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.
Handicapping the 2015 Red Sox
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 12, 2015 23:09:48 GMT -5
Projection systems are mathematical algorithms that pointedly rely on nothing other than actual past performance. To get a sense of how a team really projects, you want to start with those projections, but modify them based on your knowledge of factors that the projection system is unaware of. Here are all the possible omitted factors that come to my mind: Vazquez: If his defensive ability is being included at all, it's being heavily regressed to the mean because he threw out a ridiculous 18 baserunners (including pickoffs) while allowing 14 SB. No projection system is aware of the scouting consensus that he's actually pretty much that good. (His framing ability will, of course, properly show up in the pitcher projections were it be included.) Napoli: There's a real chance he exceeds his projections, and perhaps to a large degree, because of his sleep apnea surgery. Pedroia: I don't have to tell you about this one, do I? His series of injuries mimics a large decline in skills which in reality is almost certainly not as large. You have to figure in the odds of his getting hurt once again, and no one knows just how much of that decline was skill and how much injury, but he has a very good chance of exceeding his projections. Bogaerts: His 2014 numbers look like a guy who struggled with MLB pitching as a rookie. The projection system sees that, and not a guy who was as excitingly great as expected for two substantial stretches, and unimaginably awful for other long stretches after he was unexpectedly jerked between the position he expected to play and one he had been more or less assured he wouldn't. Sandoval: I'm almost certain that all projection systems are giving him a generic AT&T-to-Fenway park adjustment, rather than one that takes into consideration how good a fit he was for each park. Granted, not every 3B we sign as a FA who played all or nearly all of his career there will do this: PECOTA: .269 / .346 / .390 Actual: .326 / .398 / .540 .. but he's still a very good bet to beat his projections, again, by possibly quite a bit. This is especially true if his bad East Coast road numbers are due to a time zone travel effect. (If you're curious, in 2004 Mueller beat his PECOTA projection by .008 / .013 / .023, so the system was still underestimating the Fenway effect even with the year of data.) Betts: Any projection system that ignores his ml performance will regress him to the mean too severely. Every acquired pitcher: None of their projections will get the benefit of Vazquez and Hanigan's pitch framing, or, in some cases, improved infield defense. Porcello: Projection systems don't know that he went from throwing his sinker 50% of the time to 33%, splitting the difference equally between his four-seamer and his curve. No one knows how much of his improvement was due to that, but if any of it is, his projections will be somewhat low because he was rather a different pitcher in 2014 than previously. Buchholz and Kelly: There's, respectively, a great deal and some evidence that each has a BABIP skill, and projection systems don't handle those guys all that well, overly regressing their BABIP to the mean. Masterson: The data used to project him includes some guys who were hurt the previous year and some guys who just sucked. When you know that a guy was hurt, in a specific way that screwed him up completely, he's a good candidate to beat his projection. In general: the more that a team is built via informed buy-low acquisitions, the more it can be expected to beat its projections. That very much appeared to be Cherington's strategy this winter. "This is gold, Jerry, GOLD!" This fangraphs article basically says Hanley Ramirez will lose a few HR in Fenway, but otherwise absolutely light it up, predicting him to be a doubles machine. So there's another player who is likely being under-projected based on simple park effects (Chavez was similar to Fenway in overall offense last year). www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hanley-panda-and-the-monster/And, while Buchholz is really almost totally unpredictable, he does tend to Saberhagen: good odd years, bad even ones. His numbers improved in the second half as his injury woes from 2013 receeded farther into the past; obviously his command wasn't up to snuff but it did get better, and he looked downright outstanding in several starts in August. I wouldn't bet on him, but I wouldn't be surprised either that, if he stayed relatively healthy, he puts up some outstanding numbers. I do think projections will fail to "recognize" his improvement (largely command-related) and thus better odds of pitching well this year.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 14, 2015 7:58:29 GMT -5
This fangraphs article basically says Hanley Ramirez will lose a few HR in Fenway, but otherwise absolutely light it up, predicting him to be a doubles machine. So there's another player who is likely being under-projected based on simple park effects (Chavez was similar to Fenway in overall offense last year). www.fangraphs.com/blogs/hanley-panda-and-the-monster/Interesting, I read that earlier in the offseason, but this line jumped out at me glancing through it again: "The single most important piece of information in each player’s frequency profile is the low K rate." I forget where it is, but someone here posted an article about the correlation of low K rates to a team's success, that the old "a K is no worse than any other out" isn't really true in today's game. Then seeing that line above and thinking that the other major offensive addition to the squad (Mookie Betts) is noted for extremely low K rates makes me wonder if the Sox picked up on this trend. Even Castillo has a reputation for bat-to-ball skills (and relatively low BBs), although that's much more speculative. Even Vazquez has low K rates in the minors (really low 11% in 2012 and 2013 before jumping a bit to 19% in AAA in 2014) and had a below-average 16% in MLB last year. Hmmm, seems like there might be something here.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2015 8:30:00 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup?
These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 14, 2015 8:48:24 GMT -5
Just read that piece over at FanGraphs, about K/BB rates being a better determinant of team success, these days, than OBP. That's undoubtedly due to the significant increase in strikeouts, and the expanded strike zone, across the major leagues. Until that changes, this looks like the new market maker.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 14, 2015 8:59:13 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup? These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium? The "exercises" are statistical, with data that's taken, you know, from reality?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2015 9:09:07 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup? These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium? You could basically say the same thing about looking at anything that happened in the past to project the future.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2015 9:36:56 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup? These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium? The "exercises" are statistical, with data that's taken, you know, from reality? It's actually imperfect data taken from reality that's further manipulated with a lot of assumptions that are anything but perfect and used to tell us nothing new. But like i said it's cool to read.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 14, 2015 10:23:38 GMT -5
The "exercises" are statistical, with data that's taken, you know, from reality? It's actually imperfect data taken from reality that's further manipulated with a lot of assumptions that are anything but perfect and used to tell us nothing new. But like i said it's cool to read. That's the standard gobbeldy-gook that's used to put down the use of numbers, and it's BS, pure and simple. The data isn't "perfect" or "imperfect", it's just data, a flood of it, more than has ever been available at any time and in any place. In this case, it's the speed and the takeoff angle of every ball that was hit. That and the results for those trajectories at all the ballparks where they were launched for Ramirez and Sandoval. Transpose that onto Fenway and that is surely a powerful measure of what those trajectories would have meant. That flood of data washes up against that park as well, with a year-by-year quantification of what it means to hit fly ball there. It tells us what we already intuited - that the park really helps fly balls hit a certain way, and hurts others hit the other way, and it does it very precisely. The analysis is creative and insightful. It tells us a lot we had no idea about, and there are almost no assumptions in the analysis. Just a hell of a lot of data.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 14, 2015 10:56:57 GMT -5
With Stroman down I could go to 86 wins for the Sox. If they get Hamels and Kelly goes the other way in the deal I'd bump it to 90/91. With or without Betts? Or Bogaerts? I am not authorizing Ben Cherrington to deal either Mookie Betts or Xander Bogaerts.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 14, 2015 11:26:51 GMT -5
With or without Betts? Or Bogaerts? I am not authorizing Ben Cherrington to deal either Mookie Betts or Xander Bogaerts. Hamels four or five wins better than Kelly is bold.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2015 12:10:13 GMT -5
It's actually imperfect data taken from reality that's further manipulated with a lot of assumptions that are anything but perfect and used to tell us nothing new. But like i said it's cool to read. That's the standard gobbeldy-gook that's used to put down the use of numbers, and it's BS, pure and simple. The data isn't "perfect" or "imperfect", it's just data, a flood of it, more than has ever been available at any time and in any place. In this case, it's the speed and the takeoff angle of every ball that was hit. That and the results for those trajectories at all the ballparks where they were launched for Ramirez and Sandoval. Transpose that onto Fenway and that is surely a powerful measure of what those trajectories would have meant. That flood of data washes up against that park as well, with a year-by-year quantification of what it means to hit fly ball there. It tells us what we already intuited - that the park really helps fly balls hit a certain way, and hurts others hit the other way, and it does it very precisely.The analysis is creative and insightful. It tells us a lot we had no idea about, and there are almost no assumptions in the analysis. Just a hell of a lot of data. And really, all that's new here is that level of precision. Fenway has played this way for over a hundred years. Nothing in this analysis should be all that controversial.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2015 16:28:51 GMT -5
Exactly, it's not controversial or all that insightful just reinforces previously held beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 14, 2015 20:23:34 GMT -5
But it attempts to quantify it, which is important and helpful. A great deal of analysis ends up confirming the conventional wisdom - but that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to do that analysis.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 14, 2015 20:58:38 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup? These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium?Others have already jumped down your throat over the statistical side of your assertion, so let me be the first to point out how incorrect the (bolded) scouting side is. It's absolutely true that when a player moves to a park he is ideally (or merely well) suited for, he is usually pitched somewhat differently. In a way that favors him, sometimes greatly. Any time a pitcher feels that part of the strike zone has been rendered too dangerous to use, it helps the hitter. And, umm ... if there were a way to pitch a hitter differently that would negate his fit for the park, there would be no extreme park splits at all. The short snarky version of this is: No, they'll pitch him differently, like they pitched Fred Lynn differently in Fenway than in Anaheim.* (*though not to that degree ... although that may be true of Sandoval).
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Mar 15, 2015 0:01:30 GMT -5
Hanley is good anywhere when healthy. Can Fenway's dimensions help keep him in the lineup? These exercises are cool to read but don't play out in reality. It's really a waste of time and analysis. You think he will be pitched the same in Fenway as he was in Dodger stadium? Rameriez' swing looks very stiff. I wonder if he did not bulk up too much this offseason. Of course it is still way too early in camp to get a good read on the hitters.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 15, 2015 10:22:45 GMT -5
Eric's point is important. After ten years, the idea of radically changing the way you pitch a dangerous hitter such as Ramirez is a bad idea, unless you want to get body armor for the right side infielders, and track shoes so the outfielders can chase balls down in the gap. I've gotten to watch the guy quite a bit during his time with the Dodgers. Allowing him to extend his arms by trying to paint the outside corner all the time would get you in trouble fast.
As far as the FanGraphs analytical work goes, it's one thing to understand what Fenway and the wall do intuitively from watching games. Sticking numbers on that for the two players in question by examining what their actual output would have looked like in their new park takes it to a whole different level. It's a very useful piece of information and I'd be greatly surprised if the Sox hadn't done exactly this sort of work themselves in deciding whether to add those two guys to the roster.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 22, 2015 9:44:47 GMT -5
The Red Sox project to be the fifth-best defense in baseball, with above-average defenders at every position but shortstop. Interesting sidenote: the Yankees project to be the third-best defense in baseball next year. That's what happens when you replace once of the worst defensive left sides of the infield with one of the best. One of the sneaky ways that that team has improved this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 22, 2015 10:03:52 GMT -5
The Red Sox project to be the fifth-best defense in baseball, with above-average defenders at every position but shortstop. Interesting sidenote: the Yankees project to be the third-best defense in baseball next year. That's what happens when you replace once of the worst defensive left sides of the infield with one of the best. One of the sneaky ways that that team has improved this offseason. I've been critical of the Yankees, but this is something I noticed recently, as well. They really have a good defensive team, and their bullpen looks great. If their starting pitching stays healthy (a BIG if), they could look like one of those surprise small-market teams that pops up and has a good season, only with a gargantuan payroll. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 26, 2015 12:00:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 26, 2015 16:48:55 GMT -5
I don't feel comfortable predicting the Sox will be an 86+ win team with this pitching staff. I can see how it could all come together but I also see a potential disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 27, 2015 1:21:39 GMT -5
Agree, this is a really good evaluation, and with a half-dozen links to more must-read articles. This one is an eye-opener, highlighting a topic I was only dimly aware of, but that's not unusual! That article says that the Sox can trade part of their bonus pool for the international signing period 2015-2016, the sixth largest in MLB, to other teams. Those teams can, apparently, overspend their pools by up to 150% without getting whacked by MLB. The Sox can trade bonus pool money and help them do that! I read through the article and was left feeling as if the thing was designed by a cross between a casino game designer/and an accountant. There are an amazing number of squares you can put your money on, like a craps table, and they can all payoff to varying degrees.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 2, 2015 11:01:57 GMT -5
OK, assuming this is the opening day roster, with Vazquez down I am reducing my previous prediction down one to to 85 games +/- 1.
The offense is boss, but I just don't have confidence in much of the starting staff (Miley, Kelly, Masterson) and I don't think Hanigan/Leon tandem will be a game or so less effective than the Vazquez/Hanigan tandem. If they make an elite or near elite starter addition in July, or if Rodriguez or another pitcher is completely dominant in the first 6-8 weeks of AAA, forces his way onto the roster, and is dominant or near dominant at the MLB level, then I would amend. However, as constituted, I don't think this team can hit its way to more than 85/86 wins. That may be enough to get to the playoffs in this division, or it may be 3rd place.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Apr 2, 2015 11:13:33 GMT -5
On a few occasions I was cautioned not to listen to the radio people regarding the young Red Sox prospects. Because they are too quick to start labeling "bust" is the one that drives me crazy. But it's too funny how a prospects has a great spring and you should not get excited about it but a prospects has a so-so spring and we should worry for example Bogey. I 'm not worried but I see the hypocrisy in this. He proved a lot to me by going thru last year and then spending that time in Arizona and working with Petey. I know it gonna pay off.
I thought this was a different topic but I feel this division is wide open and the Sox have what it takes to win it. Also this time Ben grab a great postseason performer that rivals Ortiz. I think its wide open. They need to get into the postseason and I think they can get far. After what I saw from 2013. Maybe Ben thinks instead of making a big deal for a ace .He could promote a pitcher or two that the league is not familiar with I.E. Similar to the Cardinals did with Wacha and Martinez. Last year the teams that went out and got that supposed ace it did not pan out. Just something to think about. If healthy the Sox are going back to the big dance vs LA and we figure out Kershaw to win our fourth and keep pace with the Pats.
The Dodgers beat Washington and we beat White Sox.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 3, 2015 12:46:16 GMT -5
OK, assuming this is the opening day roster, with Vazquez down I am reducing my previous prediction down one to to 85 games +/- 1. The offense is boss, but I just don't have confidence in much of the starting staff (Miley, Kelly, Masterson) and I don't think Hanigan/Leon tandem will be a game or so less effective than the Vazquez/Hanigan tandem. If they make an elite or near elite starter addition in July, or if Rodriguez or another pitcher is completely dominant in the first 6-8 weeks of AAA, forces his way onto the roster, and is dominant or near dominant at the MLB level, then I would amend. However, as constituted, I don't think this team can hit its way to more than 85/86 wins. That may be enough to get to the playoffs in this division, or it may be 3rd place. I'm actually a little more confident in this staff than before. Mostly because I'm starting to buy into the idea that Clay has a decent shot to be Good Clay this year. But, also, Porcello's very good, I actually like Miley quite a bit as a mid-rotation innings eater from what I've seen, and my opinion on Kelly and Masterson hasn't changed (meh and trepidation, respectively). And overall, I think their AAA guys are a little closer/better than I was factoring into the equation. I'm pretty bought into the idea that Wright is a 4/5 starter right now, and Barnes in particular looks a lot better than I expected. His curve is a real weapon to go along with his power fastball and good change. I'm now fairly confident that one of those younger guys (Barnes, Johnson, Rodriguez) is going to be a useful starter by June-ish. It could all come crashing down with an injury or two to Buchholz and Porcello, but there ya go.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 3, 2015 13:16:03 GMT -5
Of 38 FanGraphs staff members ... ... 20 picked Boston to win the AL East. ... 14 picked Boston to get a wildcard. ... 4 picked Boston to miss the playoffs. ... 1 picked Hanley Ramirez as AL MVP. ... 2 picked Rusney Castillo as AL ROY. ... 1 picked Steven Wright as AL ROY. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-2015-staff-predictions/
|
|
|