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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 6, 2015 15:07:32 GMT -5
Headley didn't appear interested in leaving NY. That's why he wasn't an option. Oh come on, he had been in NY for half a year. I'm sure an extra $5 million could have stimulated his interest. I'm sure NY would have quivered in fear and backed off over that $5 million. |
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 6, 2015 15:09:04 GMT -5
Oh come on, he had been in NY for half a year. I'm sure an extra $5 million could have stimulated his interest. I'm sure NY would have quivered in fear and backed off over that $5 million. So what you're saying is you're happy we saved the Yankees $5m or more? |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 6, 2015 15:13:16 GMT -5
I'm sure NY would have quivered in fear and backed off over that $5 million. So what you're saying is you're happy we saved the Yankees $5m or more? No, I'm saying there was no point in trying to sign him and ending up with no one. |
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jun 6, 2015 15:14:35 GMT -5
Headley might be one of those rare guys that figured out he's as rich as he'll ever need to be and being able to hit the ball 330 feet to dead right makes him a better player.
Have to give a nod to jmei. He wanted Headley over Panda. I didn't want either one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 6, 2015 15:16:00 GMT -5
So what you're saying is you're happy we saved the Yankees $5m or more? No, I'm saying there was no point in trying to sign him and ending up with no one. Sandoval took ages to sign, they could have easily fit in a couple of serious offers to Headley. Anyway, could you please choose one story and stick to it? Alternatively, just admit that they could have at least tried to get Headley instead and simply chose not to. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 6, 2015 15:20:36 GMT -5
No, I'm saying there was no point in trying to sign him and ending up with no one. Sandoval took ages to sign, they could have easily fit in a couple of serious offers to Headley. Anyway, could you please choose one story and stick to it? Alternatively, just admit that they could have at least tried to get Headley instead and simply chose not to. They might have, and figured out that he wanted to stay in NY which was rumored. We have no idea what went on, only what happened in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by m1keyboots on Jun 6, 2015 15:21:14 GMT -5
For a guy that changed clubhouse cultures, changed coasts, changed leagues, and went from a baseball ish town to a crazy psycho, live and die on the next pitch baseball town..... I think pandas doing okay
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 6, 2015 15:25:43 GMT -5
I was not a fan of the Sandoval acquisition, but he's not this bad, and he's a streaky player who is probably just having a bad month. It's way, way too premature to conclude that that was a bad signing.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 6, 2015 15:26:17 GMT -5
I was not a fan of the Sandoval acquisition, but he's not this bad, and he's a streaky player who is probably just having a bad month. It's way, way too premature to conclude that that was a bad signing. Plus his leg injury |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 6, 2015 15:30:21 GMT -5
I was not a fan of the Sandoval acquisition, but he's not this bad, and he's a streaky player who is probably just having a bad month. It's way, way too premature to conclude that that was a bad signing. I agree, but I definitely wanted someone other than WMB. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 6, 2015 15:57:48 GMT -5
You guys realize Headley hasn't hit all that much better than Sandoval, and has fielded worse, right? Headley over Sandoval wasn't the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by arzjake on Jun 6, 2015 16:04:19 GMT -5
Lets break down the fielding errors Headley has committed. Has any of his Errors cost NY a loss? We know of at least 2 games where Sandoval's E has cost Boston at least 2 games
|
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 6, 2015 16:04:56 GMT -5
Lets break down the fielding errors Headley has committed. Has any of his Errors cost NY a loss? We know of at least 2 games where Sandoval's E has cost Boston at least 2 games Lololololololol |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 6, 2015 16:13:53 GMT -5
You guys realize Headley hasn't hit all that much better than Sandoval, and has fielded worse, right? Headley over Sandoval wasn't the answer. Right, there really was no great answer other than anyone but WMB. |
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Jun 6, 2015 19:15:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the analysis Eric, very interesting. However, I do have a couple questions. How did you determine that Hard% and IFFB% are the driving factors of team BABIP? I remember an article on Fangraphs about trying to make sense of the Hard%, and in the comments I came across this graph: cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Non_Normalized_BABIP_HH-.pngIt seems here that there's no correlation between Hard% and BABIP, so does the IFFB% really make that big of a difference? Sorry if I'm missing something here, I don't know that much about statistics but I am curious. That graph actually shows a very statistically significant correlation, but one that only explains a tiny part of BABIP. Too much noise, which is to say, individual player luck, but thousands of data points. Using team data is just a clever trick. All the players on a team in a year are sharing the same park factor, so it's legit to lump them together, and when you do that, you remove a lot of the noise. The luck of a group of players will tend to even out to the point where you can measure it. Each sample in my analysis averages 6216 PA, or about 10 years of data for an average player, only it's composed of many players with different styles. It's highly unlikely that such a group if players has a real factor (other than their park, which adds noise) that the regression can't find. And a bunch of other things that I looked at it were not statistically significant: LD%, Soft%, wGDP, Pull%, Med%, Cent%, OF-FB%, BUH%, wSB, UBR, HR/FB. All of these are already accounted for by the other variables. I used multiple linear regression to do this. I may try ANOVA later, which will get me park factors, and then redo the regression. This was a quick study, just a couple of hours of work. Thanks for the response, definitely makes sense with all the noise. It's pretty interesting that LD% isn't statistically significant but Hard% is significant. Now that I think about it the IFFB% significance does make a lot of sense because they basically guarantee an out, whereas all the other types of balls in play have a wider distribution of outcomes. Again, thanks for the work. All I know about statistics comes from a basic intro class in undergrad and some basic research analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jun 6, 2015 20:27:57 GMT -5
I was not a fan of the Sandoval acquisition, but he's not this bad, and he's a streaky player who is probably just having a bad month. It's way, way too premature to conclude that that was a bad signing. I agree, but I definitely wanted someone other than WMB. correct this if it is wrong ... but Sox foresaw Mddlebks at 3B Xander at SS which contributed to the Iglesias trade ... The road not taken would have been: Iglesias at SS Xander at 3B and move Mddlebks when he became superfluous. It all comes back to Peavy. Peavy plays the role of "No, No, Nanette" in the new curse of the Iglesias. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,020
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 6, 2015 22:24:13 GMT -5
It's pretty interesting that LD% isn't statistically significant but Hard% is significant. Now that I think about it the IFFB% significance does make a lot of sense because they basically guarantee an out, whereas all the other types of balls in play have a wider distribution of outcomes. To clarify, LD% by itself is reasonably significant. If you look at each potential factor in isolation, you get the following, in order (with their correlation coefficients) Popup% -.47 Hard% +.30 Pull% -29%. But that's because teams that pull the ball also pop up a ton. Factor that out, it doesn't matter that much. Soft% -.18. But it's just part of what's left over when you look at Hard%. LD% +.16. But Hard% has included all the hard line drives while excluding the hump-backed liners that are much easier to catch. So if you've got Hard%, this tells you nothing more. Oppo% +.15. Finally, something new -- and it contributed a bit to Pull% being negative. The interesting thing is that K% doesn't correlate directly with BABIP at all. But it correlates with the residuals, when you factor in all of the above. BTW, it turns out that you do want to include K%, BB%, and K% * BB% as factors, which makes all of those statistically significant. That boots the overall regression to r = .63. And it turns out that the Sox have have averaged .0075 more of BABIP than this model predicts, which we can take to be the Fenway park factor, and that boosts the bad luck on balls in play above 4 wins worth. On Monday I plan to calculate the BABIP luck for each Sox hitter. That should be fun. Edit: Except I couldn't wait to do Xander (not including today). The model, including Fenway, predicts a .335 BABIP. His actual BABIP? .335. Now, that doesn't mean he hasn't been lucky, because he has a .149 IFH%. And now that I think of it, the model is predicting BABIP after already knowing how many infield hits there have been -- which is totally useful, because they're a breed apart. But the next thing I want to do is find a predictor for IFH% based on various team speed metrics. |
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jun 6, 2015 22:45:13 GMT -5
Eric - since quality of contact is relative to the batted-ball type, have you tried throwing in an interaction term for Hard% and batted-ball type percentages? It makes sense that all hard contact wouldn't be created equal, especially the way it's defined by BIS.
|
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jun 7, 2015 0:06:55 GMT -5
Oh come on, he had been in NY for half a year. I'm sure an extra $5 million could have stimulated his interest. I'm sure NY would have quivered in fear and backed off over that $5 million. You never know...they did with Moncada. |
|
|
|
Post by shades on Jun 7, 2015 0:50:59 GMT -5
Trade Nap in the next 2 or 3 weeks for Single A/AA prospects. Move Panda to 1B, and Hanley back to 3B. Release Masterson, bring up Johnson. Kelly could become the closer in waiting or a good set-up guy in the pen. Make the rotation, Buchholz, ER, Porcello, Miley, Johnson/Owens. We need to see if Johnson and/or Owens can pitch in the bigs before pulling the trigger on a trade. Would love to see lots of home-grown talent move to the bigs and be successful. That would be a great story for the Sox and even better if it works and we beat the Yankees with it.
Should ER stay up in the bigs, and either Johnson/Owens joining him sooner rather than later, the Sox will need to use trades and the draft to restock. Same thing if they move JBJ. They will need to backfill any players moved from Pawtucket, Portland, Salem and Greenville (Go Drive!).
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 7, 2015 7:30:49 GMT -5
Trade Nap in the next 2 or 3 weeks for Single A/AA prospects. You mean the guy with .272/.372/.542/.916 slash line in the last 28 days and a career .844 OPS? The guy that's been worth 4 and 3.3 WAR in his 2 seasons with Boston? The guy that provides outstanding 1B defense? I know he struggled mightily to start the year, but it certainly appears he's back on track. Yeah, that won't fix anything. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 7, 2015 7:35:36 GMT -5
Trade Nap in the next 2 or 3 weeks for Single A/AA prospects. Move Panda to 1B, and Hanley back to 3B. Release Masterson, bring up Johnson. Kelly could become the closer in waiting or a good set-up guy in the pen. Make the rotation, Buchholz, ER, Porcello, Miley, Johnson/Owens. We need to see if Johnson and/or Owens can pitch in the bigs before pulling the trigger on a trade. Would love to see lots of home-grown talent move to the bigs and be successful. That would be a great story for the Sox and even better if it works and we beat the Yankees with it. Should ER stay up in the bigs, and either Johnson/Owens joining him sooner rather than later, the Sox will need to use trades and the draft to restock. Same thing if they move JBJ. They will need to backfill any players moved from Pawtucket, Portland, Salem and Greenville (Go Drive!). I don't see any scenario where sliding Sandoval over to 1b improves the team. He's barely adequate offensively for 3b at this point. Moving him to 1b where you're supposed to be an offensive force would make him an even bigger liability. If the Sox are totally dead in the water, they can deal Napoli although they probably wouldn't get a ton for him. If anybody should get a shot at 1b with Napoli gone, it should be Ramirez. My guess is that Napoli stays and is gone at the end of the season and the Sox try moving Ramirez to 1b and cross their fingers with that move, too. |
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Jun 7, 2015 10:35:35 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 10m10 minutes ago
Joe Kelly will remain in rotation and start Friday. Steven Wright to bullpen #RedSox
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 10m10 minutes ago
Justin Masterson will make another rehab start Wednesday for Pawtucket #RedSox
|
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 7, 2015 12:16:10 GMT -5
At least Headley doesn't cost them a pick. He wasn't an option because he didn't have a cute nickname and wouldn't drive ratings. You will have a hard time convincing me that they had no other viable option than to pay Sandoval all that money. Headley didn't appear interested in leaving NY. That's why he wasn't an option. The cute nickname crap is a bunch of garbage. Are you channeling godot? In 2010 the Red Sox, led by Tom Werner, commissioned a study that concluded that TV ratings were low because they didn't have enough sexy players. There is clear evidence that the team has and does make baseball moves baed upon non-baseball related factors such as the marketability of the player or short term boosts to TV ratings. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the signing of Sandoval was based at least in part on his appearance in three of the last 5 World Series and the possession of a cute and marketable nickname. It is foolish of you to dismiss a perfectly logical conclusion as "a bunch of garbage." As for the idea that the signing of Headley was not possible...well...that's a bunch of garbage and not a logical conclusion baed upon the evidence. Players in most cases take the best offer. There is ZERO evidence that such an offer could not have landed Headley. Defending the Sandoval signing with the false choice between Sandoval and nothing is irresponsible. They did have other choices, better choices but they chose to sign an overweight and clearly declining player to an unconsciable deal. Worst of all, I think they did it for non-baseball reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 7, 2015 12:32:24 GMT -5
Headley didn't appear interested in leaving NY. That's why he wasn't an option. The cute nickname crap is a bunch of garbage. Are you channeling godot? In 2010 the Red Sox, led by Tom Werner, commissioned a study that concluded that TV ratings were low because they didn't have enough sexy players. There is clear evidence that the team has and does make baseball moves baed upon non-baseball related factors such as the marketability of the player or short term boosts to TV ratings. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the signing of Sandoval was based at least in part on his appearance in three of the last 5 World Series and the possession of a cute and marketable nickname. It is foolish of you to dismiss a perfectly logical conclusion as "a bunch of garbage." As for the idea that the signing of Headley was not possible...well...that's a bunch of garbage and not a logical conclusion baed upon the evidence. Players in most cases take the best offer. There is ZERO evidence that such an offer could not have landed Headley. Defending the Sandoval signing with the false choice between Sandoval and nothing is irresponsible. They did have other choices, better choices but they chose to sign an overweight and clearly declining player to an unconsciable deal. Worst of all, I think they did it for non-baseball reasons. After 2012, the Red Sox conceded that trying to sign sexy players was a huge mistake and why they changed philosophies. Hence, the non-sexy signings in 2013 which pretty much every shallow-minded short attention span WEEI "fan" thought were horrible. There is ZERO evidence that we could have landed Headley. There is ZERO evidence that the Yankees weren't going to up their offer over and over again until we bowed out. Just because we got Moncada doesn't mean the Yankees won't outbid us on a player they want more. Complaining about something that happened in the past that we know absolutely nothing about just screams of whiny spoiled fan using a lot of hindsight. |
|
|
