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.
2015 Red Sox Trade Deadline Strategy
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2015 7:00:48 GMT -5
Besides, the players who underperformed their projections last year have basically noone in common with the players who have underperformed their projections this year. Last year, Middlebrooks, Sizemore, Pierzynski, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Pedroia (at the plate only) struggled. This year, it's Hanley, Craig, Sandoval, Nava, Castillo, Napoli, Ortiz, Swihart, and Betts, and the guys who struggled last year and are still in the organization have all bounced back.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2015 7:12:41 GMT -5
[ But you basically said the same thing last year. You can't make this same argument year after year. Why not? An n of 1 is certainly not proof that I'm wrong. Sometimes a coin comes up tails twice in a row. No but if a team finishes last 3 years out of four it's strong evidence that something is amiss and it's not just a couple of tweaks away from contending. If they approach the off season that way they will finish last for many years to come.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 16, 2015 7:14:56 GMT -5
Besides, the players who underperformed their projections last year have basically noone in common with the players who have underperformed their projections this year. Last year, Middlebrooks, Sizemore, Pierzynski, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Pedroia (at the plate only) struggled. This year, it's Hanley, Craig, Sandoval, Nava, Castillo, Napoli, Ortiz, Swihart, and Betts, and the guys who struggled last year and are still in the organization have all bounced back. That's one guy! And he's still underperforming projections.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2015 7:21:59 GMT -5
As discussed here, the Red Sox front office traded away many of its good players in both 2012 and 2014. If they'd kept those rosters as they were, they likely finish not too far south of .500. Pedroia, Bogaerts, and Bradley (in AAA) all struggled last year but have played to or surpassed projections this year. You can probably add Buchholz to that list as well.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 16, 2015 11:40:42 GMT -5
[ But you basically said the same thing last year. You can't make this same argument year after year. Why not? An n of 1 is certainly not proof that I'm wrong. Sometimes a coin comes up tails twice in a row. To reiterate the point, elsewhere moonstone just asserted that it's impossible that bad luck has been a significant contributor to this team's underperformance, because it's impossible to have bad luck three years out of four (a point he conveniently reiterated in this thread). Never mind that I had never said that 2012 and 2014 were crippled by bad luck, and, indeed, there was no BABIP collapse in either year, and only in 2012 was ERA- worse than xFIP-. The sort of difference we've had in 2012 and 2015 between the two is very common, as clustering and scattering of hits allowed has a ton of annual variance. Our BABIP bad luck this year is extraordinary, and I've got the regression model (with p = .00000000000000000000000000000000000194) to prove it.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Jun 16, 2015 11:49:24 GMT -5
Our BABIP bad luck this year is extraordinary, and I've got the regression model (with p = .00000000000000000000000000000000000194) to prove it. I generally agree with your points, but this seems like a lazy statistical argument. I feel like you would know that a p < .00001 is not any better or more meaningful than a p = .04. Each case tells us that the statistical effect is *probably* not due to chance, assuming we have a large enough sample. Effect size and R-squared would be much more useful in my opinion, at least in terms of identifying how unlucky the team has been given that they have most likely been unlucky (as well as how well the model describes the observed data).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 16, 2015 11:55:52 GMT -5
Besides, the players who underperformed their projections last year have basically noone in common with the players who have underperformed their projections this year. Last year, Middlebrooks, Sizemore, Pierzynski, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Pedroia (at the plate only) struggled. This year, it's Hanley, Craig, Sandoval, Nava, Castillo, Napoli, Ortiz, Swihart, and Betts, and the guys who struggled last year and are still in the organization have all bounced back. That's one guy! And he's still underperforming projections.It's actually three guys, two in MLB. ZiPS: .278 / .340 / .392, 4.1 WAR Steamer: .283 / .351 / .406, 4.5 WAR Reality on all the planets moonstone isn't on: .313 / .376 / .459, 5.5 bWAR / 5.7 fWAR pace even with defensive off year ZiPS: .263 / .322 / .409, 2.5 WAR Steamer:.260 / .320 / .416, 2.3 WAR Reality on aforementioned planets: .289 / .330 / .399, 4.5 bWAR / 4.2 fWAR pace (due largely to legitimate huge defensive improvement) Pedey's on a pace to be 1.3 wins better, X is on a pace for 2.0 (which is likely to be larger, because he's likely to hit for more power going forwards). That's not small beans.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 16, 2015 12:05:41 GMT -5
Our BABIP bad luck this year is extraordinary, and I've got the regression model (with p = .00000000000000000000000000000000000194) to prove it. I generally agree with your points, but this seems like a lazy statistical argument. I feel like you would know that a p < .00001 is not any better than a p = .04. Each case tells us that the statistical effect is *probably* not due to chance, assuming we have a large enough sample. Effect size and R-squared would be much more useful in my opinion, at least in terms of identifying how unlucky the team has been given that they have most likely been unlucky (as well as how well the model describes the observed data). That's not true at all. With p = .04, you have a 1 in 25 chance of having stumbled on something just random. The p value tells you how certain you are that the r^2 is capturing what it seems to be capturing. So it's hardly trivial. In this case, we can be immensely certain that the identified factors contribute to team BABIP. In the model, r = .62, r^2 = .38, but I'm leaving out a factor that influences things hugely, home park. Sometime today, I'm going to add in the average residual for each park and see what that does to the r^2. (If I had software that did a proper multi-factor ANOVA, I'd of course do that instead.)
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,421
|
Post by ianrs on Jun 16, 2015 12:21:37 GMT -5
That's not true at all. With p = .04, you have a 1 in 25 chance of having stumbled on something just random. The p value tells you how certain you are that the r^2 is capturing what it seems to be capturing. So it's hardly trivial. In this case, we can be immensely certain that the identified factors contribute to team BABIP. In the model, r = .62, r^2 = .38, but I'm leaving out a factor that influences things hugely, home park. Sometime today, I'm going to add in the average residual for each park and see what that does to the r^2. (If I had software that did a proper multi-factor ANOVA, I'd of course do that instead.) I should have been more clear, or perhaps I misinterpreted you at first. Since your initial claim was "Our BABIP bad luck this year is extraordinary", I was assuming you were using the p value to make some claim about the quantity of (bad) luck. The p-value does provide more certainty that we have been unlucky. I was mostly just curious about the effect size, i.e. how unlucky have we been compared to an average team that has neither been unlucky or lucky (not different from 0). Thanks for the R^2 numbers. That's actually a pretty solid amount of variance given the randomness of baseball and lack of park factors included. I would highly recommend the free software package R for doing a multi-factor ANOVA. Or just doing regression and contrast coding things apriori, though of course this is a little more of a headache to interpret and report. I'm curious if you don't mind me asking - where do you typically pull your data from? The Lahman database, or elsewhere? In any case, I appreciate the work that you do.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jun 16, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5
Sandoval has a long track record of being at least an average defender and a good hitter. Hanley's defense is more on faith, but he certainly can't be any worse defensively than he's been so far, and a lot of his miscues are the kind of mistakes you expect a player new to the OF to make (inability to read the ball off the wall, bad routes, overthrowing the cutoff man). He has the raw tools to play a decent OF, and I don't completely buy into the narrative that he lacks the work ethic/desire to get better. I think he'll make at least marginal improvements there. I don't expect to get a lot for the guys I'm willing to move. I'm fine with that-- it's more to open up playing time and save some salary. We're talking future performances not past performances and this is a hitter who has been declining with a serious regularity: 2012: 118 wRC+ 2013: 116 wRC+ 2014: 111 wRC+ As for his defense, it's been slightly above average over the last three years so when you consider his body type and injury history I think he's heading in the wrong direction...Maybe he'll into a 103 wRC+ type of hitter for a year or 2 (If you try to hide him as much as possible against LHP) with a -3 DRS. That's what? 1.5-2 Wins? Considering the salary and the commitment, we're screwed. As for Hanley, I buy into the lack of desire to get better: The guy turned himself from a 50 SB threat to one of the worst baserunners in baseball (The memory of him losing the count for outs is still vivid in my memory) So yeah, I respectfully disagree with your optimistic vision. 118-116-111 is hardly a series decline. And 2 wins for 18M a year for a contract to only 32 years old is really not that bad. His body type is an overrated point. Not like he hasn't been fat for the last 6 years. He was signed to be a 6th hitter and give decent defence. And remember that part of Pablo's alure was his clutch/post season sucess. Now that is a mute point if the team around him dose not perform.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jun 16, 2015 12:38:32 GMT -5
Why not? An n of 1 is certainly not proof that I'm wrong. Sometimes a coin comes up tails twice in a row. No but if a team finishes last 3 years out of four it's strong evidence that something is amiss and it's not just a couple of tweaks away from contending. If they approach the off season that way they will finish last for many years to come. Same thing can be said for a team that wins a championship every 4 years. It's strong evidence that something is working. Baseball is a crapshoot. Reality is the Sox are short on high end talent right now(realy only Pedroia). Without superstars everything has to go right to win (like it did in 2013). Nobody can argue that the last 2 years a lot more has gone wrong than right. There are 2 ways to improve. 1-reroll the dice and see what happens. 2- get more good/star players.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 16, 2015 21:16:23 GMT -5
Besides, the players who underperformed their projections last year have basically noone in common with the players who have underperformed their projections this year. Underperformed? Is that really the right word? In my mind, we have guys who in key situations have repeatedly failed to execute. I understand for the young guys, failure to execute is a learning experience, but for Ortiz, rameriez, napoli, sandavol and most of the starting pitchers it is a significant problem.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jun 16, 2015 21:33:53 GMT -5
Yeah, David Ortiz's failure to execute in key situations is a real issue. What's the deal with that guy?
I mean sure, there's that junk, but what about the May in his age-39 season?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jun 16, 2015 22:03:51 GMT -5
Yeah, David Ortiz's failure to execute in key situations is a real issue. What's the deal with that guy? Although I have not seen any noticible decrease in bat speed, he appeared to me to be really struggling to make solid contact with anything other than mistake fastballs.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 17, 2015 7:20:10 GMT -5
Yeah, David Ortiz's failure to execute in key situations is a real issue. What's the deal with that guy? Although I have not seen any noticible decrease in bat speed, he appeared to me to be really struggling to make solid contact with anything other than mistake fastballs. Maybe you meant "anything other than right handed pitchers". He is OPS'ing .930 vs. RHP and .296 vs. LHP. So there is definitely a problem, but he's still hitting RHP at an elite level.
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Jun 17, 2015 12:41:46 GMT -5
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 619
|
Post by alnipper on Jun 17, 2015 18:51:08 GMT -5
I would trade this year either Miley or Buchholz. We will need pitching depth in 2016, so I would only trade one of them.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jun 17, 2015 19:51:22 GMT -5
Refusing to trade Lester and Lackey for prospects was a pretty big mistake if you ask me. In general, I think they should avoid that strategy of trading for veteran cast offs again. You can always flip those prospects later anyway if you want to buy into a pennant race. Prospects have more universal value than someone like Allen Craig or Cespedes did.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 17, 2015 22:42:33 GMT -5
One thing the Red Sox are going to have to consider...is the massive amount of players they are going to have to put on their roster. Between Rule Five eligibles, players currently on the 60 day disabled list, and players eligible for six year minor league free agency I count 14 players that you would have to at least consider putting on the roster, including 8 who are absolute locks.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 18, 2015 7:11:54 GMT -5
I think the competitive balance picks are assigned in the next few weeks. I'd like to get one of those if possible.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 18, 2015 10:09:06 GMT -5
I think the competitive balance picks are assigned in the next few weeks. I'd like to get one of those if possible. via trade? or will we somehow become one of the "10 smallest-market teams and the 10 lowest-revenue teams."
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 18, 2015 11:07:10 GMT -5
I think the competitive balance picks are assigned in the next few weeks. I'd like to get one of those if possible. via trade? or will we somehow become one of the "10 smallest-market teams and the 10 lowest-revenue teams." If the Cardinals can get one, why not us?
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by jimoh on Jun 18, 2015 11:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 18, 2015 12:43:19 GMT -5
The so-called "decline" in Pablo Sandoval's performance over the past several years is entirely attributable to a declining ability to hit lefthanded pitching when batting righthanded.
Batting 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
LH .314 .282 .324 .275 .281 .317 .325 RH .379 .227 .281 .299 .270 .199 .141
He has hit better lefthanded the past two seasons than ever before. He also seems to be hitting lefthanded pitchers better since he stopped batting righthanded, and his batting average has been rising.
His power numbers have been relatively the same for the last four years.
So, the argument that he is decline, at least as a batter, doesn't hold up when subject to statistical scrutiny.
There also is some "fat prejudice" showing up in some poster's arguments. He is heavy, but he has a body type not untypical for people with his heredity, and if you actually watch him you will see that he is quick and nimble for anyone of any size. And weight has little to do with hand-eye coordination or arm strength. He has not been as good a defender this year as in the past but I suspect it has more to do with playing in unfamiliar environments, and more stress than he will admit. Players also go through fielding slumps as well as batting slumps.
It probably would be virtually impossible to replace Sandoval with a player equal to him in the combination of hitting and fielding skills.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 18, 2015 12:58:42 GMT -5
Holt might have more value to another team than he does to the Sox. The cycle excepted, Holt is a good hitting middle infielder, and while a very capable defender in the outfield he doesn't have the power generally required for an outfielder, and this is especially true with the Sox.
Another team that has sufficient power hitting already might find him very helpful because of his OBP and versatility.
He isn't a permanent solution in the outfield. At this point it makes more sense for the team to try to find one, whether it is Castillo, or someone else.
He might be about the valuable position player trade chip the Sox have right now.
|
|
|