|
Post by rangoon82 on Nov 10, 2014 16:57:44 GMT -5
% off peak on y, age on x % off peak of what? Labeling axes is just good graph presentation, gangster
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 10, 2014 17:06:31 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 42s43 seconds ago Sources: Hanley Ramirez on #RedSox's radar. Willingness to play LF or 3B adds to his appeal. Possible alternative to Sandoval. Assuming he's not wildly more expensive than Sandoval I much prefer Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 10, 2014 17:07:03 GMT -5
A chart I did a while back for Sandoval, to get myself a visual on his drop in production. Thought the board might find it interesting in light of that aging curve. Click to view:
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2014 18:21:03 GMT -5
% off peak on y, age on x % off peak of what? Labeling axes is just good graph presentation, gangster % off their peak.
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Nov 10, 2014 18:32:44 GMT -5
% off peak of what? Labeling axes is just good graph presentation, gangster % off their peak. To be fair jimed didn't make that figure. From the article: "Below is a graph that shows the aging curve of the heavy players we identified, and the curve for average sized players. Across the x-axis is age, and the y-axis runs (batting, positional, UZR), with 0 being the peak year. The y-axis shows how many runs below the peak year they are at a given age." So it actually shows the number of runs below the peak year the player is worth. So in the fangraphs value page I guess it's the sum of Batting Positional and UZR stats.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 10, 2014 18:45:39 GMT -5
“@gordonedes: Jay Alou Jr., agent for Yasmany Tomas, said Sox had him take some ground balls when he worked out. Said he could play third. He’s an OF” Hmmmmmmmmnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I'll admit I know a lot less that most as far as these kind of position changes and how easily players adapt...and maybe they are just using an eye test on athleticism here...but if this is true...it seems so blithe to just throw someone out there to check on ability..when there is no previous history for the player. You test someone on any given day and now you form the opinion he can play third. It seems to run contrary to valuing defense in a player productivity profile.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 10, 2014 18:58:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 10, 2014 19:34:33 GMT -5
From that same article:
If that's all it takes, we shouldn't even waste time talking to Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Nov 10, 2014 20:10:30 GMT -5
"% off peak" still needs a variable to be defined of what is being measured. Peak WAR? Peak RBIs? "Below is a graph that shows the aging curve of the heavy players we identified, and the curve for average sized players. Across the x-axis is age, and the y-axis runs (batting, positional, UZR), with 0 being the peak year. The y-axis shows how many runs below the peak year they are at a given age." This is helpful. Does "runs (batting, positional, UZR)" mean they summed runs and UZR and then threw in some more runs for a position adjustment? That would make sense as an overall measure of a ballplayer but not 100% clear from the article. Its seems they just added up runs in both groups at different years then subtracted the peak year for the fat guys. In that case we're not actually looking at a percentage at all. Great exercise in the value of labeling axes!
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2014 20:12:15 GMT -5
“@ken_Rosenthal: Will be interesting to see just how far #RedSox will go on Sandoval. Reported interest in Hanley earlier. Also looking at Headley.”
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Nov 10, 2014 20:27:14 GMT -5
"% off peak" still needs a variable to be defined of what is being measured. Peak WAR? Peak RBIs? "Below is a graph that shows the aging curve of the heavy players we identified, and the curve for average sized players. Across the x-axis is age, and the y-axis runs (batting, positional, UZR), with 0 being the peak year. The y-axis shows how many runs below the peak year they are at a given age." This is helpful. Does "runs (batting, positional, UZR)" mean they summed runs and UZR and then threw in some more runs for a position adjustment? That would make sense as an overall measure of a ballplayer but not 100% clear from the article. Its seems they just added up runs in both groups at different years then subtracted the peak year for the fat guys. In that case we're not actually looking at a percentage at all. Great exercise in the value of labeling axes! Yes if you go here for example: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4613&position=1B#valueFor each year they added the "Batting", "Positional" and UZR numbers, then subtracted the max. Then I guess they averaged the results over all the fat and normal sized people they identified and plotted them. I guess to keep the discussion about 3B, if they could get Headley for 1 year 10M I think they should definitely do that. I'd be much more comfortable with him there compared to WMB or Cecchini at the beginning of the year at the very least. Are there any other players they could reasonably get on a 1 year deal?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2014 20:37:16 GMT -5
"% off peak" still needs a variable to be defined of what is being measured. Peak WAR? Peak RBIs? This is helpful. Does "runs (batting, positional, UZR)" mean they summed runs and UZR and then threw in some more runs for a position adjustment? That would make sense as an overall measure of a ballplayer but not 100% clear from the article. Its seems they just added up runs in both groups at different years then subtracted the peak year for the fat guys. In that case we're not actually looking at a percentage at all. Great exercise in the value of labeling axes! Yes if you go here for example: www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4613&position=1B#valueFor each year they added the "Batting", "Positional" and UZR numbers, then subtracted the max. Then I guess they averaged the results over all the fat and normal sized people they identified and plotted them. I guess to keep the discussion about 3B, if they could get Headley for 1 year 10M I think they should definitely do that. I'd be much more comfortable with him there compared to WMB or Cecchini at the beginning of the year at the very least. Are there any other players they could reasonably get on a 1 year deal? Trade for Murphy.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 10, 2014 22:34:09 GMT -5
“@gordonedes: Jay Alou Jr., agent for Yasmany Tomas, said Sox had him take some ground balls when he worked out. Said he could play third. He’s an OF” Hmmmmmmmmnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I'll admit I know a lot less that most as far as these kind of position changes and how easily players adapt...and maybe they are just using an eye test on athleticism here...but if this is true...it seems so blithe to just throw someone out there to check on ability..when there is no previous history for the player. You test someone on any given day and now you form the opinion he can play third. It seems to run contrary to valuing defense in a player productivity profile. Agents. Sigh.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2014 14:03:25 GMT -5
I like the idea of Hanley more than Sandoval, but but there's a couple things holding that idea up IMO. If we review his medical status and don't see him as a huge injury risk, and if he doesn't take get overpaid (which I could see happening), sure. If not, I'd go Headley, especially if that 3/36M prediction is accurate.
Also I highly doubt Tomas can play 3B anywhere near competently.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2014 14:39:54 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 42s43 seconds ago Sources: Hanley Ramirez on #RedSox's radar. Willingness to play LF or 3B adds to his appeal. Possible alternative to Sandoval. Assuming he's not wildly more expensive than Sandoval I much prefer Hanley. The problem is, of course, that Hanley seems likely to get a larger deal. The question, as always, then comes down to how much more you're willing to pay for the better player.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 11, 2014 14:41:30 GMT -5
Hanley is growing on me and I'm at the point now where I would definitely prefer him to Sandoval.
My preference and prediction on what it will take:
Headley: 3 years/$45M Hanley: 5 years/$100M Lowrie: 2 years/$20M Trade for Daniel Murphy . . . Go with internal options . . . Sandoval: 5 years/$100M
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2014 14:51:02 GMT -5
Hanley is growing on me and I'm at the point now where I would definitely prefer him to Sandoval. My preference and prediction on what it will take: Headley: 3 years/$45M Hanley: 5 years/$100M Lowrie: 2 years/$20M . . . Go with internal options . . . Sandoval: 5 years/$100M Agreed. I wonder if 5/85 could get Hanley though. $17M per sounds like a fair value for both sides, of course all it takes in one team to overpay. I also wonder what Hanley's 3B defense would look like. I think that in his first exposure there, he didn't give a great effort at times because he wanted to be playing SS. Being more mature now, I think his defensive metrics might look a lot better at 3B this year. His bat is definitely much better than both Headley and Sandoval, and if he had to move to LF or even 1B down the road he'd be more productive there than those two as well.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Nov 11, 2014 15:08:59 GMT -5
I haven't been this excited since we tried Rusney Castillo at 3B in his showcase.
Seriously, I would take the Hanley/Pablo money and put it toward Moancoa. I know they are different ends of the spectrum, but I would hate to give away an extra 10 - 30 million and then fall short on an impactful guy. I am willing to take the one year in AAA that Moancoa would probably take.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 11, 2014 15:17:26 GMT -5
Hanley is growing on me and I'm at the point now where I would definitely prefer him to Sandoval. My preference and prediction on what it will take: Headley: 3 years/$45M Hanley: 5 years/$100M Lowrie: 2 years/$20M . . . Go with internal options . . . Sandoval: 5 years/$100M Agreed. I wonder if 5/85 could get Hanley though. $17M per sounds like a fair value for both sides, of course all it takes in one team to overpay. I'm very, very skeptical that Hanley gets less than nine figures.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 11, 2014 15:35:06 GMT -5
I like the idea of Hanley more than Sandoval, but but there's a couple things holding that idea up IMO. If we review his medical status and don't see him as a huge injury risk, and if he doesn't take get overpaid (which I could see happening), sure. If not, I'd go Headley, especially if that 3/36M prediction is accurate. Also I highly doubt Tomas can play 3B anywhere near competently. So your a Doubting Tomas....I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 11, 2014 15:38:20 GMT -5
Agreed. I wonder if 5/85 could get Hanley though. $17M per sounds like a fair value for both sides, of course all it takes in one team to overpay. I'm very, very skeptical that Hanley gets less than nine figures. Yeah, I'm with you. And he's a player I'd go to 5/$100 million for, though probably not a whole ton more than that - $110 would probably still be ok, at $125 I'd get leery. And I think I'd pass if it gets to six years, though I could probably talk myself into it. I still think people are undershooting the deal Headley ends up getting by quite a bit. I really think he ends up around 4/$70M. Can you really see him getting to something like 3/$45 and the Yankees stepping back and saying "oof, too rich for our blood!"
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 11, 2014 15:39:01 GMT -5
I am going to go on record and say that they Yankees would be willing to give 4 years for Headley LaMarr and that will be the difference.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 11, 2014 15:52:59 GMT -5
I am going to go on record and say that they Yankees would be willing to give 4 years for Headley LaMarr and that will be the difference. "It's twuu , it's twuu!"
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 11, 2014 15:56:37 GMT -5
Just delving a bit deeper, fangraphs has Headley projected for the highest 2015 WAR amongst all of the current FA crop. www.fangraphs.com/freeagents.aspx?sign=all&pos=all&nteam=all&oteam=all&sort=5,d No major league front office uses fangraphs projections, of course - but he's simply a better player than the dollar amounts that are getting thrown around in this thread, and I think exectuives know that. Sandoval isn't going to get $60 million more than Headley. To belabor the point, at 3/$45M I think teams that don't even need a third baseman would still be interested in signing him, just as a value move. He's just worth so much more than that.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2014 16:10:04 GMT -5
Just delving a bit deeper, fangraphs has Headley projected for the highest 2015 WAR amongst all of the current FA crop. www.fangraphs.com/freeagents.aspx?sign=all&pos=all&nteam=all&oteam=all&sort=5,d No major league front office uses fangraphs projections, of course - but he's simply a better player than the dollar amounts that are getting thrown around in this thread, and I think exectuives know that. Sandoval isn't going to get $60 million more than Headley. To belabor the point, at 3/$45M I think teams that don't even need a third baseman would still be interested in signing him, just as a value move. He's just worth so much more than that. Also I think it's fair to say at 3B his defensive value wouldn't be -6.1 like fangraphs projects. His -1.7 in 2012 (when he played 3B) sounds more realistic and maybe he could even get to the even 0.0 area, either of which would make him just as valuable as Headley. Considering the factors of price and the draft pick we'd lose with Headley, it's probable that Headley would be a better value though. Who knows what the FO actually thinks of both of these guys though.
|
|