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 joshv02 on Dec 23, 2013 12:22:09 GMT -5
I really don't want to see the league fill up with a bunch of former stars playing way past their normal retirement age just because they're still owed $20 million a year. Hell A-Rod might be in single A at 43. I just want to see the best players playing. And that's what contracts that last too long probably will prevent at some point. Aren't your interests aligned with the team? Why don't you think the teams will just figure that out themselves and give you what you want?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2013 11:29:10 GMT -5
You're not signing a contract in the future today, you're signing it in today's today. And if the expected value is 2 WAR 5 years from now, recasting the forecast in the future will yield either a higher or lower result. That is the point, though. Tomorrow's today has a range of potential outcomes, and as that tomorrow becomes further from today, that range is less and less known. So my confidence level around the 2 WAR player 5 years from now is lower. If you believe that forward looking models incorrectly assume a higher degree of knowledge then is appropriate (what I believe), then you may (as I do) believe that the "forecast in the future will yield ... lower result[ s ]" more systemically than is typically expected. Absolutely - and that is typically where I agree. However, I think the tail of outcomes is different. I think there is a very insignificant chance that the player will be a 2+ WAR player in 5 years from now, yet a very significant chance that he'll be worth zero (either b/c of injury, diminished of skills, etc.) In other words, the tail is fat and unevenly distributed. (If you read Black Swan, you'll understand what I mean - there a larger than assumed chance of catastrophic loss, and a less than assumed chance of excess return.) Put it this way: project 20 players to be worth 2 WAR in 5 years using our standard conventions (take next year's WAR and apply a straight line aging pattern - usually (0.5 WAR) per year after peak). I'm saying that of the 20 players, the average will be significantly lower than 2.0 WAR, very few will exceed 2.0 WAR, some will hit it exactly, and a good deal will be much lower. The histogram will look like this (completely made up): 0-1 WAR = 8 1-1.5 WAR = 3 2 WAR = 8 >2.5 WAR = 1 Basically, I think aging patterns lacked an actuarial basis - they built in survivorship bias. If you make it to 35, you'll see a 0.5 WAR drop. If you don't, however, you'll see a 100% drop - and that potential for catastrophic loss is what the Red Sox are projecting against. I don't know if it is correct. It makes sense to me (the oft-repeated "falls off a cliff" player is reasonable to assume). But, I'd need better aging studies than what I've seen (or more time to build my own, which won't happen) to see if it makes sense given better facts.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 23, 2013 10:38:28 GMT -5
Agreed that a longer deal is generally better ... but for the limitations on the ability to predict the future.
As you need to predict further and further away from today, I have less and less confidence. So while yes, an expected 2 WAR player in 2018 should be expected to be worth X $ today, the 2 WAR player is likely a 0-3 WAR player, with most likely outcomes (given what we know today) clustered in the 1.5-2.5 range. But, what we know today changes overtime (!) and the range of potential outcomes is most likely to tail downwards (Choo has a much lower chance of being a 4 WAR player in 2018 vs. a 0 WAR player).
In other words, the fat tail is unevenly distributed to the left of the curve, and an emphasis on shorter term contracts recognize that. You are essentially paying an "option" to exclude harder-to-forecast years.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 21, 2013 14:16:23 GMT -5
Well it's not really that simple if they are total cost of living in NYC vs Arlington. There are lots of good arguments. But the tweet focused on income tax difference. That difference isn't worth 13% (17/130).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 21, 2013 13:32:13 GMT -5
13% is awfully high; likely it's less than half that, and likely even less.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 20, 2013 10:15:41 GMT -5
gets punched out by at least two teammates (Jason Place) or has other The first one was publicized recently; who was the second teammate?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 20, 2013 9:14:32 GMT -5
You know what'd be a great advance in message board technology? Content-based "ignore" features ... that way, at a certain point, you could choose a few key words (just spitballing here, but say maybe some word like, I dunno, "Choo"), and poof ... no more posts on that. That'd be cool. Also, the ability to exercise self-control -- that would be awesome technology. (You know this isn't directed to you!)
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 19, 2013 23:28:03 GMT -5
I still don't get where Farrell was coming from when he said he didn't want to start JBJ in CF unless he had more pop from the corner OF positions. I guess he was talking about maybe Beltran or Gomes. I can't see a lot of other options there. He said "corner" not "corner ofer" and he was talking about Napoli. Also: please share your drugs.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 18, 2013 20:31:16 GMT -5
Morales had turned from a possible starting pitcher into an injury prone LOOGY in the last year and a half. I think oft-injured pitchers can sometimes appear to offer a level of upside that they don't really possess, because they're not actually on the field long enough to regress. I call this the Buchholz Principle. In addition to that... he isn't that good. Lifetime 1.7 BB/SO ratio (though 2.29 with the Sox as a reliever), with a ton of HRs given up (even though he plays 1/2 his games in a ballpark that depresses HRs for opposite handed batters - mainly due to a really bad FB rate). Perfectly fine 6th or 7th reliever. But he is injured often, has no options, and has no role with the team. He was a DFA candidate at ST. Martin is likely less good than Morales, but he is a great story and I wish he could succeed in Boston. Herrera isn't good, but they needed a non-awful backup IFer with an option (in addition to it being his last option year, he earns the right to refuse assignment at some point in 2014). Ehh. OK.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 18, 2013 13:01:16 GMT -5
Do we assume he has a better offer in hand? I suspect he has a Red Sox deal for 2 years at $20mm a year that he'll accept. /Lavarnwaydude.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 18, 2013 8:51:41 GMT -5
Yeah, read the many articles by Garrett Broshuis (and for the [new] lawyers, he has a law review article on SSRN, complete with charts of average salaries [flawed though they are] and other goodies).
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 23:46:49 GMT -5
Badler via Twitter also said that "under the table payments" are illegal, but happen in MLB. He wasn't offering evidence, but then again, 140 characters, and that's a rumbling that's been out there for years. Then again, you had an official MLB investigator offering a brown paper bag with more than $100K cash for some of ARod's records, so…. Search for articles about Jose Rijo.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 11:13:22 GMT -5
There are a lot of things that we simply shouldn't have a very strong opinion on absent a lot more knowledge. Soooooo none of us should be posting here? If I was any good, I'd put in an up an ASCII venn diagram. There are a lot of things people can have strong opinions about. If the Red Sox had insisted that Victorino eat, pray, and masturbate (and never get surgery for anything) in order to heal his torn ligament, we would have a good basis to believe that was pretty . Someone who actually has knowledge in this field could give a whole host of interesting points. It is of course useful to ask questions, and to prod towards the direction of an opinion. And, of course, people can post whatever they want (at least, I don’t have the power to say otherwise). Lord knows I read and write enough stupid things on the tubes and can’t stop any of it but my own. But, I'm of the very strong opinion (heh - I know) that people here – and in other walks of life – should really reserve opinions a lot more than they do, in general.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 10:12:28 GMT -5
Roberts played 133 games -- total -- the last 3 years and has a 71 OPS+. I suppose they just need the right-handed half of a platoon, but its an odd bench - a 2B only backup, a 2B/LFer as a starter, three backup OFs, all non-CFers at this point (though their LFer is the backup CFer), and presumably an 11 man pen (made up of who knows what).
So, their backup 3B is really an OFer; their backup SS is a bad starting 3B (assuming an ARod suspension of some sort), who is also their back-up 1B.
What a weird mash-up of talent.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 10:07:44 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, but what actually makes anyone a scout? There is no licensing or certification or qualification standards. There are standardized scouting schools/programs.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 17, 2013 8:26:09 GMT -5
Shane Victorino has thumb surgery. Excerpt: But given that the procedure requires a relatively short recovery period, a decision was made to see if the thumb would heal on its own. When it did not, the decision to undergo surgery was made.How many players have they told this to - and ultimately they have gotten surgery? It's the story of how they messed up Kalish's career, and strung out a list of others. Better question - has anyone heard of this advice given to delay and hope for full healing and it actually worked? Yes. www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/sports/baseball/elbow-ligaments-stability-a-key-in-harvey-choice.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&Seriously, the reason why this gets my gander - as I noted in the Kalish thread - is that it is just so talk radio-ish. Everyone has an opinion about everything. Of course surgeons, doctors, and teams can think to themselves "will this work?" There are reasonable ranges of outcomes even for correct decisions - if one out of six UCL surgery's don't go well, what level of risk should people be willing to take? Why is that a concrete answer rather than a set of preferences guided by a lot of empirical data that we don't really know? How badly was Victorino's ligament torn? Is there a "decision point"? What did the doctors say? Where there second opinions? What is standard? What have other players done? Has he had an injury there before? Etc. Side story: At the store, I overheard two people talking about Amazon's proposal to have drones deliver goods to people via drones. One called them "droids" while decrying the fact that the drones would run into people's heads everywhere and how this was obviously a bad idea. How people can be simultaneously so uninformed yet so sure of an opinion is beyond me. Why can't people just say to themselves and others "I don't know" or "I have doubts that will turn out well," rather than "what an awful idea." There are a lot of things that we simply shouldn't have a very strong opinion on absent a lot more knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 16, 2013 11:44:26 GMT -5
or by using what others told him in combination to his own views. That is how virtually all the BA lists are compiled
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 16, 2013 8:55:55 GMT -5
Thanks, Eric. FWIW, I get a 404 error when I click on the minor EqA links: claydavenport.com/stats/pageEASpeak.shtml I think that the obvious objections to using PBP data for minor league players is itself probably, well, obvious so I won't continue to belabor it. Frankly, I find minor league pbp data to be worthless if not proprietary. (Technically: A point that JC Bradbury makes repeatedly -- As the average player won't be a .260 eqa and 0 defensive player [that is an above average player], you likely shouldn't just add them into the same formula with the .260 baseline implying average. Second, even assuming defensive stats with some significance, you'd have to age them differently than the component stats - like Clay suggests for speed vs. power, and as Tango has on his site -- such that they do not necessarily peak at age 27.) Yes, I'd love to see the formula. Thanks for making it public.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 15, 2013 20:42:19 GMT -5
If our injury-prone, undersized 2B gets injured ... Agreed otherwise, but he averaged 155 games the past three years.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 13, 2013 14:40:23 GMT -5
Quoting portions in order to sarcastically deride them is called using scare quotes. Think Chris Farley in SNL. Or if you are too young (or old, I suppose ) for that, use teh Google.
It's what you did.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 13, 2013 14:29:22 GMT -5
Dola: in other words, surgery may have been better there but who knows if we should have known that ahead of time.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 13, 2013 14:28:05 GMT -5
Major league players who rehabbed instead of having surgery in 2013. Ortiz, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Buchholz. Ex-ante, which were the right decisions?
I may be a little strong but it seems to be that's its second guessing of the worst kind - sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes the right (or one of multiple right) courses of action still leads to a bad result. The circumstantial - the med staff changed, but without any indication that this was related to Kalish, of course, or that other docs would have offered a different course of treatment - is conspiratorial, to me. It reeks of thinking someone should have an opinion about everything.
It could be right. It's just unfounded without so something more - like a single doc suggesting that would have been the smarter course.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 13, 2013 12:03:08 GMT -5
Not a surprise there. He can get a better opportunity with another organization. The Red Sox medical staff really screwed him up big time. When in doubt always opt for surgery. Rest and rehab never tends to work. Anything to back that up or just a random, there-must-be-someone-to-blame Felger-like opinion?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 12, 2013 17:56:35 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it a rumor. Just logical speculation but completely made up. I like reading Sox Stats, too, but he rarely posts here these days.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 12, 2013 15:19:15 GMT -5
using minor league pbp data ... For a catcher. No problems there! It's based on the hardest possible data: SB, CS, PB, WP, and it's been adjusted for confounding variables and context by one of the best sabermetricians on the planet. It absolutely represents his actual performance relative to his minor league peers, which is all I claimed to be measuring, indeed, all I wanted to measure. So when you wrote, while defining the defensive stats, "in this case the percentage of balls hit near a fielder that were turned into outs, as tweaked by one of the sharpest saber guys around" you were referring only to non-C defensive stats? Are you relying on minor league pbp data at all? If not, how do you determine if a ball is hit "near a fielder" such that it could be turned into an out? 1. Are the only defensive stats for C you are using SB/CS, PB & WP? How does that add roughly 20 points of EqA? 2. How are you adding in defensive runs saved for non-Cs? 3. I personally don't like the idea of adding in defensive runs saved to EqA as EqA works off of a .260 league average baseline, and by adding in defensive stats without truing up the .260 baseline, I don't know what the numbers really mean - other than one is higher than the other. I get the simplicity of it - just take a roughly RCs formula, put it into a format that looks like EqA, and include everything you'd like. I don't think it should work that way without a tweaking of the baseline/denominator. But, that is technical and not really that important. 4. Where can I see these defensive stats? I love Clay's work - have for years - but merely being labeled "Davenport translations" doesn't really do it for me.* I let my bpro account lapse years ago, so if you tell me that they are just in the sortable stats there I'll believe you - I don't see them in the publicly available. * The continual reliance on authority - Clay or Tom - is not convincing. It also isn't how they grew their name back in the usenet, then fanhome, days - as you know. No one cares who has the idea - people only care if the idea is good.
|
|
|