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.
|
Post by jmei on Mar 28, 2016 12:36:22 GMT -5
Then you need to stop using them as be all end all gospel every time you bring them up in reply to other people's posts or be prepared to hear from people that actually watch baseball. You are literally the only one that does that and you do it all the time. You said: At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely. That statement ignores so many factors, it's off the charts. No, a player wouldn't have to produce 3-4 WAR for evaluators to expect 2.5 without there being underlying reasons and those reasons clearly have nothing to do with a regression to their minor league and first few seasons track record. If there's regression, there are reasons for it, it's not random as you fantasy baseball people think. As far as sabermetrics proving themselves, look at the Red Sox and Royals projections the last few years, if you really want to scare yourself look at the individual players. Rearward looking sabermetrics has proven itself yes, projection systems are light years away. The only thing that sabemetrics has proven is that the will end up with an average team and average player having the same averages as major league. You are overly impressed that they come up with the average team winning 81 games and it turns out to be true. We'll see how your ignore the obvious approach to Panda's year turns out. A good evaluator by the way does a lot more than look at a player's stat page, I think that's likely the part that you don't seem to understand. On an aside, I'm sure your fantasy teams do better than average, at least you have that going for you. Any suggestion that the projections are an end-all be-all in any discussion exist only in your head. I have never claimed that they're the only thing you should look at or that they are infallible, just that they are a useful shorthand tool. My pithy three-sentence forum post obviously cannot capture all the factors that go into predicting a player's future performance, but its underlying point-- that you can't ignore a player's established track record, and that one season's worth of production can only do so much to change that-- is not one that you've yet substantively argued against. There's a reason that just about all the folks who have skin in the game-- front offices and gamblers-- use projection systems as an important part of their analysis. But don't let that stop your ranting and throwing around personal insults-- let's get it all out of your system before the season begins.
|
|
|
Sam Travis
Mar 28, 2016 13:13:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by telson13 on Mar 28, 2016 13:13:49 GMT -5
Then you need to stop using them as be all end all gospel every time you bring them up in reply to other people's posts or be prepared to hear from people that actually watch baseball. You are literally the only one that does that and you do it all the time. You said: At 2.5+ WAR, it's no question that you stand pat. But I'm not sure either of them can perform well enough next year such that they project to be that good in 2017. They'd have to put up something like a three or four win season (or its minor league equivalent), which seems pretty unlikely. That statement ignores so many factors, it's off the charts. No, a player wouldn't have to produce 3-4 WAR for evaluators to expect 2.5 without there being underlying reasons and those reasons clearly have nothing to do with a regression to their minor league and first few seasons track record. If there's regression, there are reasons for it, it's not random as you fantasy baseball people think. As far as sabermetrics proving themselves, look at the Red Sox and Royals projections the last few years, if you really want to scare yourself look at the individual players. Rearward looking sabermetrics has proven itself yes, projection systems are light years away. The only thing that sabemetrics has proven is that the will end up with an average team and average player having the same averages as major league. You are overly impressed that they come up with the average team winning 81 games and it turns out to be true. We'll see how your ignore the obvious approach to Panda's year turns out. A good evaluator by the way does a lot more than look at a player's stat page, I think that's likely the part that you don't seem to understand. On an aside, I'm sure your fantasy teams do better than average, at least you have that going for you. Any suggestion that the projections are an end-all be-all in any discussion exist only in your head. I have never claimed that they're the only thing you should look at or that they are infallible, just that they are a useful shorthand tool. My pithy three-sentence forum post obviously cannot capture all the factors that go into predicting a player's future performance, but its underlying point-- that you can't ignore a player's established track record, and that one season's worth of production can only do so much to change that-- is not one that you've yet substantively argued against. There's a reason that just about all the folks who have skin in the game-- front offices and gamblers-- use projection systems as an important part of their analysis. But don't let that stop your ranting and throwing around personal insults-- let's get it all out of your system before the season begins. Yeah, when I read your statement, I didn't really even jump straight to thinking about projection systems. I thought about Bogaerts, and how despite his great season last year, I'm not certain that he's going to put up another like it this year. That seems to be the takeaway: it would take a substantially-better-than-average season from a first or second-year player to feel reasonably confident that he can at least be average the following year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,952
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 28, 2016 15:51:17 GMT -5
Projection systems are invaluable. But I think people have two mistaken notions of what they mean.
They are not rough projections of what a player will do next year. That's wrong two different ways.
What they are are quite accurate projections of what a player will do next year, all things not reflected in the stats being equal and irrelevant. Which they never are. In fact, the things not reflected in the stats that did effect those stats are, more often that not, really important.
They are invaluable because we're actually not very good at eyeballing the last three years of stats and saying, "this is what we should expect this year, all things being equal." Projection systems do that work for us. They therefore give you a really good starting place for your informed estimate of what's actually in store.
Note that as projection systems have gotten more sophisticated, more and more aspects of the game are included in them. Specific regression of BABIP to the mean was, AFAIK, not a part of the oldest projection systems, but it is routine now.
Right now, the Porcello and Kelly projections are of limited utility because of their altered pitch mixes. But it is conceivable that some future projection system will use pitch/fx data to explicitly include them. You could construct a data set showing variance of pitch mix within and between seasons, find data patters showing that guys who changed the mix significantly during a season outperformed their projections the next year, and so on. The same could be done for injuries (alas, BP abandoned their efforts to log all injuries as data, which suggests that it's too large and fuzzy a data set to be kept track of with current resources). If we had hit/fx data, we might be able to identify guys whose hitting approach had changed tangibly. But there will always be elements that no projection system can measure: willingness to work, pitchers adding pitches between seasons, and so on.
One thing that I fear is true is that the last folks you want to ask for a list of these unincluded factors are the fans of that team. We tend to be biased in favor of seeing the reasons the projection systems might be too low. In fact, this is probably driven by the press; the '''worst shape of his life" story is not a common one. Julio Lugo's career with the Sox was ruined by an illness that he suffered in the off-season before 2007, and compounded (I believe, based on the track record) by his failure to train hard after the end of the season (where I like to remind folks that he played the hell out of SS, and hit just fine for the position, as we won the WS). The illness and lack of strength going into '07 was barely reported at the time, and no one reported that he came to camp in '08 not in any apparent better shape.
The funny thing is, we have a fairly negative press here. But I think writers have a complex set of factors that determines whether such negative stories get written. Had the Sox not made the post-season in 2007, I think Lugo's apparent bad work ethic would have been a huge story in 2008 ST, just like Sanodoval's was this year. But the team was a WS champ, Lugo had been a big part of it, and so everyone in the press cut him slack.
But all of the positive stories get written. Thus we always think that the team as a whole is likely to outperform its projections for reasons we can name and even quantify.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 28, 2016 16:13:45 GMT -5
TL;DR ==> "I was right all along about Julio Lugo".
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 30, 2016 4:12:59 GMT -5
Projection systems are invaluable. But I think people have two mistaken notions of what they mean. They are not rough projections of what a player will do next year. That's wrong two different ways. What they are are quite accurate projections of what a player will do next year, all things not reflected in the stats being equal and irrelevant. Which they never are. In fact, the things not reflected in the stats that did effect those stats are, more often that not, really important. They are invaluable because we're actually not very good at eyeballing the last three years of stats and saying, "this is what we should expect this year, all things being equal." Projection systems do that work for us. They therefore give you a really good starting place for your informed estimate of what's actually in store. Note that as projection systems have gotten more sophisticated, more and more aspects of the game are included in them. Specific regression of BABIP to the mean was, AFAIK, not a part of the oldest projection systems, but it is routine now. Right now, the Porcello and Kelly projections are of limited utility because of their altered pitch mixes. But it is conceivable that some future projection system will use pitch/fx data to explicitly include them. You could construct a data set showing variance of pitch mix within and between seasons, find data patters showing that guys who changed the mix significantly during a season outperformed their projections the next year, and so on. The same could be done for injuries (alas, BP abandoned their efforts to log all injuries as data, which suggests that it's too large and fuzzy a data set to be kept track of with current resources). If we had hit/fx data, we might be able to identify guys whose hitting approach had changed tangibly. But there will always be elements that no projection system can measure: willingness to work, pitchers adding pitches between seasons, and so on. One thing that I fear is true is that the last folks you want to ask for a list of these unincluded factors are the fans of that team. We tend to be biased in favor of seeing the reasons the projection systems might be too low. In fact, this is probably driven by the press; the '''worst shape of his life" story is not a common one. Julio Lugo's career with the Sox was ruined by an illness that he suffered in the off-season before 2007, and compounded (I believe, based on the track record) by his failure to train hard after the end of the season (where I like to remind folks that he played the hell out of SS, and hit just fine for the position, as we won the WS). The illness and lack of strength going into '07 was barely reported at the time, and no one reported that he came to camp in '08 not in any apparent better shape. The funny thing is, we have a fairly negative press here. But I think writers have a complex set of factors that determines whether such negative stories get written. Had the Sox not made the post-season in 2007, I think Lugo's apparent bad work ethic would have been a huge story in 2008 ST, just like Sanodoval's was this year. But the team was a WS champ, Lugo had been a big part of it, and so everyone in the press cut him slack. But all of the positive stories get written. Thus we always think that the team as a whole is likely to outperform its projections for reasons we can name and even quantify.
With the exception of the Lugo digression, that sounds like the point I was making. re: The Lugo digression, I find it pretty telling that the people who chose to like the troll comment includes a "Senior Forum Moderator".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 31, 2016 5:41:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2016 7:31:38 GMT -5
The other day he dove into the stands twice to try and catch flyballs. As long as he doesn't take it to Victorino levels of recklessness...
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,484
|
Post by radiohix on Mar 31, 2016 7:40:49 GMT -5
The other day he dove into the stands twice to try and catch flyballs. As long as he doesn't take it to Victorino levels of recklessness... Or Kalish.
|
|
|
Post by splendidsplinter on Mar 31, 2016 9:28:59 GMT -5
Just returned from the backfields of Jet Blue. Among the most strongest impressions was of Sam Travis in the batting cage. He took three rounds and hit 15 of 15 for line drives. The sound off the bat was always the same echoing crack.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 31, 2016 12:57:47 GMT -5
Hopefully the Shaw call at 3rd is a wake up call to everyone that another year like last year will not be acceptable. Maybe it's Farrell's version of tough love but I think it's more clearly a signal. You produce, you play. You don't produce, you are gone. There is a modus operandi which fits with every team. The sox have not been in that mode very much historically and sometimes when they have gone there it has had disastrous results. For example maybe in the Valentine era, but sometimes such an approach works very well in the short term in some clubhouses. Long term, hopefully they can find a group of players they can rely on to consistently strive for excellence.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Mar 31, 2016 13:00:01 GMT -5
I've gotta just say the obvious also. Jmei is as astute as anyone here, probably our most astute analyst in my view. And I haven't always agreed with him but when I haven't, it generally means I got it wrong. Anyone calling him out is talking to deaf ears here. He obviously is more than a numbers guy.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2016 13:41:17 GMT -5
Hopefully the Shaw call at 3rd is a wake up call to everyone that another year like last year will not be acceptable. Maybe it's Farrell's version of tough love but I think it's more clearly a signal. You produce, you play. You don't produce, you are gone. There is a modus operandi which fits with every team. The sox have not been in that mode very much historically and sometimes when they have gone there it has had disastrous results. For example maybe in the Valentine era, but sometimes such an approach works very well in the short term in some clubhouses. Long term, hopefully they can find a group of players they can rely on to consistently strive for excellence. OK but what has this got to do with Sam Travis?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 31, 2016 16:38:32 GMT -5
I've gotta just say the obvious also. Jmei is as astute as anyone here, probably our most astute analyst in my view. And I haven't always agreed with him but when I haven't, it generally means I got it wrong. Anyone calling him out is talking to deaf ears here. He obviously is more than a numbers guy. Jmei knows a lot and is very good at knowing projections and numbers. He's a smart guy like a lot of poster on this board. That being said a ton of posting on this board is about your opinion. Who should be playing, traded, signed or was that a good signing or trade etc. If you don't agree why shouldn't you call him out? We call out some of smartest Baseball minds (Gms/presidents of team)everyday on this board. Just because a smart Baseball guys thinks something is right doesn't mean it is. Only two guys in sports that I won't question and they are Bill Bellicheck and Danny Ainge.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 31, 2016 16:41:35 GMT -5
Only two guys in sports that I won't question and they are Bill Bellicheck and Danny Ainge. Oh come on, not resigning Danny Woodhead was bad and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 13, 2016 9:21:31 GMT -5
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,015
|
Sam Travis
Apr 13, 2016 10:59:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Apr 13, 2016 10:59:40 GMT -5
He'd make a good politician. Still hope he adds a bit more loft.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 13, 2016 11:57:09 GMT -5
Can he pitch tho
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 15, 2016 0:10:55 GMT -5
From Alex Speier:
www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2016/04/14/anderson-espinoza-confident-his-future/PuDSdooJtaVThs7s3HENSJ/story.html
Sam Travis was a head-turner in spring training, leading the Grapefruit League (min. 25 plate appearances) with a .469 average to go with a .429 OBP and .729 slugging mark. Through seven games with Triple A Pawtucket, he’s hitting .240/.296/.360, perhaps in part due to the reputation that now precedes him.
“He’s been pitched tough. People know who he is already. You can tell,” said PawSox manager Kevin Boles, citing the prevalence of breaking balls Travis has seen in fastball counts. “It’s a great learning experience.”
Offensively, the Red Sox can afford a largely hands-off approach for a player with an uncommon ability to make resounding contact. The same is not true defensively, where Travis has three errors in six games at first base. While Travis shows athleticism and the ability to move well, the Red Sox see the need for improved footwork and a more relaxed defensive approach.
“He’d probably be on the big-league team if he were a Gold Glove-caliber guy as far as that bat goes, but he’s just got some little things we need to smooth out and get comfortable with,” said PawSox coach Bruce Crabbe. “It’s nothing to really worry about. It’s just a matter of development at that stage. He’s a great worker. This kid will do anything you tell him to. . . . We’ve got plenty of time. We’re not panicking.”
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,443
|
Post by ianrs on Apr 15, 2016 13:04:40 GMT -5
Great article Philsfan, thanks for sharing. I think Travis has been overlooked a bit in this system with such high ceilings at the top. I think he should be 5 in the system after the top 4. He's not a flashy player, but if he's a consistent .800+ OPS guy, that would be very valuable to this team.
Schwarber's 19, 20, and 21 year old seasons at Indiana (697 AB): .341/.437/.607 (1044 OPS), .265 ISOp, 0.78 K/BB ratio Travis' 18, 19, and 20 year old seasons at Indiana (721 AB): .327/.410/.544 (.954 OPS), .216 ISOp, 1.01 K/BB ratio
They were playing the exact same competition, so an interesting comp given Travis' year of age-advancement. I'm not saying Travis will ever be the hitter or have the power that Schwarber has. Even if he's a tick behind, he is still a very interesting prospect and will likely be ready to contribute to the big league club next year, if not late this year. Nice pick in the 2nd round. Hopefully he keeps working on his defense.
|
|
|
Sam Travis
Apr 15, 2016 13:16:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Apr 15, 2016 13:16:06 GMT -5
Am I crazy to think he could be an Eric Hosmer type 1B? I think the Goldy comp was nuts but looking around MLB Hosmer is a type with a high BA, doubles power and 15ish+ HR.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 16, 2016 13:06:55 GMT -5
Am I crazy to think he could be an Eric Hosmer type 1B? I think the Goldy comp was nuts but looking around MLB Hosmer is a type with a high BA, doubles power and 15ish+ HR. I don't think a Eric Hosmer offensive prediction is anything crazy, but Travis would have to go a long way to be considered on the same plane as Hosmer defensively.
|
|
|
Sam Travis
Apr 16, 2016 15:06:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by larrycook on Apr 16, 2016 15:06:46 GMT -5
I agree. I think Travis projects to be an average defender.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Apr 22, 2016 10:08:52 GMT -5
They should be starting him in Left & Right at Pawtucket for the next 15 games. I don't think Bradley will ever hit good enough to be a regular for this team. Give Bradley another 45 ABs & if he doesn't improve move Betts back to CF & bring up Travis & start him in LF with Holt in RF. Keep Bradley & Young on the bench along with Swihart & Rutledge. Trade Hannigan.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,015
|
Sam Travis
Apr 22, 2016 10:19:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Apr 22, 2016 10:19:58 GMT -5
For what it's worth, FRAA loves Travis' defense. I'm not worried about his glove at 1B at all.
|
|
|
Post by justen on May 19, 2016 13:37:52 GMT -5
|
|
|