellichtman · 4h4 hours ago ... zone. He was 1-for-8 against Taz previously. Didn't work out. That's a terrible decision on my part." So first he uses BvP and last 3... Mitchel Lichtman @mitchellichtman · 4h4 hours ago ...AB to make a decision. Then he is results-based in regretting that decision. You think this guy has any shot at making optimal decisions Mitchel Lichtman @mitchellichtman · 4h4 hours ago ...on a regular basis? No, he does not. This may be a bit too harsh. Of course he has to say that. If he'd said he sticks by the decision, he would've gotten killed by the media and also some posters around here. Doesn't mean he thought it was a mistake what he did and even if: he could've pointed out that he just underestimated how good a hitter Cruz is these days.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 17, 2015 5:02:07 GMT -5
Rookies who struggled last year: Gregory Polanco Travis d'Arnaud Oscar Taveras (RIP) Javier Baez Kolten Wong Billy Hamilton I think most Red Sox fans (and, understandably, people posting on a Red Sox forum) tend to pay closest attention to a very small universe consisting mostly of the Red Sox themselves. However, the theme of rookies having a difficult time adjusting to the majors at the plate was prevalent throughout baseball last season, with the common refrain becoming that the gap between Triple-A and the majors is as large now as it ever has been for hitters, given how much better pitching has gotten (in a general sense - you can argue things like strike zone, lack of PEDs, etc., but it's the general trend). The runaway AL Rookie of the Year was a 27yo who had played for years in Cuba, and no other AL hitter got real ROY consideration. In the NL, Hamilton finished second and Wong finished third to deGrom even though they both had sub-.700 OPS's, due to defense and baserunning mostly. To pin the struggles of the likes of Bogaerts and Bradley only on the Red Sox is to not see the whole picture. They aren't to be absolved from blame and surely took a hard look internally (see their creation of the "mental coaching staff" this offseason, or whatever they actually called it). But what should they do with Bogaerts? Send him back to Triple-A to hit .290/.370/.500 so that we can all feel warm and fuzzy about him again while he learns nothing? The only way he's going to learn to hit major league pitching is to face major league pitching. Last point: If you think Mookie Betts is struggling, you aren't paying attention. He's not having a great last three games or so, but he's arguably been the best player on this team when you factor in defense and baserunning (Hanley has inarguably been the best hitter), and has been their most unlucky hitter. He'll be fine. (By the way - Betts, Ortiz, and Hanley all have LD% higher than their BABIP. Ortiz you can blame on the shift and Hanley on a high GB% perhaps, but Betts's numbers are definitely going to rebound.) Best post in while. Should be pinned.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 9, 2015 6:27:47 GMT -5
How Chili Davis might be sleeping these days...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 9, 2015 6:27:05 GMT -5
Thx for reminding me to finally unfollow him in Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 7, 2015 11:43:54 GMT -5
... This has a chance to turn really ugly...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on May 6, 2015 3:34:45 GMT -5
Lin with a HR???
And a bad outing by Stank...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 30, 2015 8:04:22 GMT -5
Wow, can't wait for the writeup from Ian, the news about the slider could be a gamechanger!
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 28, 2015 8:24:54 GMT -5
Lots of reasons not to let good prospects get bored. They may regress, or feel that less work is required to succeed. They miss opportunities to develop at a young age when muscle memory (or whatever it is) is easier to form. They may get hurt in the future, causing them to lose development or performance time. They may be ready for the Rule 5 draft at some point and you'd like to have a good look at upper levels by then/be ready to start burning options. I don't want to rush Margot (and certainly not for a club need), but I do want him to move at his own pace. His performance and scouting look will tell us if he needs more time at any given level, and continued performance (and scouting?) at this pace will tell us he needs to be challenged in order to keep growing. That could change, but if it doesn't in the next 100 at bats, I'll be clamoring for a promotion. If he falls off a bunch, then we can say he's not quite ready. I don't see any cases of our prospects getting bored by playing a full season at a level. Especially, high school and Latin prospects. I am starting to see evidence we've rushed some guys thru and some of their growing pains in MLB might be attributed to that; Bradley, Bogaerts and Betts. The Question is: What will those player be like in their third season (or, having played a full season on each level, their first). It seems likely they struggle for a while before they get really comfortable. It's not always obvious more seasoning in the minors would've been the better option. In short: I think Okin made a very good point. I mean, just look at some all-time greats and imagine their BP-Pages (and HOF-chances, for that matter) if those would have had to play a full year on each level. I don't say Margot is on their level. But as long as he is clearly ahead of his opposition, he shouldn't have to wait to long to get tested again, if we want him to develop as good as possible.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 24, 2015 3:13:22 GMT -5
It sometimes seems to be forebidden to do around here... EVEN if you write that you're dreaming...
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 23, 2015 1:47:51 GMT -5
Guys, just for clearance: I never compared Margot with Mookie, I gave Mookie as an example that things can turn out faster than expected.
So, one more time: forget this fall, let's talk mid to late 2016: we could have 3-4 more than capable cf then. Would you let them play all three of-spots or are we saying goodbye to some of them if all turns out as we wish?
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 21, 2015 9:09:23 GMT -5
You had much more funny jokes before... Given the fact all people around here were thinking about how the outfield could work out BEGINNING in October, I don't see how we will not be thinking about where to fit Margot. Of course IF he reaches AAA and makes an impression over there in the second half. IF he reaches AAA it will be very late this year. Worst case scenario, out of Betts, Castillo, Ramirez, Victorino, Nava and Craig, 5 will be in MLB and 1 will be on the DL or traded. Then you have JBJ and Brentz in Pawtucket, still leaves one starting outfield spot available. Even if they've moved, say, Cecchini to the outfield then, Brentz can sit a few, you have a DH, and Cecchini can still play some 3B/1B at times. If Quintin Berry has to sit on the bench, well BOOHOO. I think Quintin Berry is a great person, but he's a AAAA player. I really don't see a problem. If I remeber right, I wrote that we'd 'might' have a good problem as early as this fall, if he's the real deal (which meant something like a Mookie-progression). If that's the case, or even better: let's say all of thos happens in mid 2016, he obviously would become a serious option to start, in short: you don't want to waste such a player on the bench or even in Fenways left field given the huge vibes about his defense (the same debate we had with Mookie in ST). Suddenly we'd be having three to four capable centerfielders. So I'd not see the space on the mlb roster as the potential 'problem' but the fact that we'd possibly have to many whose best fit would be CF. But no misunderstandings: First of all, he could bust, JBJ could be gone, Rusney better suited for left field in '16 and so on. Even the scenario described above would be a good situation since we'd have assets who could bring us real value. But, it might be just me (although many others seem to feel at least a little bit alike), choosing wich player to trade is certainly a hard decision.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 18, 2015 7:47:18 GMT -5
What really get's me after buying this years mlb the show is: Mookie is looking way more like him in the modded mvp game and there are ten years between the programmed graphic engines!
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 18, 2015 3:14:17 GMT -5
Margot could grow to be a (good) problem as early as late in the season, it seems. Wow, yeah, that would be really bad if we had to dump... uh... uhm... Blake Tekotte? You had much more funny jokes before... Given the fact all people around here were thinking about how the outfield could work out BEGINNING in October, I don't see how we will not be thinking about where to fit Margot. Of course IF he reaches AAA and makes an impression over there in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Apr 17, 2015 8:37:15 GMT -5
www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/16/manuel-margot-creating-buzz-salem/Y0SkIKcdXgYTbCYx2M9a0M/story.htmlI hope this is enpugh of a reason to bump his thread back on the first page... Margot could grow to be a (good) problem as early as late in the season, it seems. I know, more likely is next year, but he's not that far away from double a. With Mookie in town, Rusney and JBJ around, it still would bother me to draft him away. But if he keeps holding his own he should at least be able to net us a real good return, don't you think?
|
|
|