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.
Player of the Week, 6/2-8
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 8, 2014 23:08:02 GMT -5
Rafael Devers (DSL) - 6 G, 22 AB, 29 PA, 10 H, 3 3B, 4 R, 6 RBI, 5 BB/5 K, 1 SB (0 CS), .455/.552/.727 Derrik Gibson (POR) - 6 G, 22 AB, 28 PA, 10 H, 2 2B, 3 R, 7 RBI, 5 BB/4 K, 3 SB (0 CS), .455/.571/.545 Kevin Heller (SAL) - 5 G, 14 AB, 22 PA, 5 H, 1 HR, 6 R, 2 RBI, 5 BB/4 K, 4 SB (0 CS), .357/.591/.571 Kendrick Perkins (GRE) - 7 G, 26 AB, 27 PA, 10 H, 2 HR, 4 R, 4 RBI, 1 BB/7 K, .385/.407/.615 Jonathan Roof (POR) - 6 G, 18 AB, 22 PA, 7 H, 2 2B, 2 3B, 5 R, 2 RBI, 4 BB/3 K, .389/.500/.722 Sabermetric StatsVote for your choice and discuss in the thread below. As always, please vote on weekly performance rather than prospect status or ranking. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,925
Member is Online
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 9, 2014 0:08:25 GMT -5
This was one of the easiest calls of the year, and I'm surprised it''s not unanimous.
For Gibson to have matched Devers, he would have had to have gotten up once more, and tripled (Gibson's 2 extra SB are perfectly offset by Devers having 2 other triples and Gibson 2 doubles). Roof would have had to have gone 3/4, BB, HBP, SF to have matched Devers in BA and OBP (and edged him in SA).
|
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 9, 2014 7:49:36 GMT -5
This was one of the easiest calls of the year, and I'm surprised it''s not unanimous. For Gibson to have matched Devers, he would have had to have gotten up once more, and tripled (Gibson's 2 extra SB are perfectly offset by Devers having 2 other triples and Gibson 2 doubles). Roof would have had to have gone 3/4, BB, HBP, SF to have matched Devers in BA and OBP (and edged him in SA). Uhm, what are you talking about? Roof .550 wOBA Gibson .534 wOBA Devers .529 wOBA Now Roof does have a handful less PA, that's fair enough, but I'm not going to punish Gibson for having one PA less than Devers. Meanwhile, Devers' high number of triples may well be due to park factors or bad defense than any special skill of his. And wOBA does not yet include the SB. Also when two players have essentially the same performance, I do think it's fair to hand it to the one at a higher level. |
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Jun 9, 2014 8:53:49 GMT -5
Even when the two players in question are 24yo in the 3rd year at the level and 6th year in the system vs. a 17yo making his pro debut?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 9, 2014 9:30:05 GMT -5
Even when the two players in question are 24yo in the 3rd year at the level and 6th year in the system vs. a 17yo making his pro debut? The instructions clearly state that I should disregard prospect status and vote based on performance only, so yes. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 9, 2014 9:33:12 GMT -5
Even when the two players in question are 24yo in the 3rd year at the level and 6th year in the system vs. a 17yo making his pro debut? The instructions clearly state that I should disregard prospect status and vote based on performance only, so yes. I'm all for jury nullification so I'm not following the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by ibsmith85 on Jun 9, 2014 9:43:04 GMT -5
Even when the two players in question are 24yo in the 3rd year at the level and 6th year in the system vs. a 17yo making his pro debut? The instructions clearly state that I should disregard prospect status and vote based on performance only, so yes. Yes, except you previously said that in the case where the performances are essentially the same, go with the player at the higher level, so the rules are out the window at that point, and you're making a judgement call based on the player not the stat line. Anyways, wasn't arguing, was just curious. I voted for Devers, because like you said the numbers were very close and I'm more impressed by a 17yo kid making his debut in grand fashion than I am a 24yo org guy repeating the level for a 3rd time. Just a difference in our tie-breaking logic. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 9, 2014 9:48:33 GMT -5
Yes, except you previously said that in the case where the performances are essentially the same, go with the player at the higher level, so the rules are out the window at that point, and you're making a judgement call based on the player not the stat line. My theory is just that there'll be slightly less variance/randomness at higher levels, so if you've got the same absolute performance above average, it's likely to reflect a higher number of standard deviations above average at the higher level, and also less likely to have come due to particularily bad pitching/defense/etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 9, 2014 23:11:34 GMT -5
FYI, "prospect status" means don't vote for a player based on whether he's going to be a better major leaguer.
You can absolutely take into account things like relative age to level and things like that.
What we don't want, for example, is for people to vote for Devers instead of Roof based on the fact that one guy is a prospect and the other is an org guy, based on principle. But if you think it's close, you can break the tie in a number of legitimate ways if you want. We just don't want the thinking to go "this guy probably had the best week, but I really want to vote for Xander Bogaerts because he's a stud" or anything like that.
|
|
|
