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.
Nathan Eovaldi (re-signed: 4 years/$68 million)
|
Post by unitspin on Dec 10, 2018 13:58:51 GMT -5
I do not think it will be possible to keep Porcello after this season. But I also do not see any reason to trade a durable pitcher when your trying to repeat at all cost. This team could very well repeat but if they intend to it will take a full season of Porcello eating innings up.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 10, 2018 14:14:25 GMT -5
I don't know, Pomeranz is what 30 or 31 next year? I could easily see him bouncing back despite him getting crushed all year last year. I love the idea of selling high on Porcello versus getting a low end 4th round pick for him too. It's a 50/50 chance Pomeranz is better than Porcello next year because Porcello stinks every other year it seems. And if he’s throwing 86 in spring training again, then you need a guy like Porcello when you don’t have him anymore. The only thing worse than signing Pomeranz is depending on him to fill out the rotation. And a reminder that the Red Sox are showing that they don’t care about the 2019 budget, so trading Porcello does nothing for the 2019 team except make them worse. I bet you’re the only person who thinks it’s a 50-50 tossup for who is better next year. He’d have about 20 teams in on signing him if that were remotely true. I chuckled at that as well. Pedro, love you man but we're done with Pomeranz and Porcello is a pretty good pitcher who has delivered on his contract. It doesn't make sense to get rid of him when 2019 will be our best chance at winning the World Series for a while, with the impending free agency and luxury tax bills. I'm not so sure we'll resign him after 2019 but we can't trade him.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 10, 2018 14:40:48 GMT -5
I just never understand the way people look at Fangraphs for pitchers. They are right about 2015 becsuse of 2016, they were right about 2017 because of 2018. Yet in reverse it makes zero sense because 2016 was followed by 2017, 2014 was followed by 2015. It just makes zero sense. We are talking about value, not trying to predict his future performance. Fwar tries to do both and that is a problem when you want just value. You can use whatever you want, but I think it's comical that his 2017 and 2018 season are that close given the numbers and performance. Bwar for me. 1. Porcello has the better bWar. 2. Porcello was a lot more better by the other advanced metrics, fWAR aside, 3. All of the points I made after the first sentence of my first bullet point, reiterated. The fact that you turned my whole point into some commentary on Fangraphs WAR rather than addressing the underlying issues I stated is inordinately frustrating. EDIT: Here are their three-year performance lines: Porcello; 617.2 IP, 3.99 FIP, 112 ERA+ 560 K, 128 BB, 88 HR; 21.68% K rate, 4.95% BB rate, 3.4% HR rate Pomeranz: 418.1 IP, 4.11 FIP, 115 ERA+ 426 K, 178 BB, 53 HR; 23.83% K rate, 9.96% BB rate, 3.0% HR rate You see the frustration at reducing that to 7.7 bWAR to 7.2 bWAR, yes? I didn't respond to all your point because in general I don't disagree that Porcello is the better safer pitcher. My point was to show how good Pomeranz was for two years. I don't see the frustration frankly, everyone here knows or should know the history of those two pitchers. Yet some people needed to be reminded how good Pomeranz is when healthy, while also how bad Porcello can be. Let's be real here 2015 and 2017 Porcello wasn't very good. Sure innings matter, yet how much do they really matter if he's just not that good and you have guys that can give you innings? Maybe I'm dead wrong but I buy into the Hosmer effect of a good then bad year Porcello has done for 4 years now. So how valuable is Porcello if you get the 2015/2017 version? The way Cora manages the bullpen means less innings doesn't kill the pen like Farrell. So like you were ok with Paxton giving less but better innings, so am I. As to trade value I'd pay a massive amount of his salary if the package was right. That way every team is in on him, even teams like Oakland. If you can get a big offer I'd trade him. The QO means nothing to be unless you think he'd accept because the package would be big enough to offset a 4th round pick easily. Look at the big picture, not just 100% about building a super team in 2019. Going from Porcello to say Pomeranz or Harvey is only going to slightly decrease your projections. Your still the top team in Baseball. You add a little more risk, yet those two have rather high upsides and should be had on one year pillow type deals. You still have great depth behind them, as a guy like Wright would be the best #5 starter in Baseball. Heck to reduce risk bring in a veteran on a minor league deal. It all comes down to what you can get for him for me. I'm not just trading him to trade him. It has to be a rather big return, not Paxton level, but half of that and I send him packing. With the focus on a near major league ready starter or a guy like Gray with 3 years of control. So the deal itself will add insurance and options. Kinda like Mariners trading Walker for Segura.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,336
|
Post by radiohix on Dec 10, 2018 16:22:56 GMT -5
Rick Porcello owned the MFY this year (I believe his numbers against them in Fenway through his tenure with the Sox are pretty strong too). Beside the Jays, he was terrific against everybody else this year. He also pitches with fire in his belly and I love to see that from my pitcher for my baseballing enjoyement. He was terrific against the MFY in the ALDS, threw a dominant inning against the Astros in a pivotal game 2, and was terrific again vs the Dodgers in game 3. He's an emotional leader in the clubhouse, takes responsibilty when he threws a stinker (sorry but that has value to me) and yeah, he's durable. I love me some Frederick Alfred Porcello III, how can you not?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 10, 2018 19:09:51 GMT -5
I can think of just one scenario where they trade Porcello.
1) David Robertson really wants to be able to drive home to his family and signs a nice contract to be the new closer.
2) Andrew Miller, thirsting for a ring, signs a one-year, re-establish-my-value deal.
3) Joe "Still a Red Sox in My Mind" Kelly signs a team-favorable one-year deal with a two-year team option, with a promise to start at least until Steven Wright is healthy.
I actually really like that, especially if after all the FA and traded starters are taken, there are still a couple of teams who see the difference between Porcello and their #5 as as a possible make-or-break difference. And that's really credible if you're on the post-season cusp and your #5 and beyond are weak. If that's the case, they can get more than Porcello's paper value.
Kelly gets both of the things he really wants: to come back here, and to get one last shot at starting.
I think 1 and 3 are very doable. The key would be 2. But there you can probably overpay and still come out ahead overall. IOW, if overpaying a bit for Miller means you can trade Porcello for a really nice prospect or two and replace him with Joe Kelly for a lot less money, that's an easy win.
So since this post has been made, Ken Rosenthal has wrote that Andrew Miller has interest from 9 different teams. Nine. Yet, he needs to rebuild value somehow? Nope. He's still one of the most coveted relievers on the market all over again. Joe Kelly is also drawing widespread interest as Rob Bradford just reported. I think the idea of getting him on a discount is becoming increasingly less the more we hear about that.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 10, 2018 22:13:42 GMT -5
Chemistry... "Yeah, the Red Sox were definitely at the top of my list of teams I would like to come back to and be a part of," Eovaldi said. "I think, just because of that experience that I had, I was only there for such a short amount of time, but the relationship that I was able to build with my teammates and fans and the coaching staff and things like that, I wasn't something I was ready to part ways with."www.mlb.com/news/nathan-eovaldi-wanted-to-re-sign-with-red-sox/c-301661498
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 0:57:45 GMT -5
I can think of just one scenario where they trade Porcello.
1) David Robertson really wants to be able to drive home to his family and signs a nice contract to be the new closer.
2) Andrew Miller, thirsting for a ring, signs a one-year, re-establish-my-value deal.
3) Joe "Still a Red Sox in My Mind" Kelly signs a team-favorable one-year deal with a two-year team option, with a promise to start at least until Steven Wright is healthy.
I actually really like that, especially if after all the FA and traded starters are taken, there are still a couple of teams who see the difference between Porcello and their #5 as as a possible make-or-break difference. And that's really credible if you're on the post-season cusp and your #5 and beyond are weak. If that's the case, they can get more than Porcello's paper value.
Kelly gets both of the things he really wants: to come back here, and to get one last shot at starting.
I think 1 and 3 are very doable. The key would be 2. But there you can probably overpay and still come out ahead overall. IOW, if overpaying a bit for Miller means you can trade Porcello for a really nice prospect or two and replace him with Joe Kelly for a lot less money, that's an easy win.
So since this post has been made, Ken Rosenthal has wrote that Andrew Miller has interest from 9 different teams. Nine. Yet, he needs to rebuild value somehow? Nope. He's still one of the most coveted relievers on the market all over again. Joe Kelly is also drawing widespread interest as Rob Bradford just reported. I think the idea of getting him on a discount is becoming increasingly less the more we hear about that. Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. It's not because he doesn't need to rebuild value. People want a deal. Unless those 9 teams are talking about 3-4 year deals and around 17 million per or more his value is still down. Which happens after a two war season, followed by two 3 bwar season, meets .2 bwar the year before free agency. Suitors means nothing, only how big the numbers are. Do you really believe his value isn't down? He didn't even get a QO this year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 1:27:33 GMT -5
So since this post has been made, Ken Rosenthal has wrote that Andrew Miller has interest from 9 different teams. Nine. Yet, he needs to rebuild value somehow? Nope. He's still one of the most coveted relievers on the market all over again. Joe Kelly is also drawing widespread interest as Rob Bradford just reported. I think the idea of getting him on a discount is becoming increasingly less the more we hear about that. Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. It's not because he doesn't need to rebuild value. People want a deal. Unless those 9 teams are talking about 3-4 year deals and around 17 million per or more his value is still down. Which happens after a two war season, followed by two 3 bwar season, meets .2 bwar the year before free agency. Suitors means nothing, only how big the numbers are. Do you really believe his value isn't down? He didn't even get a QO this year. Pedro responds to the idea that Miller "needs" to rebuild value, an idea completely absent from my proposal. There's little relationship between needs and best courses of action.
If we offered Miller a 1/$25M deal, he'd obviously take it, since that would be the best course of action. So there's a figure you can get him at for one year. The questions are simply, what's hat figure, and does it make sense for us to pay it?
Re Joe Kelly ... so, if someone has a crush on you but if a bunch of other suitors emerge, that somehow changes the way they feel about you? Joe Kelly has made it really clear that he'd like to return here, and it follows from that that he'll take less money to serve the same role. The presence of widespread interest on the part of others doesn't change that.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2018 3:20:16 GMT -5
Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. It's not because he doesn't need to rebuild value. People want a deal. Unless those 9 teams are talking about 3-4 year deals and around 17 million per or more his value is still down. Which happens after a two war season, followed by two 3 bwar season, meets .2 bwar the year before free agency. Suitors means nothing, only how big the numbers are. Do you really believe his value isn't down? He didn't even get a QO this year. Re Joe Kelly ... so, if someone has a crush on you but if a bunch of other suitors emerge, that somehow changes the way they feel about you? Joe Kelly has made it really clear that he'd like to return here, and it follows from that that he'll take less money to serve the same role. The presence of widespread interest on the part of others doesn't change that.
No, a 20+ million dollar offer changes that. I'm not taking a 10+ million less dollars to stick with that girl. The Sox shouldn't offer Kelly anything more than 14 million for two years or something like that. Kelly should absolutely be taking the best offer after maxing out his performance in the world series. The Sox shouldn't be paying the freight for that performance. Also, what?!!! 25 million for Miller on a one year deal?!!! Ouch. Pure ouch. Just a lot of wishing and wanting here.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 11, 2018 3:23:00 GMT -5
So since this post has been made, Ken Rosenthal has wrote that Andrew Miller has interest from 9 different teams. Nine. Yet, he needs to rebuild value somehow? Nope. He's still one of the most coveted relievers on the market all over again. Joe Kelly is also drawing widespread interest as Rob Bradford just reported. I think the idea of getting him on a discount is becoming increasingly less the more we hear about that. Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. UMass, Andrew Miller. Not Pomeranz.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2018 4:07:54 GMT -5
Re Joe Kelly ... so, if someone has a crush on you but if a bunch of other suitors emerge, that somehow changes the way they feel about you? Joe Kelly has made it really clear that he'd like to return here, and it follows from that that he'll take less money to serve the same role. The presence of widespread interest on the part of others doesn't change that.
No, a 20+ million dollar offer changes that. I'm not taking a 10+ million less dollars to stick with that girl. The Sox shouldn't offer Kelly anything more than 14 million for two years or something like that. Kelly should absolutely be taking the best offer after maxing out his performance in the world series. The Sox shouldn't be paying the freight for that performance. Also, what?!!! 25 million for Miller on a one year deal?!!! Ouch. Pure ouch. Just a lot of wishing and wanting here. There's a famous anecdote, IIRC involving Winston Churchill, that goes something like this:
HE: If I offered you 10 million pounds, would you sleep with me? SHE: Of course I would. HE: What if it were 25 pounds? SHE: Sir, I am not a whore! HE: No, actually we've established that. Now we're trying to determine your price.
I thought of referring to this re the statement of the true fact that Miller would take a 1/$25M offer. But since I went on to explain that there was therefore some lower price that would be his minimum, and that there was a possibility that it would make sense to pay it, and that therefore this was very much an option --I didn't think it would be necessary.
If you want to rebut this line of thought, you begin by naming the minimum figure Miller would take, justifying it by how much he stands to gain if he returns fully to form, how much he stands to gain if he pitches much better but is not his old self, how much he stands to lose if he suffers an injury-ending career, and how much he stands to lose if he pitches just as badly again, and estimating the odds of each of these outcomes happening. And then you show that paying Miller that amount would be a net loss for the Sox, even if it allows them to trade Porcello for prospects and re-sign Kelly to take his place.
Simply declaring the line of thought to be "wishing and wanting" isn't actually engaging with it at all.
The Sox shouldn't be paying the freight for [Kelly's WS] performance.
The argument that more people see is that the Red Sox coaching staff created that performance, and if Kelly is willing to sign for below what a consensus of GM's think he's worth, it would be a double shame if you let him walk. Again, your argument doesn't seem to have any rational basis at all. Argue that Kelly won't take somewhat less than has been offered by others when he's explicitly stated that he wants to come back here, and also argue that the most attractive offer from one of the four competitive teams will be so much higher than it ought to be that (even with any hometown discount if you acknowledge that there has to be some) that it wouldn't make sense for us to sign him.
And for that to be true -- that other teams are over-valuing Kelly and hence bidding up his price beyond reason -- would mean arguing that for some reason, they are more confident than we are that his turnaround can be sustained, when we know exactly what was behind it and they can only guess!
It's funny that you're the one accusing others of simply expressing their wishes, when your "argument" is literally nothing but "I just don't personally like Joe Kelly enough to pay him more than 2/$14M."
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 11, 2018 6:39:48 GMT -5
No, a 20+ million dollar offer changes that. I'm not taking a 10+ million less dollars to stick with that girl. The Sox shouldn't offer Kelly anything more than 14 million for two years or something like that. Kelly should absolutely be taking the best offer after maxing out his performance in the world series. The Sox shouldn't be paying the freight for that performance. Also, what?!!! 25 million for Miller on a one year deal?!!! Ouch. Pure ouch. Just a lot of wishing and wanting here. There's a famous anecdote, IIRC involving Winston Churchill, that goes something like this: HE: If I offered you 10 million pounds, would you sleep with me? SHE: Of course I would. HE: What if it were 25 pounds? SHE: Sir, I am not a whore! HE: No, actually we've established that. Now we're trying to determine your price. I thought of referring to this re the statement of the true fact that Miller would take a 1/$25M offer. But since I went on to explain that there was therefore some lower price that would be his minimum, and that there was a possibility that it would make sense to pay it, and that therefore this was very much an option --I didn't think it would be necessary. If you want to rebut this line of thought, you begin by naming the minimum figure Miller would take, justifying it by how much he stands to gain if he returns fully to form, how much he stands to gain if he pitches much better but is not his old self, how much he stands to lose if he suffers an injury-ending career, and how much he stands to lose if he pitches just as badly again, and estimating the odds of each of these outcomes happening. And then you show that paying Miller that amount would be a net loss for the Sox, even if it allows them to trade Porcello for prospects and re-sign Kelly to take his place. Simply declaring the line of thought to be "wishing and wanting" isn't actually engaging with it at all. The Sox shouldn't be paying the freight for [Kelly's WS] performance. The argument that more people see is that the Red Sox coaching staff created that performance, and if Kelly is willing to sign for below what a consensus of GM's think he's worth, it would be a double shame if you let him walk. Again, your argument doesn't seem to have any rational basis at all. Argue that Kelly won't take somewhat less than has been offered by others when he's explicitly stated that he wants to come back here, and also argue that the most attractive offer from one of the four competitive teams will be so much higher than it ought to be that (even with any hometown discount if you acknowledge that there has to be some) that it wouldn't make sense for us to sign him.
And for that to be true -- that other teams are over-valuing Kelly and hence bidding up his price beyond reason -- would mean arguing that for some reason, they are more confident than we are that his turnaround can be sustained, when we know exactly what was behind it and they can only guess! It's funny that you're the one accusing others of simply expressing their wishes, when your "argument" is literally nothing but "I just don't personally like Joe Kelly enough to pay him more than 2/$14M."
Nitpic (I understood the $25m and I've heard that same anecdote but not attached to Winston. LOL, I once tried it in Vegas, it didn't work, I believe it was a Playboy joke). Kelly in his Bradford interview pointed out that he's personally interviewing with GMs and explaining it. No GM guesswork involved.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Dec 11, 2018 11:18:34 GMT -5
So "WAR is reductionist" is often a copout used by people who want to just stick their heads in the sand, but... I find this on the reductionist side. No front office is going to make a decision on their pitching staff based on three-year bWAR. I think there's a pretty good statistical case that Pomeranz is a good buy-low option for someone, and his performance record prior to 2018 (which WAR does a pretty good job showing) would be part of that case. But there are a lot of reasons to think Porcello is a vastly superior investment for 2019. 1. Fangraphs has a much different interpretations of their three year performance. (Porcello 10.0 vs. Pomeranz 5.9). The big difference was that Fangraphs took Porcello's peripherals and saw his bad season in terms of runs allowed in 2017 as being rather flukish (with some Farrell overuse mixed in), and his 2016 and 2018 performances reinforce that as being the correct view. 2. Their 2018 seasons were hugely divergent by any standard possible. 3. Porcello's ability to eat innings limits not only his own downside, but the downside potential of the entire staff 4. Health 5. Cost - Porcello's contract is fine, but there's not a ton of excess value there, so you're not likely going to be getting a prime prospect return. And since he's only signed for this year, potential trade partners are limited to contending teams that are going to want one year of Rick Porcello's inning-eating usefulness. 6. The reasons that Porcello is likely to be better than Pomeranz are compounded when the qualifying offer is taken into account. I'd say it's 60/40 that Porcello is a QO guy at this point. He could certainly go either way, but if he were a free agent today I'd absolutely have offered him one. Pomeranz would need to regain his health and effectiveness to be considered for one, and even then it's not a clear decision. That's before getting into any team chemistry questions. Porello was, by all accounts, a big part of the clubhouse. I don't think team chemistry should be the prime driver of personnel decision (winning leads to chemistry, rather than vice versa), but you hate to shake that up for what would otherwise be a very high-risk (and not particularly high-reward) switch in the first place. I just never understand the way people look at Fangraphs for pitchers. They are right about 2015 becsuse of 2016, they were right about 2017 because of 2018. Yet in reverse it makes zero sense because 2016 was followed by 2017, 2014 was followed by 2015. It just makes zero sense. We are talking about value, not trying to predict his future performance. Fwar tries to do both and that is a problem when you want just value. You can use whatever you want, but I think it's comical that his 2017 and 2018 season are that close given the numbers and performance. Bwar for me. Huh? fWAR is FIP-based, meaning it’s heavily weighted towards outcomes largely controlled by the pitcher alone (TTO). BWAR is runs-based, but attempts to account for fielding and park effects ( I know you know that, I’m stating it for my point, not to be a wise ass) They’re measuring two somewhat different outcomes and each has its strengths and weaknesses as far as assessing performance. I look at both, because that provides the most information. I mean, I understand what you’re trying to say as far as isolating value, but just because fWAR is a better “predictor” than RA9 doesn’t mean it’s not measuring what happened. If you’re going to try to completely isolate “value,” then you can’t use that isolated information in a discussion about making a future decision, because the minute you do that, you’re predicting. That line of reasoning could be applied to any statistical assessment of performance: “OBP includes walks, which barely ever drive in runs, and depend a ton on the pitcher. And the minute you do that, you’re not talking about *hitting*. It’s SLG for me.” The difference between Pomeranz and Porcello falls somewhere in the middle...Pomeranz is arguably better up top and worse down low. There’s more variance in his outcomes. I think he’d be a terrific sign on a show-me deal, and if the Sox, say, signed Kikuchi or traded for Gray, I’d be OK with a Porcello move *and* a Pomeranz signing. But for a contending team, low risk is very important. I’d be ok with signing him and keeping Porcello. The Sox could easily pay down Porcello’s salary and get a 50+ FV prospect back, because the acquiring team would get a QO, increasing their “return.” But I think the real risk with Pomeranz is a higher-than-acceptable likelihood of 0 or negative WAR. That’s a 3- win swing from Porcello’s projections, which is very large.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2018 11:36:14 GMT -5
Hey instead of arguing about various flavors of pitching WAR we could use statistics that are actually relevant to this conversation instead.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 12:41:04 GMT -5
Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. UMass, Andrew Miller. Not Pomeranz. Pedro look at the full post, it was an example to show you suitors have no bearing on a guys current value. Pomeranz has a lot of suitors because his value is down and he likely takes a one year deal. Every team can afford him type crap. He could have more suitors than Harper and it has zero to do with Market Value.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 13:15:20 GMT -5
I just never understand the way people look at Fangraphs for pitchers. They are right about 2015 becsuse of 2016, they were right about 2017 because of 2018. Yet in reverse it makes zero sense because 2016 was followed by 2017, 2014 was followed by 2015. It just makes zero sense. We are talking about value, not trying to predict his future performance. Fwar tries to do both and that is a problem when you want just value. You can use whatever you want, but I think it's comical that his 2017 and 2018 season are that close given the numbers and performance. Bwar for me. Huh? fWAR is FIP-based, meaning it’s heavily weighted towards outcomes largely controlled by the pitcher alone (TTO). BWAR is runs-based, but attempts to account for fielding and park effects ( I know you know that, I’m stating it for my point, not to be a wise ass) They’re measuring two somewhat different outcomes and each has its strengths and weaknesses as far as assessing performance. I look at both, because that provides the most information. I mean, I understand what you’re trying to say as far as isolating value, but just because fWAR is a better “predictor” than RA9 doesn’t mean it’s not measuring what happened. If you’re going to try to completely isolate “value,” then you can’t use that isolated information in a discussion about making a future decision, because the minute you do that, you’re predicting. That line of reasoning could be applied to any statistical assessment of performance: “OBP includes walks, which barely ever drive in runs, and depend a ton on the pitcher. And the minute you do that, you’re not talking about *hitting*. It’s SLG for me.” The difference between Pomeranz and Porcello falls somewhere in the middle...Pomeranz is arguably better up top and worse down low. There’s more variance in his outcomes. I think he’d be a terrific sign on a show-me deal, and if the Sox, say, signed Kikuchi or traded for Gray, I’d be OK with a Porcello move *and* a Pomeranz signing. But for a contending team, low risk is very important. I’d be ok with signing him and keeping Porcello. The Sox could easily pay down Porcello’s salary and get a 50+ FV prospect back, because the acquiring team would get a QO, increasing their “return.” But I think the real risk with Pomeranz is a higher-than-acceptable likelihood of 0 or negative WAR. That’s a 3- win swing from Porcello’s projections, which is very large. Do you agree with Fangraphs value on Porcello? They both agree on his best year, yet fangraphs almost lumps in 2015, 2017, and 2018 as close years value wise. I'm sorry but that doesn't match what I watched happen. It wasn't just bad or good luck and that is what Fangraphs is basically saying. 2015 and 2017 Porcello just got lit up game after game, he wasn't good. 2018 he had a few of those games that drove up his ERA, but overall he was very good, much more like 2016. Bwar shows that value which I saw with my own eyes, fwar acts like he was almost the same as 2017. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/The big issues with fip is what Eric was talking about, they use average results for balls in play. So it helps Porcello when he's crazy bad at that and hurts him when he's good. It's a skill, I think we can all agree on that yet fwar acts like above or below .300 BAbip is just luck. Porcello when he's good limits BAbip and when he's bad it's the exact opposite. Hence why fip and fangraphs is horrible for Porcello. I back this up using statcast data, which shows exactly what I saw with my own eyes 2018 was much closer to 2016. 2015 and 2017 wasn't just bad luck. XWOBA the last four years .328, .274, .348, .304 Expected BA .269, .246, .269, .242 baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/rick-porcello-519144?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlb
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 11, 2018 13:19:14 GMT -5
Pedro reports show Pomeranz has a handful of suitors. It's not because he doesn't need to rebuild value. People want a deal. Unless those 9 teams are talking about 3-4 year deals and around 17 million per or more his value is still down. Which happens after a two war season, followed by two 3 bwar season, meets .2 bwar the year before free agency. Suitors means nothing, only how big the numbers are. Do you really believe his value isn't down? He didn't even get a QO this year. Pedro responds to the idea that Miller "needs" to rebuild value, an idea completely absent from my proposal. There's little relationship between needs and best courses of action.
If we offered Miller a 1/$25M deal, he'd obviously take it, since that would be the best course of action. So there's a figure you can get him at for one year. The questions are simply, what's hat figure, and does it make sense for us to pay it?
Re Joe Kelly ... so, if someone has a crush on you but if a bunch of other suitors emerge, that somehow changes the way they feel about you? Joe Kelly has made it really clear that he'd like to return here, and it follows from that that he'll take less money to serve the same role. The presence of widespread interest on the part of others doesn't change that.
"The mere presence....." IMO is more accurate. The presence of a significantly greater offer on the other hand...
|
|
Canseco
Veteran
Posts: 944
Member is Online
|
Post by Canseco on Dec 11, 2018 13:26:10 GMT -5
It’s just my OCD, but is there any way a moderator can switch “resigned” to “re-signed” in the thread title?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Dec 11, 2018 14:09:18 GMT -5
Huh? fWAR is FIP-based, meaning it’s heavily weighted towards outcomes largely controlled by the pitcher alone (TTO). BWAR is runs-based, but attempts to account for fielding and park effects ( I know you know that, I’m stating it for my point, not to be a wise ass) They’re measuring two somewhat different outcomes and each has its strengths and weaknesses as far as assessing performance. I look at both, because that provides the most information. I mean, I understand what you’re trying to say as far as isolating value, but just because fWAR is a better “predictor” than RA9 doesn’t mean it’s not measuring what happened. If you’re going to try to completely isolate “value,” then you can’t use that isolated information in a discussion about making a future decision, because the minute you do that, you’re predicting. That line of reasoning could be applied to any statistical assessment of performance: “OBP includes walks, which barely ever drive in runs, and depend a ton on the pitcher. And the minute you do that, you’re not talking about *hitting*. It’s SLG for me.” The difference between Pomeranz and Porcello falls somewhere in the middle...Pomeranz is arguably better up top and worse down low. There’s more variance in his outcomes. I think he’d be a terrific sign on a show-me deal, and if the Sox, say, signed Kikuchi or traded for Gray, I’d be OK with a Porcello move *and* a Pomeranz signing. But for a contending team, low risk is very important. I’d be ok with signing him and keeping Porcello. The Sox could easily pay down Porcello’s salary and get a 50+ FV prospect back, because the acquiring team would get a QO, increasing their “return.” But I think the real risk with Pomeranz is a higher-than-acceptable likelihood of 0 or negative WAR. That’s a 3- win swing from Porcello’s projections, which is very large. Do you agree with Fangraphs value on Porcello? They both agree on his best year, yet fangraphs almost lumps in 2015, 2017, and 2018 as close years value wise. I'm sorry but that doesn't match what I watched happen. It wasn't just bad or good luck and that is what Fangraphs is basically saying. 2015 and 2017 Porcello just got lit up game after game, he wasn't good. 2018 he had a few of those games that drove up his ERA, but overall he was very good, much more like 2016. Bwar shows that value which I saw with my own eyes, fwar acts like he was almost the same as 2017. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/The big issues with fip is what Eric was talking about, they use average results for balls in play. So it helps Porcello when he's crazy bad at that and hurts him when he's good. It's a skill, I think we can all agree on that yet fwar acts like above or below .300 BAbip is just luck. Porcello when he's good limits BAbip and when he's bad it's the exact opposite. Hence why fip and fangraphs is horrible for Porcello. I back this up using statcast data, which shows exactly what I saw with my own eyes 2018 was much closer to 2016. 2015 and 2017 wasn't just bad luck. XWOBA the last four years .328, .274, .348, .304 Expected BA .269, .246, .269, .242 baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/rick-porcello-519144?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlbIf you could tell who was good just by using your own eyes, we wouldn't need the stats in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2018 14:34:17 GMT -5
It’s just my OCD, but is there any way a moderator can switch “resigned” to “re-signed” in the thread title? Seconded. I remember the confusion of resigned and re-signed when I cheered on Halloween when Theo Epstein re-signed and was going to extend his GM tenure and then soon afterwards I was extremely ticked off (to put it gently) when it went from re-signed to Theo resigned as in quit. Huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2018 14:39:38 GMT -5
It’s just my OCD, but is there any way a moderator can switch “resigned” to “re-signed” in the thread title? Seconded. I remember the confusion of resigned and re-signed when I cheered on Halloween when Theo Epstein re-signed and was going to extend his GM tenure and then soon afterwards I was extremely ticked off (to put it gently) when it went from re-signed to Theo resigned as in quit. Huge difference. Change was made.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 15:30:52 GMT -5
Do you agree with Fangraphs value on Porcello? They both agree on his best year, yet fangraphs almost lumps in 2015, 2017, and 2018 as close years value wise. I'm sorry but that doesn't match what I watched happen. It wasn't just bad or good luck and that is what Fangraphs is basically saying. 2015 and 2017 Porcello just got lit up game after game, he wasn't good. 2018 he had a few of those games that drove up his ERA, but overall he was very good, much more like 2016. Bwar shows that value which I saw with my own eyes, fwar acts like he was almost the same as 2017. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/The big issues with fip is what Eric was talking about, they use average results for balls in play. So it helps Porcello when he's crazy bad at that and hurts him when he's good. It's a skill, I think we can all agree on that yet fwar acts like above or below .300 BAbip is just luck. Porcello when he's good limits BAbip and when he's bad it's the exact opposite. Hence why fip and fangraphs is horrible for Porcello. I back this up using statcast data, which shows exactly what I saw with my own eyes 2018 was much closer to 2016. 2015 and 2017 wasn't just bad luck. XWOBA the last four years .328, .274, .348, .304 Expected BA .269, .246, .269, .242 baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/rick-porcello-519144?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlbIf you could tell who was good just by using your own eyes, we wouldn't need the stats in the first place. Lol well it seems not everyone sees the samething because we've been debating Porcello for years. To this day posting a simple bwar total gets a lively debate going with people pointing to fwar and blaming Farrell among other things. It seems rather clear Porcello is like Hosmer, in that his performance varies greatly year to year. When I watch the games it seems rather clear, yet that darn fwar makes it seem like something else. I'm blaming fwar more than what people see. Sometimes you see what you want to see, happens to everyone. So Statcast data is great for am I really seeing what I think I am.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2018 15:35:24 GMT -5
If you could tell who was good just by using your own eyes, we wouldn't need the stats in the first place. Lol well it seems not everyone sees the samething because we've been debating Porcello for years. To this day posting a simple bwar total gets a lively debate going with people pointing to fwar and blaming Farrell among other things. It seems rather clear Porcello is like Hosmer, in that his performance varies greatly year to year. When I watch the games it seems rather clear, yet that darn fwar makes it seem like something else. I'm blaming fwar more than what people see. Sometimes you see what you want to see, happens to everyone. So Statcast data is great for am I really seeing what I think I am. It's almost as if a pitcher who allows a ton of balls in play is subject to greater variance in his performance for some weird reason. Anyway science will probably never unravel this mystery.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2018 15:40:58 GMT -5
Lol well it seems not everyone sees the samething because we've been debating Porcello for years. To this day posting a simple bwar total gets a lively debate going with people pointing to fwar and blaming Farrell among other things. It seems rather clear Porcello is like Hosmer, in that his performance varies greatly year to year. When I watch the games it seems rather clear, yet that darn fwar makes it seem like something else. I'm blaming fwar more than what people see. Sometimes you see what you want to see, happens to everyone. So Statcast data is great for am I really seeing what I think I am. It's almost as if a pitcher who allows a ton of balls in play is subject to greater variance in his performance for some weird reason. Anyway science will probably never unravel this mystery. It already has called statistics, which tells us that the chances of that just being random is slim to none. Not that pronounced in that type of order.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2018 15:45:34 GMT -5
Do you agree with Fangraphs value on Porcello? They both agree on his best year, yet fangraphs almost lumps in 2015, 2017, and 2018 as close years value wise. I'm sorry but that doesn't match what I watched happen. It wasn't just bad or good luck and that is what Fangraphs is basically saying. 2015 and 2017 Porcello just got lit up game after game, he wasn't good. 2018 he had a few of those games that drove up his ERA, but overall he was very good, much more like 2016. Bwar shows that value which I saw with my own eyes, fwar acts like he was almost the same as 2017. www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/The big issues with fip is what Eric was talking about, they use average results for balls in play. So it helps Porcello when he's crazy bad at that and hurts him when he's good. It's a skill, I think we can all agree on that yet fwar acts like above or below .300 BAbip is just luck. Porcello when he's good limits BAbip and when he's bad it's the exact opposite. Hence why fip and fangraphs is horrible for Porcello. I back this up using statcast data, which shows exactly what I saw with my own eyes 2018 was much closer to 2016. 2015 and 2017 wasn't just bad luck. XWOBA the last four years .328, .274, .348, .304 Expected BA .269, .246, .269, .242 baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/rick-porcello-519144?stats=statcast-r-pitching-mlbIf you could tell who was good just by using your own eyes, we wouldn't need the stats in the first place. I don’t get this... stats don’t exist because they are needed they exist because of math. But they certainly come in handy
|
|
|