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 foreverred9 on Aug 23, 2021 19:06:47 GMT -5
My main point is that there's different paths to getting to the same answer depending on how people value certain traits, and a single list loses that texture. Using formulas, it looks something like: Rank = X * Projection + Y * Probability + Z * Ceiling where X + Y + Z = 100%. This here is 3-dimensions on the right getting rolled up to 1 on the left (i.e. the list). Different people will have different ways to split X, Y, and Z. What a graph would do is allow us to see the components. For example Mayer would score high on ceiling and lower on probability while Houck would score lower on ceiling but high on probability. They'd end up on different spectrums of the chart and it would be easier to visualize how prospects compare (esp. when we see these top 100 lists). Your point on ranges is valid, that's another very important consideration. I don’t see how X + Y + Z must always equal 100. If so, how can you produce the list on the left? EDIT Oops, got it. But I think you could get an equally valid rating number by simply adding up the values, from 1-10 or 1-100 or any other array of your choice. So, I am going to use Mayer about whom I know next to nothing except what I read on this site. I set projection to 70, probability at 50 and ceiling at 85. Total 205. My formula sets each measure at equal strength but avoids extra steps. Yours allows one to value each element differently. Would you then want all players evaluated using constant values for each element? Or would you use different value for probability for example for a LowA player as opposed to a AAA player? That's definitely a reasonable way to do it. You could also do something like count projection twice and probability/ceiling once. Converting to percents just makes it easier to see how different rollups compare, since that doesn't change the ranking of individuals. In your example you're giving equal weights so 33% for each skill, my example is 50% projection, 25% prob/ceil. As such, the ranking often depends on how much one group weights one characteristic over another. Two people could pick the exact same ceiling and the exact same probability for two players but not have the same ranking because they have different views of importance.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 23, 2021 0:01:33 GMT -5
My main point is that there's different paths to getting to the same answer depending on how people value certain traits, and a single list loses that texture.
Using formulas, it looks something like:
Rank = X * Projection + Y * Probability + Z * Ceiling
where X + Y + Z = 100%. This here is 3-dimensions on the right getting rolled up to 1 on the left (i.e. the list). Different people will have different ways to split X, Y, and Z.
What a graph would do is allow us to see the components. For example Mayer would score high on ceiling and lower on probability while Houck would score lower on ceiling but high on probability. They'd end up on different spectrums of the chart and it would be easier to visualize how prospects compare (esp. when we see these top 100 lists).
Your point on ranges is valid, that's another very important consideration.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 22, 2021 22:11:23 GMT -5
This is the problem with trying to take a 3-dimensional cube and reduce the dimensions to a single point, with the 3 dimensions being most-likely projection, probability of reaching that projection, and ceiling.
Different evaluators give different weighting, and ones that over-weight the ceiling dimension I think end up pushing draftees up high on their list.
Instead of reducing dimensions to a point, I think it would be interesting to see different 2-dimensional plots. Such as ceiling and probability, that would give a more complete view than a list.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 22, 2021 19:06:18 GMT -5
Wyatt Olds loaded the bases with 0 outs, then struck out the next three on nine pitches. He's struck out 6 of 15 so far in the pros. For whatever reason, they aren't tracking pitches for the later innings this game. Blaze's HR looks to have been on a 3-0 pitch but MiLB has it on a 0-0 pitch. So I'm not sure I believe it took 9 pitches to K the side. Nevertheless, impressive work getting out of the jam.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 18, 2021 21:27:54 GMT -5
All due respect the bridge year argument went out the window when this team significantly overachieved. If the Sox miss the playoffs given the way they did it would be a massive disappointment. And its all Bloom's fault... Guess it was the players when they overachieved, but it was the front office when they regressed. The reality of the situation is that all parties are at fault. Don Caballaro's post above I think lays out the players perspective quite well, and there's an similar assessment to be made on the front office as well.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 18, 2021 21:08:00 GMT -5
It's just the opening salvo by the MLB to an unfortunately bitter and lengthy negotiation that will go on this fall/winter. I wouldn't carve those numbers in stone at all. It would be absolutely insane to think the MLBPA would accept a luxury tax threshold that is essentially the same as the previous CBA given the increase in revenues for MLB teams, but MLB is obviously going to go in with a low ball offer and MLBPA will ask for the world. Key word "opening salvo". Like any negotiation the MLB starts in NYC and the MLBPA starts in LA and they are walking to Kansas City, not flying. There's a long way to go before they get to an agreement in the middle. If I were the players, I'm more open to locking into a percentage of revenues. That ensures all parties are equally committed to growing the game. I know they hate that concept, but had they done so last time they would have made a ton of money.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 18, 2021 20:46:44 GMT -5
Yeah they added the best hitter moved at the deadline, they added the best pitcher a week after the deadline, and they’re a bunch of grown ass professionals that understand that For the love of god GET OVER IT, its sports radio BS that has no basis in reality I don't listen to sports radio. I have eyes. I've been watching sports for many decades. There IS an emotional/mental aspect to the game, even if you refuse to see it/admit it. They are human. I don't think anyone is arguing that their emotional and mental aspects of the game have significantly degraded, that's obvious. Tying it to this one specific event is what folks are struggling with rationalizing. And quite frankly if this team really did react this poorly to the trade deadline then they would have cratered under the pressure of the playoffs. But let's just keep ignoring that they were hanging by a thread for weeks prior to the trade deadline and were already in the collapse by the time the deadline happened. Adding a player or two also doesn't turn this 8-14 stretch into a 14-8 stretch.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 17, 2021 23:06:30 GMT -5
Seeing the Yanks at 17-5 with only a +19 run difference is agonizing, it's like twisting the dagger after having to deal with how poor the Sox have played. The Yanks aren't a good team, +24 runs on the season somehow translating into +16 in the win column.
On the flip side there's Toronto, +121 runs on the season yet only +8 in the win column.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 17, 2021 21:41:45 GMT -5
For Devers, yes. I'd rather spend extra to get someone in their 27-33 years rather than pay 8M per WAR to someone over 30.
Xander is tougher, paying for his 31-36 years is not a great business decision, but given how much he in engrained in the team, you might want to do it.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 17, 2021 19:28:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 17, 2021 11:17:42 GMT -5
Hernandez 4 Renfroe 8 Bogaerts 6 Devers 5 Martinez 9 Schwarber DH Vazquez 2 Verdugo 7 Dalbec 3 Are those positions right for today? JDM in right, Verdugo in left, and Renfroe in center. This is close to the optimal offensive lineup, in my opinion. JDM/Schwarber in LF/DH, Verdugo in CF, Renfrone in RF. Kiké at 2B, Dalbec at 1B. Maybe Plawecki over Vazquez. If Dalbec struggles I'd swap in Duran, move JDM to DH, Schwarber to 1B and run Verudgo/Duran/Renfroe in the outfield. And if Arroyo is healthy I'd put him at 2B, move Kiké back to CF, Verdugo to left, JDM to DH, Schwarber to 1B. That's a solid defensive lineup too, getting Kiké back to the outfield and someone solid in LF.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 16, 2021 19:06:55 GMT -5
Kiké's had the best OBP in the AL over the past 6 weeks, he's been great in the 1-spot.
Not opposed to moving XB/RD/JDM to 2-4 and getting Schwarber into the 5-spot, but ideally I think we'd just move Verdugo back into the 2-spot and put Renfroe at 7.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 16, 2021 18:19:39 GMT -5
Especially when 3/4/5 is Bogaerts, Devers, JDM.
There doesn't seem to be many times they've put lefties back-to-back in the order, so with Devers hitting 4th it's either 2nd or 6th for Schwarber.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 16, 2021 12:11:05 GMT -5
FCL and DSL games have been postponed. DSL games got cancelled, which is surprising since the teams are facing each other tomorrow and could have played a double-header. TD Grace passed through this morning but there are storms in the forecast tomorrow AM so it wouldn't surprise me if they don't play tomorrow either.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 20:34:39 GMT -5
What I'd be interested in seeing this study quantify are the other biases. For example, how does this bias compare to the home field bias, the superstar pitcher bias, the winning team bias, late-inning bias, etc.? I'm not sure some of those are real, but what I want to see is whether this is the most extreme bias, a top-3 bias, or just one of many equally-sized biases.
What I'm certain from reviewing this study is that more analysis should be done.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 14:40:03 GMT -5
Yikes
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 14:28:37 GMT -5
I know the numbers are against pitchers going through the order a 3rd time. We saw Houck cruise and then fall apart. But at some point a pitcher cruising has to be able to go through an order thrice. If not how do they ever learn how to? Is the idea to only develop 5 inning pitchers? We know ERod has been cruising. Sometimes it's a lift to remove a cruising pitcher (think back to the Yankees when Ottavino came in to relieve Eovaldi or the next day when German was lifted for Loiasaga and the Sox offense exploded. This isn't rocket science. We can probably count on ERod to have an ERA somewhere in the 4s going forward. Those three relievers I'd put at low-mid 3's. 3 is lower than 4. We don't even need to get into the third time through the order penalty. Sometimes the relievers will blow it, but I'd put my money on them blowing it less often. The benefit of having your starter go deep is that it gives your pen a break. The good relievers don't need a rest today.
I feel like it's more than the basic math that you are suggesting. Your expected 4 ERA for ERod isn't factoring in the condition that ERod is cruising. We know what we're getting from ERod today, we don't know what we're getting from the pen. So there's a lot of variance around getting 3 relievers (or more) to combine for the 3 ERA that you're expecting, whereas putting ERod back out with a quick hook likely doesn't have much variance. But anyways, it's moot because I would have pulled ERod now that it's 6-1 instead of 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 14:11:40 GMT -5
This guy is missing multiple pitches per at-bat This ump isn't helping with the umpire bias study, that was atrocious. The Verdugo at bat should be shown at his year-end review (if they even do that).
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 14:03:49 GMT -5
Don't blame ERod for being mad about coming out of the game. He's been cruising. I hate this they can't go beyond six innings stuff. Cora must really want to get Ottavino and Barnes (whitlock, perhaps) some work? Agree, this is a game the bullpen absolutely cannot lose. If we win it's water under the bridge and the team will be 6-3 in ERod's last 9 starts. If we lose, there will be a ton of second guessing since it was 6-7-8-9 coming up and ERod was at 83 pitches and cruising.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 13:59:11 GMT -5
ERod looking good, 3 straight strong starts and 7 of the past 9. Just what we need for the rest of the year.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 13:30:57 GMT -5
So the Sox are 15th in mlb for men LOB with 14.24 per game (this is about 1.5 fewer than last year btw). You know who's best? Cleveland at 12.93. Worst? Dodgers at 15.94. www.teamrankings.com/mlb/stat/left-on-base-per-gameJust seems to be one of those things that stand out in one's mind - probably because it's soo aggrivatinga I suspect there's a difference between pre-July and July/August, their MOB splits have gotten worse throughout the year.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 13:21:42 GMT -5
Travis Shaw? Really? Not good news for the 'Schwarber at 1st base' people. Ya know what would've made both those moves unnecessary? Trading for Rizzo. An actual competent legitimate 1st baseman. Oh dear, not this again. Sox squander bases loaded and we're back to the trade deadline debate.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 13:16:41 GMT -5
We sure are adding a bunch of base cloggers for the lineup. Not sure how to feel about this. At least they're able to get on the bases?
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 15, 2021 1:00:59 GMT -5
As good a place as any for this breakdown of the 2-10 nosedive. All I did was take the season WPA before the painfulness and pro-rate it to 12 games, as an expected figure, and then calculate how much better or worse their actual WPA was. No adjustments for PT or leverage. Name wDiff Matt Barnes -1.40 Nathan Eovaldi -1.14 Martin Perez -0.56 Rafael Devers -0.56 J.D. Martinez -0.48 Franchy Cordero -0.29 Christ. Vazquez -0.24 Alex Verdugo -0.21 Christi. Arroyo -0.18 by absence Xander Bogaerts -0.15 Marwin Gonzalez -0.14 Garre. Richards -0.12 Garre. Whitlock -0.12 Yacksel Rios -0.11 Jonathan Arauz -0.08 Brandon Workman -0.07 Josh Taylor -0.06 Jarren Duran -0.06 Hansel Robles -0.05 Austin Davis -0.04 Hunter Renfroe -0.03 Martin Perez -0.02 Phillips Valdez -0.01 Michael Chavis 0.01 Darw. Hernandez 0.01 Bobby Dalbec 0.03 Kevin Plawecki 0.04 Danny Santana 0.06 by not playing Connor Wong 0.07 Edua. Rodriguez 0.11 Enri. Hernandez 0.11 Tanner Houck 0.18 Hirok. Sawamura 0.22 Matt Andriese 0.23 by not pitching Nick Pivetta 0.28 Adam Ottavino 0.42
Thanks Eric. So I assume it's essentially comparing a 7-5 normal stretch to a 2-10 actual stretch, which should mean that the math rolls up to a -5. Which I'd chalk up to: - Barnes -1.4 - Eovaldi/Perez -1.7 - Big 4 (XB, RD, JDM, AV) -1.4 - Other batters -0.5ish - All other should sum to 0 So essentially all aspects of the team's leadership sucked at the exact same time, and they were all equal contributors. In hindsight I'm not surprised to see Eovaldi up at the top, as I mentioned in another thread how much his two starts hurt us by not killing the losing stretch, but that was more an emotional reaction so it's interesting WPA also saw that. I wouldn't have picked him #2 unprompted.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Aug 14, 2021 20:22:17 GMT -5
Yorke with a BB in his first AB to extend is on-base streak.
|
|
|