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.
2021 Spring Training
|
Post by geostorm on Mar 28, 2021 15:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Mar 28, 2021 18:56:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Mar 28, 2021 19:22:47 GMT -5
Quick count, but, thought I saw just 10 teams posted w longer odds > Red Sox current 50-1, so, not too far from other projection, w high probability of 2022 Top 10 pick?
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Mar 28, 2021 19:48:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 28, 2021 19:49:27 GMT -5
They give a 99.9% probability that the Red Sox will win fewer than 81 games. That is clearly very dumb.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Mar 28, 2021 20:00:14 GMT -5
I’d much rather not have a high pick. That is probably a sign that a lot of things went wrong. Sure the pick is nice but not compared to sucking. There is no dout that this team has a lot of questions, and players that could go either way. Odds are some will work out, others will not and we will be right around .500. The bigger question will be if the FO become sellers or buyers.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Mar 28, 2021 21:55:07 GMT -5
They give a 99.9% probability that the Red Sox will win fewer than 81 games. That is clearly very dumb. Based off our 15-10 spring to date, that projection would seem off. But, we have a large group of sluggers from elsewhere all with high k rates that have fiested on mostly lesser pitching to date. In the unforgiving cold months of April and May perhaps a true view will emerge.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Mar 28, 2021 22:30:19 GMT -5
They give a 99.9% probability that the Red Sox will win fewer than 81 games. That is clearly very dumb. Based off our 15-10 spring to date, that projection would seem off. But, we have a large group of sluggers from elsewhere all with high k rates that have fiested on mostly lesser pitching to date. In the unforgiving cold months of April and May perhaps a true view will emerge. But what you're saying above is that it's possible that the Sox could be below .500, which is a reasonable statement. The model is saying that there's practically no combination of outcomes that would make this team be above .500. That's just dumb.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 29, 2021 2:26:36 GMT -5
Meanwhile, nothing here about E-Rod throwing a bullpen Saturday, feeling great, throwing again today (Monday), and if that goes well, expected to start game 2 or 3.
Double meanwhile, Cesar Puello now with two identical bombs to left in his last 7 PA. I still think he's a perfectly solid MLB 4th OFer, should injuries ever put us in a position where we need one. It'll be interesting to see what numbers he puts up in AAA.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 29, 2021 3:01:15 GMT -5
The thing about team win projections is that they are all based on standard individual player projections (SIPP).
All of the following players were acquired by Bloom because the team believes they will outperform their SIPP:
Garret Richards Nick Pivetta Franchy Cordero Hunter Renfroe Kiké Hernandez Christian Arroyo Matt Andriese Garrett Whitlock Hirokazu Sawamura (probably) Adam Ottavino (quite possibly they've identified his rough stretch last year as non-prdictive) Martin Perez (possibly; they still seem to be working on stuff with him)
In addition, there is some reason to believe that the following players will do the same:
Bobby Dalbec (SIPP doesn't know about his learning curve)
Tanner Houck (... doesn't know about his pitch quality) J.D. Martinez (... about his lack of in-game video last year)
Rafael Devers (... Cora's influence on his defense)
That's more than half the roster.
So a projection like Fangraph's 85 wins (and 37% playoff odds) or PECOTA's 80 wins are the projected wins if they are, on the whole, completely wrong about these 8 to 15 players, if collectively they don't outperform their projections at all.
According to FG, they need 4 more wins to get to a 2/3 chance of making the playoffs. That's an average 0.4 WAR of overperformance from 10 of the players (with me being right about just 2 of the other 7 possible upside guys).
This is why this is the most interesting team in my memory. While returns to form by Ottavino, JDM, and Dever's defense would not be surprises, the other 12 guys are all candidates for the sort of "pleasant surprises" that turn an apparent non-contender into a serious one.
A very good question is whether there are players on the roster for which SIPP doesn't know negative stuff. But the smarter a team is, the fewer of those players they have. I can't find one, myself.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 29, 2021 8:48:43 GMT -5
The thing about team win projections is that they are all based on standard individual player projections (SIPP).
All of the following players were acquired by Bloom because the team believes they will outperform their SIPP:
Garret Richards Nick Pivetta Franchy Cordero Hunter Renfroe Kiké Hernandez Christian Arroyo Matt Andriese Garrett Whitlock Hirokazu Sawamura (probably) Adam Ottavino (quite possibly they've identified his rough stretch last year as non-prdictive) Martin Perez (possibly; they still seem to be working on stuff with him)
In addition, there is some reason to believe that the following players will do the same:
Bobby Dalbec (SIPP doesn't know about his learning curve)
Tanner Houck (... doesn't know about his pitch quality) J.D. Martinez (... about his lack of in-game video last year)
Rafael Devers (... Cora's influence on his defense)
That's more than half the roster.
So a projection like Fangraph's 85 wins (and 37% playoff odds) or PECOTA's 80 wins are the projected wins if they are, on the whole, completely wrong about these 8 to 15 players, if collectively they don't outperform their projections at all.
According to FG, they need 4 more wins to get to a 2/3 chance of making the playoffs. That's an average 0.4 WAR of overperformance from 10 of the players (with me being right about just 2 of the other 7 possible upside guys).
This is why this is the most interesting team in my memory. While returns to form by Ottavino, JDM, and Dever's defense would not be surprises, the other 12 guys are all candidates for the sort of "pleasant surprises" that turn an apparent non-contender into a serious one.
A very good question is whether there are players on the roster for which SIPP doesn't know negative stuff. But the smarter a team is, the fewer of those players they have. I can't find one, myself.
So... if the projections are wrong, the projection is wrong? That seems... yup, that checks out.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 29, 2021 9:55:26 GMT -5
The thing about team win projections is that they are all based on standard individual player projections (SIPP).
All of the following players were acquired by Bloom because the team believes they will outperform their SIPP:
Garret Richards Nick Pivetta Franchy Cordero Hunter Renfroe Kiké Hernandez Christian Arroyo Matt Andriese Garrett Whitlock Hirokazu Sawamura (probably) Adam Ottavino (quite possibly they've identified his rough stretch last year as non-prdictive) Martin Perez (possibly; they still seem to be working on stuff with him)
In addition, there is some reason to believe that the following players will do the same:
Bobby Dalbec (SIPP doesn't know about his learning curve)
Tanner Houck (... doesn't know about his pitch quality) J.D. Martinez (... about his lack of in-game video last year)
Rafael Devers (... Cora's influence on his defense)
That's more than half the roster.
So a projection like Fangraph's 85 wins (and 37% playoff odds) or PECOTA's 80 wins are the projected wins if they are, on the whole, completely wrong about these 8 to 15 players, if collectively they don't outperform their projections at all.
According to FG, they need 4 more wins to get to a 2/3 chance of making the playoffs. That's an average 0.4 WAR of overperformance from 10 of the players (with me being right about just 2 of the other 7 possible upside guys).
This is why this is the most interesting team in my memory. While returns to form by Ottavino, JDM, and Dever's defense would not be surprises, the other 12 guys are all candidates for the sort of "pleasant surprises" that turn an apparent non-contender into a serious one.
A very good question is whether there are players on the roster for which SIPP doesn't know negative stuff. But the smarter a team is, the fewer of those players they have. I can't find one, myself.
So... if the projections are wrong, the projection is wrong? That seems... yup, that checks out. I think Eric's point is that the projections would be systematically wrong because they aren't accounting for the likelihood of the Red Sox' roster outperforming their SIPP projections.
What I don't understand about Eric's argument is: don't all teams try to construct rosters that will outperform their projections? E.g., isn't every free agent signed by the team that, by definition, expects to get the most value out of him (adjusting for team budget constraints, etc.)? So on the face of it, I'm not sure why this factor would be unique to the Red Sox.
Having said that, the thomeprojections site has the Red Sox pegged for 65 wins and absolutely certain to have a losing record, which are ridiculous claims. At a glance, it seems like they rely heavily in prior year's performances? And they were off on the Red Sox by like 15 wins on average over the last three seasons, with a heavy bias toward the previous year's performance. And I can imagine reasons why that sort of method would especially underestimate the 2021 team.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 29, 2021 10:26:33 GMT -5
So... if the projections are wrong, the projection is wrong? That seems... yup, that checks out. I think Eric's point is that the projections would be systematically wrong because they aren't accounting for the likelihood of the Red Sox' roster outperforming their SIPP projections.
What I don't understand about Eric's argument is: don't all teams try to construct rosters that will outperform their projections? E.g., isn't every free agent signed by the team that, by definition, expects to get the most value out of him (adjusting for team budget constraints, etc.)? So on the face of it, I'm not sure why this factor would be unique to the Red Sox.
Having said that, the thomeprojections site has the Red Sox pegged for 65 wins and absolutely certain to have a losing record, which are ridiculous claims. At a glance, it seems like they rely heavily in prior year's performances? And they were off on the Red Sox by like 15 wins on average over the last three seasons, with a heavy bias toward the previous year's performance. And I can imagine reasons why that sort of method would especially underestimate the 2021 team.
I get the point, but it still returns to the same idea: they somehow blew projections. Of course, then the question is: if they are *systematically* wrong, then how does that breakdown affect other teams? That is, if they are *systematically* off by nearly 1/2 WAR per guy for all these guys, might they not be making similar errors for, say, Vlad Jr. or Bichette or whatever? In the end, this is still not much more than saying Eric has a more optimistic view. That’s cool, but saying that a list of guys project better because the Sox acquired them! — is not science but faith. Saying they don’t know about Houck’s “pitch quality” — who knows what they know? Maybe they are simply less enamored than Eric who is especially bullish on Houck? There are a range of projections. The low stuff sounds like garbage. But a few days from now, none of it matters.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 29, 2021 10:51:38 GMT -5
No predictions curve from me, but a prediction.. Steve Cishek has been available to 30 teams for several days now since being released by the Phillies from his 2m MiLB deal. i predict his 2021 MLB numbers will be better than Valdez, Brice, Brewer that are as of this moment, all occupying 40 man spots and better than anyone can see of the MiLB guys.. He has closing experience and he's still throwing low 90's this spring.
Is keeping proven relievers off the team more important than trying out these analytical guys, who probably none will ever amount to a hill of beans? Philly was bumping the cap. Shouldn't taking advantage of Cishek's availability be an easy take?
edit.. How easy forget.. It was Houston.. Looked and more info.. Houston at 203.5m according to story read with more moves possibly coming. Cishek himself requested the release.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 29, 2021 11:07:48 GMT -5
I think Eric's point is that the projections would be systematically wrong because they aren't accounting for the likelihood of the Red Sox' roster outperforming their SIPP projections.
What I don't understand about Eric's argument is: don't all teams try to construct rosters that will outperform their projections? E.g., isn't every free agent signed by the team that, by definition, expects to get the most value out of him (adjusting for team budget constraints, etc.)? So on the face of it, I'm not sure why this factor would be unique to the Red Sox.
Having said that, the thomeprojections site has the Red Sox pegged for 65 wins and absolutely certain to have a losing record, which are ridiculous claims. At a glance, it seems like they rely heavily in prior year's performances? And they were off on the Red Sox by like 15 wins on average over the last three seasons, with a heavy bias toward the previous year's performance. And I can imagine reasons why that sort of method would especially underestimate the 2021 team.
I get the point, but it still returns to the same idea: they somehow blew projections. Of course, then the question is: if they are *systematically* wrong, then how does that breakdown affect other teams? That is, if they are *systematically* off by nearly 1/2 WAR per guy for all these guys, might they not be making similar errors for, say, Vlad Jr. or Bichette or whatever? In the end, this is still not much more than saying Eric has a more optimistic view. That’s cool, but saying that a list of guys project better because the Sox acquired them! — is not science but faith. Saying they don’t know about Houck’s “pitch quality” — who knows what they know? Maybe they are simply less enamored than Eric who is especially bullish on Houck? There are a range of projections. The low stuff sounds like garbage. But a few days from now, none of it matters. Yep, I think we're pretty much saying the same thing. A decent projection system can still be informative, I think; fangraphs' feels about right to me, and made me a little more bullish on the Red Sox just by showing the relative weakness of other AL pitching staffs, for instance. But like you, I'm more inclined to use intuition and common sense as a measure for the projection systems, and not the other way around.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,675
|
Post by gerry on Mar 29, 2021 11:29:18 GMT -5
I wonder how many teams have been so thoroughly overhauled for 2021? So many of these new players (like Pivetta, Marwin, Renfroe, Franchy) have not been enthusiastically welcomed by boards like this one; ditto for some returning players (like JDM, Dalbec, Perez). The sheer volume of players with upside potential seems unique to Bloom and the Sox.
I recall palpable resentment that Bloom passed on so many FA’s (I.e. Morton, Kluber, Springer) and worked within the Cap space he inherited to create this unusual team. I have shared a good bit of that negativity, even prepared to cut the NESN cord if this team doesn’t compete. In terms of Eric’s list of potential performance surprises, I have already been pleasantly surprised at the performances and potentials of maybe ten of Eric’s two lists, and anticipate more. And those lists don’t include likely 2021 contributions from the minors (like Downs, Duran, Seabold, Ward, Bazardo.) as this substantially new team continues to evolve.
Over this interesting Spring I have quietly been moving from disappointment to my more normal optimism about this 21st Century Red Sox team, but couldn’t quite put my finger on, as Chris Hayes would say, “Why Is This Happening.” Eric, I think, has pointed the way. For all the flaws and fragility, this is starting to emerge as a better, deeper, more talented, more competitive team than originally given credit for. Bloom and crew has done a surprisingly good job of rebuilding a last place team. Cora and crew are knitting this, to me, strangely potent new team into something dangerous and fun to watch. And IMO the competition, for all their awesomeness, are also showing the flaws and fragility previously attributed to the Sox. Thanks Eric. C’mon Thursday. Bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2021 12:03:04 GMT -5
Sure every team has players who's projections can go up or down. How many teams have so many wide realistic ones though? Look at Sale, ERod, Richard's and Eovaldi alone. The Red Sox are one of the top teams in terms of percentage of top 30 prospects ready or near ready to help. Those type of players have crazy wide ranges. I can certainly understand being positive or negative. I don't understand not seeing both types of outcomes. I mean look at 2018 versus 2019, that's mostly the same team. I'd say the biggest difference was luck and no one can predict that. At the very least you have to love the depth. We don't know exactly how well these guys will perform, yet we do know that we have a ton of options at almost every position. That's something we haven't had in years, lack of depth killed us the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Mar 29, 2021 12:23:29 GMT -5
Houck throwing hard and starts the first inning striking out the side around a single by Albies. I couldn't tell for sure, but the Freeman strikeout looked like a splitter and if so, it's the best one I've ever seen him throw.
|
|
|
Post by kevfc89 on Mar 29, 2021 12:47:29 GMT -5
Hopefully Kiké saves some of these great at bats for the season. Impressive all spring and has a BB and a HR against Ian Anderson today.
JDM and Marwin also go deep in the inning. Team expanding their grapefruit league HR lead with 44 of them now.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 29, 2021 14:18:52 GMT -5
announcement on EEI radio broadcast: Barnes has a "non-infectious positive test" and everyone is cleared and good to go.
Chris Cotillo @chriscotillo · 40s Red Sox confirm: Matt Barnes and all players in contact tracing have been cleared to rejoin the team.
Joel Sherman had it first
Joel Sherman @joelsherman1 · 24m Matt Barnes was ruled to have a non-infectious positive for COVID-19 and is back in camp, and so are all #RedSox players who were considered close contacts.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 29, 2021 14:33:47 GMT -5
announcement on EEI radio broadcast: Barnes has a "non-infectious positive test" and everyone is cleared and good to go. I'm not sure that's *quite* a meaningful phrase in the english language, but I guess the gist is that he doesn't have covid?
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,380
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Mar 29, 2021 14:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Mar 29, 2021 14:53:52 GMT -5
Arroyo belongs on the bench I'd start Chavis most days 2B Until his performance Indicates otherwise The "Chavis is going to be a valuable MLB starter in '21" balloon ... is deflating
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 29, 2021 15:09:03 GMT -5
Days like this make me almost as bullish on Houck as Eric. His fastball looks pretty impressive. Even if his third pitch is just a show-me, his fastball/slider combo will be enough many days.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 29, 2021 15:34:09 GMT -5
They are obviously grooming Houck to be the Braves specialist.
|
|
|