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.
2020-21 Non-Red Sox Offseason Thread
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 12:07:42 GMT -5
Jordan Zimmerman inks minor league deal with Brewers: prediction? Not gunna work out (to go out on a limb!).
He has to be in the running for worst free agent signing of last 20 years. Brutal, especially a year after Scherzer walked.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 9, 2021 12:08:10 GMT -5
Found that interesting on Villar.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 12:09:36 GMT -5
Found that interesting on Villar. He does seem to get thrown out a lot, too.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2021 12:31:25 GMT -5
Villar -15 DRS over last two years, Hernandez plus 25 DRS over the last two years. Not about these two, but the defensive stats don’t sway me — not with precision, that is. When I see something like BIS declaring what % of time a play gets made, I view it as fantasy. What is the sun like? How much did you drink last night? Is your wife pregnant? Is the grass better mowed today than yesterday? Did a gust of wind blow a wrapper into your vision at the last second? On and on. There is no laboratory in baseball. These stats that claim to be precise in their multiverse comparisons of outcomes just strike me as informed guesses. So I buy that Kiké is a much better defensive player — old school stats and the eye test would attest to that, too, I’m sure. That he “saved” 40 more runs is a nonsense number measuring nothing. You can certainly believe whatever you want. I don't know how you can compare players, the value they give teams and there worth without some way to measure value though. D is a big part of the equation and your eyes can't give you a value. Career defensive rating at Fangraphs -28.8 versus 12.1, so they both agree there is a massive difference between those two guys.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 12:42:14 GMT -5
Not about these two, but the defensive stats don’t sway me — not with precision, that is. When I see something like BIS declaring what % of time a play gets made, I view it as fantasy. What is the sun like? How much did you drink last night? Is your wife pregnant? Is the grass better mowed today than yesterday? Did a gust of wind blow a wrapper into your vision at the last second? On and on. There is no laboratory in baseball. These stats that claim to be precise in their multiverse comparisons of outcomes just strike me as informed guesses. So I buy that Kiké is a much better defensive player — old school stats and the eye test would attest to that, too, I’m sure. That he “saved” 40 more runs is a nonsense number measuring nothing. You can certainly believe whatever you want. I don't know how you can compare players, the value they give teams and there worth without some way to measure value though. D is a big part of the equation and your eyes can't give you a value. Career defensive rating at Fangraphs -28.8 versus 12.1, so they both agree there is a massive difference between those two guys. Well, wanting to measure defense doesn’t make it more scientific. I agree it would be helpful if that could be done precisely, but that doesn’t make it so. And I agree we can use terms like “massive” which is bigger than “big” and much bigger than “some.” But attaching figures is pseudo-science. It claims a kind of experimental environment that is simply impossible. It is my problem with all of these stats... WAR, which assumes a “replacement” player devoid of spirit, ambition, foibles, etc. For all the failures of traditional stats, they measure the real world. A guy makes an error, it is not relevant if some lab rat would have made the play or no. It done been made. A fly out that would go out in a different stadium that gets “adjusted”? Still not a run... and no way to demonstrate that fly ball * would* have been hit in another stadium. Which monkey in the infinite line types Hamlet?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2021 13:12:37 GMT -5
You can certainly believe whatever you want. I don't know how you can compare players, the value they give teams and there worth without some way to measure value though. D is a big part of the equation and your eyes can't give you a value. Career defensive rating at Fangraphs -28.8 versus 12.1, so they both agree there is a massive difference between those two guys. Well, wanting to measure defense doesn’t make it more scientific. I agree it would be helpful if that could be done precisely, but that doesn’t make it so. And I agree we can use terms like “massive” which is bigger than “big” and much bigger than “some.” But attaching figures is pseudo-science. It claims a kind of experimental environment that is simply impossible. It is my problem with all of these stats... WAR, which assumes a “replacement” player devoid of spirit, ambition, foibles, etc. For all the failures of traditional stats, they measure the real world. A guy makes an error, it is not relevant if some lab rat would have made the play or no. It done been made. A fly out that would go out in a different stadium that gets “adjusted”? Still not a run... and no way to demonstrate that fly ball * would* have been hit in another stadium. Which monkey in the infinite line types Hamlet? I think advanced stats are highly scientific. It isn't some lab rats, it's all based off of numbers and averages. It's a formula that is always being tweaked to make it better and match what is currently happening in the game. When you have a few hours to kill go read the explanation and articles on Baseball Reference and Fangraphs.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 9, 2021 13:19:18 GMT -5
You can certainly believe whatever you want. I don't know how you can compare players, the value they give teams and there worth without some way to measure value though. D is a big part of the equation and your eyes can't give you a value. Career defensive rating at Fangraphs -28.8 versus 12.1, so they both agree there is a massive difference between those two guys. Well, wanting to measure defense doesn’t make it more scientific. I agree it would be helpful if that could be done precisely, but that doesn’t make it so. And I agree we can use terms like “massive” which is bigger than “big” and much bigger than “some.” But attaching figures is pseudo-science. It claims a kind of experimental environment that is simply impossible. It is my problem with all of these stats... WAR, which assumes a “replacement” player devoid of spirit, ambition, foibles, etc. For all the failures of traditional stats, they measure the real world. A guy makes an error, it is not relevant if some lab rat would have made the play or no. It done been made. A fly out that would go out in a different stadium that gets “adjusted”? Still not a run... and no way to demonstrate that fly ball * would* have been hit in another stadium. Which monkey in the infinite line types Hamlet? I agree to a fair extent with your general philosophical point, but it's funny to point to errors as some sort of scientific measurement, when it depends on the caprices of the official scorer, and stuff like an untouched pop-up going as a hit rather than an error. In general the advanced stats are an improvement over the old timey ones, even if they're far from perfect.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2021 13:43:40 GMT -5
The precision of DRS isn't what's important, it's that Hernandez is obviously a much, much better defensive player, something that scouts, all defensive metrics, and anyone who has casually watched baseball can agree on. Teams all have their internal metrics to measure defense, and all of them say Villar shouldn't be a second baseman but if he hits enough you can stand him there and he'll come out a net positive.
The specific stats are new, but the judgment process of weighing whether a bad defensive player's defense has devolved to the point where he's no longer playable at a position is not. You're using your well-worn issues with defensive statistics to obscure the general point that Hernandez got more money than Villar because Hernandez is good at making batted baseballs end up in his glove and Villar is not good at making batted baseballs end up in his glove.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 14:03:26 GMT -5
The precision of DRS isn't what's important, it's that Hernandez is obviously a much, much better defensive player, something that scouts, all defensive metrics, and anyone who has casually watched baseball can agree on. Teams all have their internal metrics to measure defense, and all of them say Villar shouldn't be a second baseman but if he hits enough you can stand him there and he'll come out a net positive. The specific stats are new, but the judgment process of weighing whether a bad defensive player's defense has devolved to the point where he's no longer playable at a position is not. You're using your well-worn issues with defensive statistics to obscure the general point that Hernandez got more money than Villar because Hernandez is good at making batted baseballs end up in his glove and Villar is not good at making batted baseballs end up in his glove. No no no. I never ever said I objected to Kiké being called a much better defensive player. I also simply said Villars got 1/2 Kiké. That is not an assessment, it is (nearly) literally true. What I am saying is those metrics are silly in their precision. That is, in this case it could probably be apparent to someone who doesn’t follow baseball who the better defender is. So calling it a 40 run gap is trying to be highly specific to emphasize what needs no emphasis. If they were close, though, saying one guy is 5-10 runs difference suggests a gap that is probably not there. So, in essence, your opening statement was where I started: Kiké is clearly much better BUT the stats are silly. Independent of that specific judgement. I never sought to obscure anything and never even hinted at Villars being a good defender or Kiké being bad. Indeed, again, your point was mine: all it takes is eyes to see it. From there, my point was it would be * great* if someone could graph how much better one than is than the other, but I don’t buy it. Not everything is measurable. Jackson Pollock is better than Brice Marden, but I can’t put a number to it. It would be great if I could, and it would go a long way to making art easier to rank (and pay for, which all of this finally comes down to), but it is impossible.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 14:22:10 GMT -5
Well, wanting to measure defense doesn’t make it more scientific. I agree it would be helpful if that could be done precisely, but that doesn’t make it so. And I agree we can use terms like “massive” which is bigger than “big” and much bigger than “some.” But attaching figures is pseudo-science. It claims a kind of experimental environment that is simply impossible. It is my problem with all of these stats... WAR, which assumes a “replacement” player devoid of spirit, ambition, foibles, etc. For all the failures of traditional stats, they measure the real world. A guy makes an error, it is not relevant if some lab rat would have made the play or no. It done been made. A fly out that would go out in a different stadium that gets “adjusted”? Still not a run... and no way to demonstrate that fly ball * would* have been hit in another stadium. Which monkey in the infinite line types Hamlet? I think advanced stats are highly scientific. It isn't some lab rats, it's all based off of numbers and averages. It's a formula that is always being tweaked to make it better and match what is currently happening in the game. When you have a few hours to kill go read the explanation and articles on Baseball Reference and Fangraphs. How do you measure “average” range? Do you take every jump by every left fielder on every play to the left side of the field? Then factor in light, crowd background, wind, etc? I can see averages in controlled situations like at bats or pitches. But range? I don’t buy that you can come up with what an “average” left fielder (as an example) looks like such that you can say with certainty x% of them would make y play. Further... what does it mean? Who *are* the 60% who make a play? Does Benny make a play one day that he doesn’t the next? So where is he in the average? Fielding is skill mixed with luck and chaos. There is enough luck and chaos that metrics can’t ever paint an exact picture. Add: Last point, cause this isn’t the thread. I buy “run saved” when a dude jumps a fence. But when we start getting abstract, situations that are not about immediate runs saved, I just think it assumes too much, a succession of events that, again, are chaos. No one can prove real causation.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 9, 2021 15:20:06 GMT -5
I think advanced stats are highly scientific. It isn't some lab rats, it's all based off of numbers and averages. It's a formula that is always being tweaked to make it better and match what is currently happening in the game. When you have a few hours to kill go read the explanation and articles on Baseball Reference and Fangraphs. How do you measure “average” range? Do you take every jump by every left fielder on every play to the left side of the field? Then factor in light, crowd background, wind, etc? I can see averages in controlled situations like at bats or pitches. But range? I don’t buy that you can come up with what an “average” left fielder (as an example) looks like such that you can say with certainty x% of them would make y play. Further... what does it mean? Who *are* the 60% who make a play? Does Benny make a play one day that he doesn’t the next? So where is he in the average? Fielding is skill mixed with luck and chaos. There is enough luck and chaos that metrics can’t ever paint an exact picture. Add: Last point, cause this isn’t the thread. I buy “run saved” when a dude jumps a fence. But when we start getting abstract, situations that are not about immediate runs saved, I just think it assumes too much, a succession of events that, again, are chaos. No one can prove real causation. Look, the solution to this is simple: we just need AI and quantum computing to advance to the point where we can simulate every possible universe to a degree commensurate with the actual complexity of the universe. Every possible outcome will exist somewhere across ths simulated multiverse, which will then be the true home of humanity. Having initiated this epochal transformation in the nature of both our species and reality itself, thus realizing our destiny as the universe's total self-imagining, we will finally have reliable defensive metrics.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 15:24:06 GMT -5
How do you measure “average” range? Do you take every jump by every left fielder on every play to the left side of the field? Then factor in light, crowd background, wind, etc? I can see averages in controlled situations like at bats or pitches. But range? I don’t buy that you can come up with what an “average” left fielder (as an example) looks like such that you can say with certainty x% of them would make y play. Further... what does it mean? Who *are* the 60% who make a play? Does Benny make a play one day that he doesn’t the next? So where is he in the average? Fielding is skill mixed with luck and chaos. There is enough luck and chaos that metrics can’t ever paint an exact picture. Add: Last point, cause this isn’t the thread. I buy “run saved” when a dude jumps a fence. But when we start getting abstract, situations that are not about immediate runs saved, I just think it assumes too much, a succession of events that, again, are chaos. No one can prove real causation. Look, the solution to this is simple: we just need AI and quantum computing to advance to the point where we can simulate every possible universe to a degree commensurate with the actual complexity of the universe. Every possible outcome will exist somewhere across ths simulated multiverse, which will then be the true home of humanity. Having initiated this epochal transformation in the nature of both our species and reality itself, thus realizing our destiny as the universe's total self-imagining, we will finally have reliable defensive metrics. I accept that position, and I will accept those metrics.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 9, 2021 15:32:39 GMT -5
I think advanced stats are highly scientific. It isn't some lab rats, it's all based off of numbers and averages. It's a formula that is always being tweaked to make it better and match what is currently happening in the game. When you have a few hours to kill go read the explanation and articles on Baseball Reference and Fangraphs. How do you measure “average” range? Do you take every jump by every left fielder on every play to the left side of the field? Then factor in light, crowd background, wind, etc? I can see averages in controlled situations like at bats or pitches. But range? I don’t buy that you can come up with what an “average” left fielder (as an example) looks like such that you can say with certainty x% of them would make y play. Further... what does it mean? Who *are* the 60% who make a play? Does Benny make a play one day that he doesn’t the next? So where is he in the average? Fielding is skill mixed with luck and chaos. There is enough luck and chaos that metrics can’t ever paint an exact picture. Add: Last point, cause this isn’t the thread. I buy “run saved” when a dude jumps a fence. But when we start getting abstract, situations that are not about immediate runs saved, I just think it assumes too much, a succession of events that, again, are chaos. No one can prove real causation. You really need to go read about advanced stats. That's not a simple answer because it's done multiple different ways that can involve average number of outs per position, to people watching games to using statcast data and averages. Just trying to get a decent idea of the different ways is hours of reading. The good news is there is a tons of articles on it from many different places. They really have turned it into a science. If you have questions after looking into it fire away. It's certainly not perfect, yet I think you'll be surprised with what you find and the amount of data that goes into it.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Feb 9, 2021 16:10:02 GMT -5
Marlins sign Adam Duvall to a 1 year deal around $4.5m, per Heyman. Probably takes them out of the running for Benintendi (if that was even a thing).
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 9, 2021 17:35:52 GMT -5
Cishek to ‘stros on a minor league deal ($2.25 if he makes it).
Weird off-season. He was bad last year, but before that he strung a bunch of strong years together. I’d think he’d have a bit more market. 🤷♂️
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,200
|
Post by cdj on Feb 11, 2021 10:22:51 GMT -5
Marisnick to the Cubs- I know he been linked a little to the Sox
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 11, 2021 19:02:20 GMT -5
Angels signed Jon Jay to a minor league deal. The Angels are stocking up on OF's with Juan Lagares and Dexter Fowler joining Jay and their outfield of Upton, Trout, Adell, Ward and Barndon Marsh. Perhaps, they could move an Adell or Marsh. They really need a frontline catcher and let Suzuki be the backup. That's a team that needs to go for it now with Trout and Rendon.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 11, 2021 19:32:07 GMT -5
Tigers get Mazara. Wild paragraph from mlb.com: >Chicago was obviously hoping the proverbial light bulb would go on for Mazara in its uniform, but that didn’t happen. He wound up slashing a disastrous .228/.295/.294 with a single HR and a microscopic .066 isolated power number in 149 PA. The White Sox saw enough and elected to non-tender Mazara in lieu of paying him a projected $5MM-plus in arbitration in 2021.< Coming of “disastrous” season, he was looking at $5 million in arbitration! It’s like “you’ve, let’s see, existed as a major leaguer for a few years... let’s say, er, 5 million? Good?” Link: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/02/tigers-nomar-mazara-nearing-deal.html
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 12, 2021 23:48:56 GMT -5
Rays get Rich Hill. Too bad. He’d have likely given the Sox 10 good starts between blisters etc.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 14, 2021 0:38:15 GMT -5
Per Jeff Passan, it looks like it's a one-year deal at 8.5 million and incentives can bring it to 10 million.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Feb 14, 2021 9:50:07 GMT -5
Angels signed Jon Jay to a minor league deal. The Angels are stocking up on OF's with Juan Lagares and Dexter Fowler joining Jay and their outfield of Upton, Trout, Adell, Ward and Barndon Marsh. Perhaps, they could move an Adell or Marsh. They really need a frontline catcher and let Suzuki be the backup. That's a team that needs to go for it now with Trout and Rendon. The Angels have been linked to Christian Vazquez all off-season. It would make a lot of sense to do that deal for Marsh.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 14, 2021 12:44:58 GMT -5
Looks like the Yankees may be picking up a bullpen piece.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,419
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Feb 14, 2021 13:12:24 GMT -5
Looks like the Yankees may be picking up a bullpen piece. O’Day and Wilson for Ottavino seems like it would be pretty well played when the have Chapman and Britton at the back end.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 15, 2021 13:30:56 GMT -5
Padres filling out the pen. Picked up Melancon and now Keone Kela.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Feb 15, 2021 13:34:39 GMT -5
FA relievers are moving off the board. Romo to the A's.
|
|
|