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.
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 11:27:58 GMT -5
Here are his splits by the number of days he's played in a row after a day off. So 1 means he didn't play the day before.
If there's a double-header after an off day, the first game goes into 1 and the second game goes into 2, along with the game the next day (if he plays). IOW, 2 also means he's playing his second game since he had a day off, even if it's the next day. The idea is to measure whether a day off makes him rusty.
Let's start with this year. As always, PA* is PA excluding IBB and SH, EqA is BP's metric (they call it TAv now) and is scaled to match BA, with .260 being league average, BB% excludes IBB, and HRC is HR / Contact. This turns out to be simply after a day off, versus after he played the day before.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 63 .117 .159 .133 .118 .413 .048 .000 .206 2-7 72 .308 .361 .615 .328 .306 .069 .114 .385 BTW, the PA* is just PA, so if someone who was really into Red Sox stats wanted to tweet the slash lines, they can just cite those numbers as PA. Credit me (former Sox Baseball Ops consultant Eric Van) if that happens!
Here's 2019: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 125 .211 .280 .412 .246 .344 .080 .085 .277 3-11 218 .279 .355 .497 .298 .326 .083 .095 .377 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409
He didn't struggle as much after a day off, which may have something to do with not being able to take BP on those days this year. The bad numbers after a long stretch playing every day are normal -- Manny used to have his numbers decline at that point, too. You still see the same "getting into the groove" effect. It's largely BABIP driven, but for hitters that's a measure of good contact. This is interesting: his splits in his hot start last year (through May 4) resemble this year's. Admittedly, he only started twice after a day off.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 9 .143 .333 .286 .239 .222 .222 .000 .200 2-8 49 .390 .490 .854 .429 .245 .143 .207 .435
He seemed to struggle terribly after that hot start, but once he'd played 2 days in a row, he was solid: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 98 .202 .235 .372 .216 .388 .041 .071 .288 3-11 187 .254 .333 .432 .274 .332 .080 .075 .354 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 His career gives a really convincing sample size for his numbers when he's neither rusty from a dayt off nor exhausted from playing 12+ says in a row:
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 123 .162 .203 .299 .183 .382 .049 .057 .227 2-11 358 .271 .347 .492 .294 .324 .087 .092 .364 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 For the first two lines, which is to say, for the hypothesized rust effect, the odds of getting the splits in the four hitting components (K%, BB%, HRC, and BABIP) in a random simulation are 1 in 1,563.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 21, 2020 11:44:40 GMT -5
Here are his splits by the number of days he's played in a row after a day off. So 1 means he didn't play the day before.
If there's a double-header after an off day, the first game goes into 1 and the second game goes into 2, along with the game the next day (if he plays). IOW, 2 also means he's playing his second game since he had a day off, even if it's the next day. The idea is to measure whether a day off makes him rusty.
Let's start with this year. As always, PA* is PA excluding IBB and SH, EqA is BP's metric (they call it TAv now) and is scaled to match BA, with .260 being league average, BB% excludes IBB, and HRC is HR / Contact. This turns out to be simply after a day off, versus after he played the day before.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 63 .117 .159 .133 .118 .413 .048 .000 .206 2-7 72 .308 .361 .615 .328 .306 .069 .114 .385 BTW, the PA* is just PA, so if someone who was really into Red Sox stats wanted to tweet the slash lines, they can just cite those numbers as PA. Credit me (former Sox Baseball Ops consultant Eric Van) if that happens!
Here's 2019: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 125 .211 .280 .412 .246 .344 .080 .085 .277 3-11 218 .279 .355 .497 .298 .326 .083 .095 .377 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409
He didn't struggle as much after a day off, which may have something to do with not being able to take BP on those days this year. The bad numbers after a long stretch playing every day are normal -- Manny used to have his numbers decline at that point, too. You still see the same "getting into the groove" effect. It's largely BABIP driven, but for hitters that's a measure of good contact. This is interesting: his splits in his hot start last year (through May 4) resemble this year's. Admittedly, he only started twice after a day off.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 9 .143 .333 .286 .239 .222 .222 .000 .200 2-8 49 .390 .490 .854 .429 .245 .143 .207 .435
He seemed to struggle terribly after that hot start, but once he'd played 2 days in a row, he was solid: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 98 .202 .235 .372 .216 .388 .041 .071 .288 3-11 187 .254 .333 .432 .274 .332 .080 .075 .354 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 His career gives a really convincing sample size for his numbers when he's neither rusty from a dayt off nor exhausted from playing 12+ says in a row:
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 123 .162 .203 .299 .183 .382 .049 .057 .227 2-11 358 .271 .347 .492 .294 .324 .087 .092 .364 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 For the first two lines, which is to say, for the hypothesized rust effect, the odds of getting the splits in the four hitting components (K%, BB%, HRC, and BABIP) in a random simulation are 1 in 1,563.
This is interesting. I have a few questions just as points of reference: first, what is typical in these splits? That is, I imagine many players might be off after a rest. But that is a guess... do numbers support that? Is Chavis *more* off? And... and this is even more speculative... is it worse for young players? I mean, I’m guessing a guy like Moreland gets more benefit from rest than harm to timing... but younger players might be more apt to get out of whack? Again... that is wildly speculative. Just curious if you’ve ever looked at other players with these splits for comparison. I just wish they’d used a down season to give Chavis a stable set of reps at one position. The guy is a first-round pick with legit upside. They should be doing all they can to help him succeed.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 12:09:33 GMT -5
Here are his splits by the number of days he's played in a row after a day off. So 1 means he didn't play the day before.
...... For the first two lines, which is to say, for the hypothesized rust effect, the odds of getting the splits in the four hitting components (K%, BB%, HRC, and BABIP) in a random simulation are 1 in 1,563.
This is interesting. I have a few questions just as points of reference: first, what is typical in these splits? That is, I imagine many players might be off after a rest. But that is a guess... do numbers support that? Is Chavis *more* off? And... and this is even more speculative... is it worse for young players? I mean, I’m guessing a guy like Moreland gets more benefit from rest than harm to timing... but younger players might be more apt to get out of whack? Again... that is wildly speculative. Just curious if you’ve ever looked at other players with these splits for comparison. I just wish they’d used a down season to give Chavis a stable set of reps at one position. The guy is a first-round pick with legit upside. They should be doing all they can to help him succeed. I did these splits for everyone when I worked for the team, including whether they were bothered by travel.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Manny's numbers after a day off were good but nothing special. He got better with every successive day that he played, up yo his fatigue point. Julio Lugo was another guy who needed to play every day -- which he had trouble doing here after he had a severe illness that made him weak in the off-season after we signed him.
Mike Lowell, in contrast, was much better after a day off, and was terrible on his first day in a new road city. Those were the only three guys I remember giving general advice about. None of these things are mysterious.
I agree, it would make some sense if the rust effect was more common in young players and the day-off boost more common in older ones. But these numbers are fairly time-consuming to produce. I know I have a spreadsheet template in a folder somewhere, but if I dig that up and make it less work, I'll end up doing everybody. I'm not even looking at my Manny data because I'd just waste an hour looking at it and posting about it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 21, 2020 12:36:45 GMT -5
This is interesting. I have a few questions just as points of reference: first, what is typical in these splits? That is, I imagine many players might be off after a rest. But that is a guess... do numbers support that? Is Chavis *more* off? And... and this is even more speculative... is it worse for young players? I mean, I’m guessing a guy like Moreland gets more benefit from rest than harm to timing... but younger players might be more apt to get out of whack? Again... that is wildly speculative. Just curious if you’ve ever looked at other players with these splits for comparison. I just wish they’d used a down season to give Chavis a stable set of reps at one position. The guy is a first-round pick with legit upside. They should be doing all they can to help him succeed. I did these splits for everyone when I worked for the team, including whether they were bothered by travel.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Manny's numbers after a day off were good but nothing special. He got better with every successive day that he played, up yo his fatigue point. Julio Lugo was another guy who needed to play every day -- which he had trouble doing here after he had a severe illness that made him weak in the off-season after we signed him.
Mike Lowell, in contrast, was much better after a day off, and was terrible on his first day in a new road city. Those were the only three guys I remember giving general advice about. None of these things are mysterious.
I agree, it would make some sense if the rust effect was more common in young players and the day-off boost more common in older ones. But these numbers are fairly time-consuming to produce. I know I have a spreadsheet template in a folder somewhere, but if I dig that up and make it less work, I'll end up doing everybody. I'm not even looking at my Manny data because I'd just waste an hour looking at it and posting about it.
Oh, don’t do more work! This is a complete answer to me. I really meant if you had recollection or even impression. Not asking you to research for me!! This is really interesting stuff. Last question: do you know if teams use this sort of data to help plan off days? It would seem like you might be able to figure out a way to hit a certain game spread to maximize guys. I suppose this is also your point with Godley. I agree overall up to the point when the amount of sitting creates a roster drag. But I suppose you could really work overtime to combine pieces that minimize that drag (eg a platoon of two guys who are maximized at ~80 games). Anyway, thanks for putting this together. Like I said, I wish Chavis were more of a priority this season.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Sept 21, 2020 14:00:24 GMT -5
I was thinking it would be better for Chavis to start next year back at AAA if he doesn't have a regular position in 2021. Would you agree based on these numbers?
Also eric, now that Puello is on the 40 man, do you think he will survive the DFA purge that will come next month?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2020 15:22:40 GMT -5
I was thinking it would be better for Chavis to start next year back at AAA if he doesn't have a regular position in 2021. Would you agree based on these numbers? Also eric, now that Puello is on the 40 man, do you think he will survive the DFA purge that will come next month? Chavis ought to be the starting 2B next year, with Arroyo as the reserve MI ... assuming he can still play SS adequately.
Puello should clear waivers. I hope they bring him back for Worcester.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 21, 2020 16:25:59 GMT -5
Yeah Puello is fungible depth. If he stays it's because someone else came off.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Sept 21, 2020 18:12:06 GMT -5
I wonder where they will start downs next year Worcester or portland. If it's Worcester makes sense them giving chavis reps in the OF as a utility player moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 21, 2020 19:15:50 GMT -5
If eric's numbers truly carry forward, Chavis should be an everyday player. Puello is probably one of the best AAA outfield depth players in baseball. A periodic week or two major league pay reward would be perfect.
Not implying this is an easy thing to do but this looks like simple trend analysis that should be generated automatically for every player after every game. Once the work is done, it's automatic. I am pretty much shocked that the Red Sox don't already have this information bolded and at their fingertips.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 21, 2020 20:09:59 GMT -5
Here are his splits by the number of days he's played in a row after a day off. So 1 means he didn't play the day before.
If there's a double-header after an off day, the first game goes into 1 and the second game goes into 2, along with the game the next day (if he plays). IOW, 2 also means he's playing his second game since he had a day off, even if it's the next day. The idea is to measure whether a day off makes him rusty.
Let's start with this year. As always, PA* is PA excluding IBB and SH, EqA is BP's metric (they call it TAv now) and is scaled to match BA, with .260 being league average, BB% excludes IBB, and HRC is HR / Contact. This turns out to be simply after a day off, versus after he played the day before.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 63 .117 .159 .133 .118 .413 .048 .000 .206 2-7 72 .308 .361 .615 .328 .306 .069 .114 .385 BTW, the PA* is just PA, so if someone who was really into Red Sox stats wanted to tweet the slash lines, they can just cite those numbers as PA. Credit me (former Sox Baseball Ops consultant Eric Van) if that happens!
Here's 2019: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 125 .211 .280 .412 .246 .344 .080 .085 .277 3-11 218 .279 .355 .497 .298 .326 .083 .095 .377 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409
He didn't struggle as much after a day off, which may have something to do with not being able to take BP on those days this year. The bad numbers after a long stretch playing every day are normal -- Manny used to have his numbers decline at that point, too. You still see the same "getting into the groove" effect. It's largely BABIP driven, but for hitters that's a measure of good contact. This is interesting: his splits in his hot start last year (through May 4) resemble this year's. Admittedly, he only started twice after a day off.
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 9 .143 .333 .286 .239 .222 .222 .000 .200 2-8 49 .390 .490 .854 .429 .245 .143 .207 .435
He seemed to struggle terribly after that hot start, but once he'd played 2 days in a row, he was solid: DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1-2 98 .202 .235 .372 .216 .388 .041 .071 .288 3-11 187 .254 .333 .432 .274 .332 .080 .075 .354 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 His career gives a really convincing sample size for his numbers when he's neither rusty from a dayt off nor exhausted from playing 12+ says in a row:
DP PA* BA OBP SA EqA K% BB% HRC BABIP 1 123 .162 .203 .299 .183 .382 .049 .057 .227 2-11 358 .271 .347 .492 .294 .324 .087 .092 .364 12-16 34 .265 .265 .265 .202 .353 .000 .000 .409 For the first two lines, which is to say, for the hypothesized rust effect, the odds of getting the splits in the four hitting components (K%, BB%, HRC, and BABIP) in a random simulation are 1 in 1,563.
Cal Ripken Jr. is turning over in his grave -- which is amazing, since he is still alive.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 21, 2020 22:46:08 GMT -5
I was thinking it would be better for Chavis to start next year back at AAA if he doesn't have a regular position in 2021. Would you agree based on these numbers? Also eric, now that Puello is on the 40 man, do you think he will survive the DFA purge that will come next month? Chavis ought to be the starting 2B next year, with Arroyo as the reserve MI ... assuming he can still play SS adequately.
Puello should clear waivers. I hope they bring him back for Worcester.
Assuming the sox are competitive I don’t think you really need to carry a backup SS so to speak. As long as Arroyo can fill in, in a Blowout or emergency, gotta think X plays all the games and innings for that. If he needs a day off make a move and call up Lin or whoever it may be
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 21, 2020 22:47:16 GMT -5
One thing I wonder is how this compares with a simple early-season/late-season split. Since Chavis has been getting more regular playing time lately, might that potentially confound the 'days off' variable?
7/24-9/3: .198/.233/.333, 44 wRC+ 9/4-9/20: .250/.327/.477, 114 wRC+
I don't have the chops to analyze this rigorously, but it is interesting that within this post-9/4 hot streak, three of his four worst games were 9/8 (after a day off), 9/16 (after two days off), and 9/18 (after a day off).
To be fair, his more consistent play started on 8/31 - he played 7 days in a row starting that day - and went hitless in the first three of those games. But to be even more fair, that stretch came after playing on just 4 of the previous 12 days. Maybe the more he sits on the bench, the longer it takes him to warm back up?
Hmm, I started this comment trying to think of ways to press against eric's theory, but now I'm move convinced he may be onto something...
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2020 1:09:16 GMT -5
One thing I wonder is how this compares with a simple early-season/late-season split. Since Chavis has been getting more regular playing time lately, might that potentially confound the 'days off' variable? 7/24-9/3: .198/.233/.333, 44 wRC+ 9/4-9/20: .250/.327/.477, 114 wRC+ I don't have the chops to analyze this rigorously, but it is interesting that within this post-9/4 hot streak, three of his four worst games were 9/8 (after a day off), 9/16 (after two days off), and 9/18 (after a day off). To be fair, his more consistent play started on 8/31 - he played 7 days in a row starting that day - and went hitless in the first three of those games. But to be even more fair, that stretch came after playing on just 4 of the previous 12 days. Maybe the more he sits on the bench, the longer it takes him to warm back up? Hmm, I started this comment trying to think of ways to press against eric's theory, but now I'm move convinced he may be onto something... There are some analytical findings which are counter-intuitive, like Houck's straight 4-seamer being a feature, not a bug.
This is not one of them. This is why hitters take batting practice!
I'm no longer disappointed that I couldn't find a good 2B with 5 years of service time who was going to cost a non-contender too much money next year. If you don't need to acquire a starting 2B, it frees up a roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 22, 2020 1:34:35 GMT -5
Presumably, we have 6 more games of data left to work with.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 25, 2020 11:58:05 GMT -5
I'd point out again what I did at the start of the year, Chavis hits best against RH starters. Yet till they traded Moreland he was strictly starting against LH starters.
He's hitting .259 .306 .517 .824 against RH starters and .184 .238 .289 .528 against LH starters.
Last 18 games 17 strikeouts and five walks. He kinda reminds me of Bradley when he first came up, he's still trying to figure out what works. Currently trading power for making contact and getting walks. He needs to find the middle ground, between walks, strikeouts and hitting the ball hard.
I'm still starting him in AAA next year. Let him work on those issues and build up confidence.
I really want to know why with a young player our manager kept sending him out there to face the pitchers he hit worst against in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 25, 2020 14:42:04 GMT -5
It's interesting. Since his first start in LF on 9/8, he's hitting .175/.244/.450 in 11 games. Since his first start at 2B on 9/3, he's hitting .241/.308/.448 in 16 games. Since he started getting more regular playing time, including against RHS, on 8/26, he's hitting .203/.265/.365 in 21 games (although you'd expect it to take a few games before the benefit of playing would kick in).
Before 8/26, he started against RHS just twice in the team's (how convenient) 30 games, playing in 18 of those (16 starts). Since, he's faced 13 RHS in 27 games, playing in 21 games, all starts.
The split I'd like to see, which is probably a SSS too small to glean much from, is his LHP/RHP split from game 31 onward. His RHP split wouldn't be much different, but his LHP split might be, and it might tell you if it's the handedness or playing time that matters more for him.
Narratively, you could see him improving as he both got more playing time and faced more RHPs, then trended down a bit as he had to basically learn LF on the fly in one of the most complicated parks in the game to do so in.
I'd like to see him get some run next year to see what he could do, but I'm just not sure where. You wonder if some team has an analyst crunching numbers that's going to tell them to take a flyer on him that would give up something interesting. I think it's a slim chance and I doubt the return would be worth it, but I don't see where his PT comes from next year unless they're going to commit to playing him every day between 2B and 1B.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Sept 25, 2020 15:41:12 GMT -5
It's interesting. Since his first start in LF on 9/8, he's hitting .175/.244/.450 in 11 games. Since his first start at 2B on 9/3, he's hitting .241/.308/.448 in 16 games. Since he started getting more regular playing time, including against RHS, on 8/26, he's hitting .203/.265/.365 in 21 games (although you'd expect it to take a few games before the benefit of playing would kick in). Before 8/26, he started against RHS just twice in the team's (how convenient) 30 games, playing in 18 of those (16 starts). Since, he's faced 13 RHS in 27 games, playing in 21 games, all starts. The split I'd like to see, which is probably a SSS too small to glean much from, is his LHP/RHP split from game 31 onward. His RHP split wouldn't be much different, but his LHP split might be, and it might tell you if it's the handedness or playing time that matters more for him. Narratively, you could see him improving as he both got more playing time and faced more RHPs, then trended down a bit as he had to basically learn LF on the fly in one of the most complicated parks in the game to do so in. I'd like to see him get some run next year to see what he could do, but I'm just not sure where. You wonder if some team has an analyst crunching numbers that's going to tell them to take a flyer on him that would give up something interesting. I think it's a slim chance and I doubt the return would be worth it, but I don't see where his PT comes from next year unless they're going to commit to playing him every day between 2B and 1B. Am I mistaken in thinking that he's had more competitive ABs in recent weeks? I.e. hasn't been striking out as much and generally looking badly overmatched ?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 26, 2020 11:41:12 GMT -5
It's interesting. Since his first start in LF on 9/8, he's hitting .175/.244/.450 in 11 games. Since his first start at 2B on 9/3, he's hitting .241/.308/.448 in 16 games. Since he started getting more regular playing time, including against RHS, on 8/26, he's hitting .203/.265/.365 in 21 games (although you'd expect it to take a few games before the benefit of playing would kick in). Before 8/26, he started against RHS just twice in the team's (how convenient) 30 games, playing in 18 of those (16 starts). Since, he's faced 13 RHS in 27 games, playing in 21 games, all starts. The split I'd like to see, which is probably a SSS too small to glean much from, is his LHP/RHP split from game 31 onward. His RHP split wouldn't be much different, but his LHP split might be, and it might tell you if it's the handedness or playing time that matters more for him. Narratively, you could see him improving as he both got more playing time and faced more RHPs, then trended down a bit as he had to basically learn LF on the fly in one of the most complicated parks in the game to do so in. I'd like to see him get some run next year to see what he could do, but I'm just not sure where. You wonder if some team has an analyst crunching numbers that's going to tell them to take a flyer on him that would give up something interesting. I think it's a slim chance and I doubt the return would be worth it, but I don't see where his PT comes from next year unless they're going to commit to playing him every day between 2B and 1B. The splits you actually want are by handedness and consecutive days played (1, 2, 3-11, 12+). That's pretty easy to grab from Statcast; the only manual tweaking is for the two doubleheaders he played last year after a day off, where you want to put game 2 into the played-yesterday bucket.
Once I have those, I can check to see his LF versus 1B / 2B numbers.
I'll do that as soon as the season's over. But my guess is that his whole neutral R/L split is because he has faced a lot more LHP when he's had an off day and really struggles.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 26, 2020 12:06:10 GMT -5
I don't agree. Not all days off are created equal, and I don't necessarily buy that getting a day off instantly resets some sort of setting for every player. I'm not saying that the days-after-a-day-off thing is completely useless, but I'm more interested in seeing how he does when he's playing more often, as opposed to some certain amount of days consecutively.
For example, a game after a day off isn't the same, in my opinion, when it follows having played 6 in a row as opposed to having played, say, every other game during that stretch.
I also don't think there's a ton of utility in the days-after-a-day-off thing. The schedule has built-in off days that you can't do anything about. That's why I'm more interested in seeing if a guy benefits from generally playing more often, which can be controlled, than drilling down that far, which to some degree cannot.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 26, 2020 12:49:58 GMT -5
I don't agree. Not all days off are created equal, and I don't necessarily buy that getting a day off instantly resets some sort of setting for every player. I'm not saying that the days-after-a-day-off thing is completely useless, but I'm more interested in seeing how he does when he's playing more often, as opposed to some certain amount of days consecutively. For example, a game after a day off isn't the same, in my opinion, when it follows having played 6 in a row as opposed to having played, say, every other game during that stretch. I also don't think there's a ton of utility in the days-after-a-day-off thing. The schedule has built-in off days that you can't do anything about. That's why I'm more interested in seeing if a guy benefits from generally playing more often, which can be controlled, than drilling down that far, which to some degree cannot. Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that. Game 7 of the World Series is the day after Game 6 of the World Series, but oh no there's a rainout in between so we cannot play Chavis because he had a day off. And yes, I'm being facetious here, but rainouts will happen, the built in day offs you alluded to. I can agree with the larger point of if you keep him on the bench he can get rusty and lose his rhythm kind of argument. I think that's one of the reasons Cora gave for giving Hanley the heave ho, that if he was going to spend a bunch of time on the bench he wasn't going to be the kind of player who can have that kind of time off, roll off the bench and suddenly contribute.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 26, 2020 12:57:07 GMT -5
I don't agree. Not all days off are created equal, and I don't necessarily buy that getting a day off instantly resets some sort of setting for every player. I'm not saying that the days-after-a-day-off thing is completely useless, but I'm more interested in seeing how he does when he's playing more often, as opposed to some certain amount of days consecutively. For example, a game after a day off isn't the same, in my opinion, when it follows having played 6 in a row as opposed to having played, say, every other game during that stretch. I also don't think there's a ton of utility in the days-after-a-day-off thing. The schedule has built-in off days that you can't do anything about. That's why I'm more interested in seeing if a guy benefits from generally playing more often, which can be controlled, than drilling down that far, which to some degree cannot. It's really hard to disagree with facts, and this phenomenon does show up for certain players, most notably with Manny Ramirez, over a huge amount of PA across his career. Sure, the average player just hits better as a generic regular than coming off the bench. But there are players who really do reset after a day off.
And as I pointed out, there's nothing weird or counter-intuitive about that except the severity of the effect. And any time that people do a thing, there will be some people who really do that thing, to a degree that might seem startling. Just look at the distribution of post counts here!
In Chavis's case, this year, when BP on a day off likely never happens, he already has ridiculous, statistically significant splits between day off and no day off the day before. A .292 OPS in 63 PA vs. .976 in 72 PA, last time I checked.
So if his regular playing time is 2 games out of 3, that's not going to tell you jack about how good he might be if he plays every day.
And yes, you can't have him play on an off day, but you can give him enhanced BP on an off day whenever possible to minimize the effect. And it changes the way you use him.
I never found any guy who had a significant effect depending on days off in a row. There's almost never a sufficient sample of the different values, to begin with.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 26, 2020 13:30:50 GMT -5
I don't agree. Not all days off are created equal, and I don't necessarily buy that getting a day off instantly resets some sort of setting for every player. I'm not saying that the days-after-a-day-off thing is completely useless, but I'm more interested in seeing how he does when he's playing more often, as opposed to some certain amount of days consecutively. For example, a game after a day off isn't the same, in my opinion, when it follows having played 6 in a row as opposed to having played, say, every other game during that stretch. I also don't think there's a ton of utility in the days-after-a-day-off thing. The schedule has built-in off days that you can't do anything about. That's why I'm more interested in seeing if a guy benefits from generally playing more often, which can be controlled, than drilling down that far, which to some degree cannot. Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that. Game 7 of the World Series is the day after Game 6 of the World Series, but oh no there's a rainout in between so we cannot play Chavis because he had a day off. And yes, I'm being facetious here, but rainouts will happen, the built in day offs you alluded to. I can agree with the larger point of if you keep him on the bench he can get rusty and lose his rhythm kind of argument. I think that's one of the reasons Cora gave for giving Hanley the heave ho, that if he was going to spend a bunch of time on the bench he wasn't going to be the kind of player who can have that kind of time off, roll off the bench and suddenly contribute. Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that.
I gave Terry Francona that sort of advice (through Jed Hoyer and Zack Scott) and he used it.
And the way you use this particular data is to never give a guy a day off until he hits his fatigue point. For your counter-argument you picked the only possible situation -- rainout before a single game with an off day following -- where you might choose to do the opposite and sit him. Players do not have a problem seeing their name in the lineup more often. Manager do not have a problem with not having to decide who plays a given position today.
And the point here is not to maximize the lineup for a given game, but in the long run. The bad numbers on the 20+ unavoidable first days are the price you pay for the much better numbers for all the others.
The goal is to get the total best out of a player. And you always follow that principle. You sit a guy who needs a day off, even if it hurts your odds that day, if in the long run he'll be better. Francona used to do that and it would drive folks crazy, but it was smart. If Zimmer had done that in '78, we would have won the WES.
There was an infamous situation (mentioned in Francona's autobiography, but attributed to the wrong year!) where Zack Scott advised Francona to sit Mike Lowell against Chien-Ming Wang because the swing-path analytics had him as terrible against him. That was the point where Tito stopped taking analytic lineup advice.
I was doing my own lineup suggestions, and I could see that Lowell couldn't hit Wang. My advice for that series was to platoon at SS but that "nobody else is going to want to sit against the Yankees." Insulting Lowell's competitive instincts would do more damage than starting his backup would gain you.
Hmm ... please explain the downside to playing Michael Chavis every single game (up to 11 in a row) if that's what it takes to turn him into an 850+ OPS hitter.
If you do that, and it turns out that he's not that good, how many games are you losing versus an Arroyo / Chavis platoon? One? That's the max, probably. The upside is you've discovered a star, and the stats so far point at the upside.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 26, 2020 14:08:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that. Game 7 of the World Series is the day after Game 6 of the World Series, but oh no there's a rainout in between so we cannot play Chavis because he had a day off. And yes, I'm being facetious here, but rainouts will happen, the built in day offs you alluded to. I can agree with the larger point of if you keep him on the bench he can get rusty and lose his rhythm kind of argument. I think that's one of the reasons Cora gave for giving Hanley the heave ho, that if he was going to spend a bunch of time on the bench he wasn't going to be the kind of player who can have that kind of time off, roll off the bench and suddenly contribute. Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that.
I gave Terry Francona that sort of advice (through Jed Hoyer and Zack Scott) and he used it.
And the way you use this particular data is to never give a guy a day off until he hits his fatigue point. For your counter-argument you picked the only possible situation -- rainout before a single game with an off day following -- where you might choose to do the opposite and sit him. Players do not have a problem seeing their name in the lineup more often. Manager do not have a problem with not having to decide who plays a given position today.
And the point here is not to maximize the lineup for a given game, but in the long run. The bad numbers on the 20+ unavoidable first days are the price you pay for the much better numbers for all the others.
The goal is to get the total best out of a player. And you always follow that principle. You sit a guy who needs a day off, even if it hurts your odds that day, if in the long run he'll be better. Francona used to do that and it would drive folks crazy, but it was smart. If Zimmer had done that in '78, we would have won the WES.
There was an infamous situation (mentioned in Francona's autobiography, but attributed to the wrong year!) where Zack Scott advised Francona to sit Mike Lowell against Chien-Ming Wang because the swing-path analytics had him as terrible against him. That was the point where Tito stopped taking analytic lineup advice.
I was doing my own lineup suggestions, and I could see that Lowell couldn't hit Wang. My advice for that series was to platoon at SS but that "nobody else is going to want to sit against the Yankees." Insulting Lowell's competitive instincts would do more damage than starting his backup would gain you.
Hmm ... please explain the downside to playing Michael Chavis every single game (up to 11 in a row) if that's what it takes to turn him into an 850+ OPS hitter.
If you do that, and it turns out that he's not that good, how many games are you losing versus an Arroyo / Chavis platoon? One? That's the max, probably. The upside is you've discovered a star, and the stats so far point at the upside. Eric, I agree completely with you in this case, but the case doesn’t prove a boundless rule. That is, in this particular instance the season is lost, the options are no-lose, and Chavis is a real prospect. And, as you say, you are really only suggesting a lineup tweak every so-many games. But.... at its more extreme, I still think there is a point where guys who need too much individual treatment are not worth it. The extra rest case with Godley is one: a guy like Mazza is just as good without the special treatment. So the question then becomes if Chavis is basically a league average player who needs special treatment to be just that... do you give up?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 26, 2020 14:16:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't imagine a manager making a decision based on something like that.
I gave Terry Francona that sort of advice (through Jed Hoyer and Zack Scott) and he used it.
And the way you use this particular data is to never give a guy a day off until he hits his fatigue point. For your counter-argument you picked the only possible situation -- rainout before a single game with an off day following -- where you might choose to do the opposite and sit him. Players do not have a problem seeing their name in the lineup more often. Manager do not have a problem with not having to decide who plays a given position today.
And the point here is not to maximize the lineup for a given game, but in the long run. The bad numbers on the 20+ unavoidable first days are the price you pay for the much better numbers for all the others.
The goal is to get the total best out of a player. And you always follow that principle. You sit a guy who needs a day off, even if it hurts your odds that day, if in the long run he'll be better. Francona used to do that and it would drive folks crazy, but it was smart. If Zimmer had done that in '78, we would have won the WES.
There was an infamous situation (mentioned in Francona's autobiography, but attributed to the wrong year!) where Zack Scott advised Francona to sit Mike Lowell against Chien-Ming Wang because the swing-path analytics had him as terrible against him. That was the point where Tito stopped taking analytic lineup advice.
I was doing my own lineup suggestions, and I could see that Lowell couldn't hit Wang. My advice for that series was to platoon at SS but that "nobody else is going to want to sit against the Yankees." Insulting Lowell's competitive instincts would do more damage than starting his backup would gain you.
Hmm ... please explain the downside to playing Michael Chavis every single game (up to 11 in a row) if that's what it takes to turn him into an 850+ OPS hitter.
If you do that, and it turns out that he's not that good, how many games are you losing versus an Arroyo / Chavis platoon? One? That's the max, probably. The upside is you've discovered a star, and the stats so far point at the upside. Eric, I agree completely with you in this case, but the case doesn’t prove a boundless rule. That is, in this particular instance the season is lost, the options are no-lose, and Chavis is a real prospect. And, as you say, you are really only suggesting a lineup tweak every so-many games. But.... at its more extreme, I still think there is a point where guys who need too much individual treatment are not worth it. The extra rest case with Godley is one: a guy like Mazza is just as good without the special treatment. So the question then becomes if Chavis is basically a league average player who needs special treatment to be just that... do you give up? I agree with this point in principle, and it's one thing that drove me nuts about Kimbrel - he was a Great Closer... but only in the lab-sterile conditions of a clean ninth inning save situation. Especially since a lot of those situations are actually pretty low leverage, his value was hugely compromised because his talent couldn't be taken advantage of when it would actually have been most useful. But in this case the "special treatment" for Chavis would just be playing him every day, right? It would seem well worth it to give him that shot, and if it doesn't work out by, say, the 2021 trade deadline then it's no great loss. ADD: Re-reading your comment, I think we're in agreement here.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Sept 26, 2020 14:21:20 GMT -5
I don't agree. Not all days off are created equal, and I don't necessarily buy that getting a day off instantly resets some sort of setting for every player. I'm not saying that the days-after-a-day-off thing is completely useless, but I'm more interested in seeing how he does when he's playing more often, as opposed to some certain amount of days consecutively. For example, a game after a day off isn't the same, in my opinion, when it follows having played 6 in a row as opposed to having played, say, every other game during that stretch. I also don't think there's a ton of utility in the days-after-a-day-off thing. The schedule has built-in off days that you can't do anything about. That's why I'm more interested in seeing if a guy benefits from generally playing more often, which can be controlled, than drilling down that far, which to some degree cannot. It's really hard to disagree with facts, and this phenomenon does show up for certain players, most notably with Manny Ramirez, over a huge amount of PA across his career. Sure, the average player just hits better as a generic regular than coming off the bench. But there are players who really do reset after a day off.
And as I pointed out, there's nothing weird or counter-intuitive about that except the severity of the effect. And any time that people do a thing, there will be some people who really do that thing, to a degree that might seem startling. Just look at the distribution of post counts here!
In Chavis's case, this year, when BP on a day off likely never happens, he already has ridiculous, statistically significant splits between day off and no day off the day before. A .292 OPS in 63 PA vs. .976 in 72 PA, last time I checked.
So if his regular playing time is 2 games out of 3, that's not going to tell you jack about how good he might be if he plays every day.
And yes, you can't have him play on an off day, but you can give him enhanced BP on an off day whenever possible to minimize the effect. And it changes the way you use him.
I never found any guy who had a significant effect depending on days off in a row. There's almost never a sufficient sample of the different values, to begin with.
Manny played a massive amount of games. How many samples do you have of Manny going long stretches playing limited games? You play 150 plus games and those days off mean one thing, you play 75 games and they can mean something completely different.
|
|
|