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.
Benintendi traded to KC in 3-way deal w/ NYM
|
Post by manfred on Feb 15, 2021 10:07:10 GMT -5
Not that anyone will change your mind on this, but just want to point out that I don't think Khalil Lee would be a top 5 prospect in the Red Sox system. Just eyeballing the SP list, I would have probably slotted him in at 8-11. Somewhere in that range. Reading up on Lee, he's a high floor/low ceiling guy. Fangraphs on Lee: "He's still young enough to make these and other adjustments, but I have Lee projected as the larger half of a right field platoon rather than a true everyday player." MLB Pipeline on Lee: "Lee could develop into an everyday player if he can clean up his approach and tap into more of his raw power, but he does enough things well in all facets of the game to offer floor value as a fourth outfielder." Lee could wind up being a good big league player, but if Bloom is trying to go for a higher upside play, I'm more than fine with that. I can see that. Lee has his warts but he's also 22 and that ceiling is pretty high. If you aren't going to compete for a few years maybe you focus on cleaning up his approach and refine that raw power. Bloom might be able to get more higher floor but lesser ceiling prospects from NYM but I can't see them coming away with a SP equivalent of Lee. We'll see in May. I’m as bitter as the next guy about losing Sox guys, but I fear I hypocritically fall in the “trust the FO” on this one. I’m not sure Lee projects as a need... he seems like a riskier version of Duran and Jimenez right now. I also assume the Sox are not going to get *jacked* by the Mets, so sight unseen, I’ll assume the guy coming back falls in our 5-15 slot and hopefully fits a bit more of a system need. So I am cool with it and looking forward to seeing who it is.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 15, 2021 11:11:09 GMT -5
If a player is a special athlete with a great first step, yet has negative defensive value in the majors, he has issues. He likely doesn't read the ball well and doesn't have an advanced baseball IQ. The good thing is those things can improve. Yet Baseball Reference and Fangraphs both agree he's been rather bad given his skills. Run value of plays made in OF according to 3 sources:
DRS: 1, -5, 0, -1 UZR: 1, -4, 0, -1. Statcast: 4, -2, 0, 0
The three metrics need to be weighted to get the best estimate of actual performance. The proper weights are 0, 0, and 1.
DRS and UZR use the same data source, Baseball Info Solutions, who measure hang time for every ball hit in play, plus where it landed, or where the fielder was when they caught it, according to people who watch the video and mark a spot on a diagram. Studies have shown that's riddled with bias.
Statcast uses measured data of the ball's actual, complete trajectory, plus actual data of where the fielder started and ended up, etc.
The thing is, this is in 637 total innings! When you rate a +4 R / 150 fielder as -9 ... do I even have to complete that sentence?
He was +25 R/150 or more in range in 192 innings in CF in 2017.
2018 is really interesting, and misleading. He played 11 of his first 14 games in CF, and was -9 R / 150. That made me wonder whether he was hurt. Naturally, the first thing I looked at was a stat, Bill James' Speed Score (based on 3B, SB attempts, SB%, R / times on base), which had been 6.6 in 2017. Sure enough, it had plummeted to 3.8, which is below MLB average. And that from a guy who was 96th percentile in Sprint Speed the year before! Then I Googled ... and sure thing, he had started the season on the DL with a groin injury.
They moved him to LF and from that point on his Speed Score was 7.1, but he was -11 R / 150. That's not knowing the position. Those games played numbers are earlier in this thread.
Oh, and his first week in LF his Speed Score was 4.2. It went up to 7.1 in his second week out there.
He's only played 58 innings in CF since then, so it's no surprise that he measures at 0 runs saved after rounding. He would have had to be +/- 26 R/150 to have registered as anything but 0 in 2019, and +/-18 in 2020.
I don't know about you, yet don't those three stats all basically agree? The range is slightly different, yet they all agree with best and worst season. Oh course you think statcast is the best, yet it's also the newest and most unproven. Yet it fits your narrative so you adjust to just look at that. I'd call that cherry picking data. Where's the proof he has good instincts and Baseball IQ? In most parks a good CF going to LF will result in crazy good defense. Fenway park is an outlier, not the norm. All you've done is give a glass half full opinion on him, which is fine. Yet it's also not concrete proof either. A guy that has a good first step doesn't mean he reads balls great, it just means he has great first step and moves very well. Gets up to full speed quickly. I do appreciate your detailed write-up on guys the team picks up. Yet your conclusions always go to extreme levels.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 15, 2021 11:35:03 GMT -5
You are fun sometimes, but man... you get tunnel vision. “Dependable,” from 12th c. French depend-re, “to hang.” Relating to duty or obligation, meaning “sure.” That is... broad. If I say “go to left field!” And you do? That counts as “dependable” in that you are fulfilling your duty. Is that what he means? Doubt it. But since you insist on English lessons, you might consider the degree to which language is ambiguous — and not seek to pin your specific meanings on abstract terms — or at least don’t condescend to people who point out abstract terms, indeed, can be read many ways. Close your pocket calculator and pick up thy Wittgenstein (to paraphrase Carlyle). I couldn’t give a s—t less what the details are of Cordero’s fielding, but, man, your pattern of having a theory then insisting that is the only way to read ambiguous (or often selective) evidence and then treating people who see it differently as stupid is unnecessary. You contribute an interesting perspective. Try a touch of humility. Another English rec: read Keats on Negative Capability.... learning to live with uncertainty.
An example: almost every person who has argued that the Sox will absolutely stay under the tax limit this season, because their set of acquisitions points in that direction, fails to explain the single most important data point: Bloom's statement that they have no mandate to do so. Tell me what you think that means! Tell me why Bloom would say that even if he did have a mandate! When you ignore the data point, you're implying that "maybe there's a reason Bloom said that, that no one is privy to," or "maybe he means something else by 'mandate' than would seem obvious." And that adds what? It just adds the fact that we don't know everything and that therefore the best possible current explanation might be incorrect.
But we always know that. I'm interested in the best explanation of what we know now. And that often leads to further questions to ask; those are the best responses of all.
Okay, here's my theory: Bloom - and I say this with the deepest respect - is a bloodless Ivy League automaton optimized for efficiency, analytical rigor, and narrative control. Note, e.g., the total lack of leaks coming out of the front office. Plus it probably is literally the case that he doesn't have a mandate to stay under the cap in the sense that if he could trade Jonathan Arauz for Mike Trout straight up the owners would let him do it. So when he says he has no mandate he's speaking the literal truth in a manner that holds his cards closest to his chest, which very much appears to be his preferred position when it comes to card-holding.
*On your rhetorical style... the way you describe it is pretty much how I learned to read your comments. In essence, I mentally convert them to conditional statements: "If this was an absolutely brilliant move, it was because..." But I did have to learn to read them that way, which suggests you are asking the reader to do some of the work of clarifying your meaning.
Personally I'm not too bothered by that; my standard for quality internet discourse is simply that people give (plausible) reasons for their views. People just throwing out opinions without justification is the conversation killer (or sidetracker). And you certainly give reasons in spades, which makes the conversation interesting IMO. But I can see why others get frustrated at the *apparent* certainty with which you express your ideas.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 15, 2021 11:44:52 GMT -5
An example: almost every person who has argued that the Sox will absolutely stay under the tax limit this season, because their set of acquisitions points in that direction, fails to explain the single most important data point: Bloom's statement that they have no mandate to do so. Tell me what you think that means! Tell me why Bloom would say that even if he did have a mandate! When you ignore the data point, you're implying that "maybe there's a reason Bloom said that, that no one is privy to," or "maybe he means something else by 'mandate' than would seem obvious." And that adds what? It just adds the fact that we don't know everything and that therefore the best possible current explanation might be incorrect.
But we always know that. I'm interested in the best explanation of what we know now. And that often leads to further questions to ask; those are the best responses of all.
Okay, here's my theory: Bloom - and I say this with the deepest respect - is a bloodless Ivy League automaton optimized for efficiency, analytical rigor, and narrative control. Note, e.g., the total lack of leaks coming out of the front office. Plus it probably is literally the case that he doesn't have a mandate to stay under the cap in the sense that if he could trade Jonathan Arauz for Mike Trout straight up the owners would let him do it. So when he says he has no mandate he's speaking the literal truth in a manner that holds his cards closest to his chest, which very much appears to be his preferred position when it comes to card-holding.
*On your rhetorical style... the way you describe it is pretty much how I learned to read your comments. In essence, I mentally convert them to conditional statements: "If this was an absolutely brilliant move, it was because..." But I did have to learn to read them that way, which suggests you are asking the reader to do some of the work of clarifying your meaning.
Personally I'm not too bothered by that; my standard for quality internet discourse is simply that people give (plausible) reasons for their views. People just throwing out opinions without justification is the conversation killer (or sidetracker). And you certainly give reasons in spades, which makes the conversation interesting IMO. But I can see why others get frustrated at the *apparent* certainty with which you express your ideas.
Yeah. GM (or whatever the specific title) is like being the President and the press secretary at once. Saying “no mandate” *probably* just eliminates the absolute strictest meaning of the phrase. Though... it could also be just a lie. I mean, who wants to say “Hey, we really sucked last year, and we want you all to be excited about this year... we’ll bounce back, I swear. Oh, but, by the way, we also are on a really strict budget. So, for season tickets, please call....” Add: by the way, this is not a criticism. I get that this is a game of spin.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 15, 2021 12:39:53 GMT -5
Guys walk me through the debate Bloom has with out owner around the trade deadline if this team is in a playoff spot or darn close? Owners like what are you looking to do? Bloom I'm not doing anything, don't want to go over the tax line or I'm going to greatly increase the prospect package to get a team to pay down a players salary so we stay under. I'm fairly certain what our owner would say.
It's why I don't get the don't go over now because if your close you might not be able to get under. If we're close chances are we go over. I can see a bunch of teams wanting to unload money this year.
I'm going to go crazy if we have to trade prospects for guys we could just sign now. Money is one of the Red Sox biggest advantages, let's use it.
We do understand the savings between staying over in 2020 and getting under right? The savings isn't massive for an extra year or two. Unless you expect the Red Sox to go crazy and that's just not happening.
Making the playoffs is going to make you more money than not resetting for a year and paying the tax at the highest rate. The total savings is like 20-25 million unless you go crazy and go way more than $40 million over.
All other sports the amount spent by teams is based off revenue. Just for a second project the Red Sox revenue in 2023 and 2024. There's a difference between long-term deals that create issues for years and one year deals. You don't want a 300 million dollar team locked up long-term with no farm system. If your the Dodgers the tax should be the last thing on your mind.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,637
|
Post by cdj on Feb 15, 2021 12:50:02 GMT -5
Guys walk me through the debate Bloom has with out owner around the trade deadline if this team is in a playoff spot or darn close? Owners like what are you looking to do? Bloom I'm not doing anything, don't want to go over the tax line or I'm going to greatly increase the prospect package to get a team to pay down a players salary so we stay under. I'm fairly certain what our owner would say. It's why I don't get the don't go over now because if your close you might not be able to get under. If we're close chances are we go over. I can see a bunch of teams wanting to unload money this year. I'm going to go crazy if we have to trade prospects for guys we could just sign now. Money is one of the Red Sox biggest advantages, let's use it. We do understand the savings between staying over in 2020 and getting under right? The savings isn't massive for an extra year or two. Unless you expect the Red Sox to go crazy and that's just not happening. Making the playoffs is going to make you more money than not resetting for a year and paying the tax at the highest rate. The total savings is like 20-25 million unless you go crazy and go way more than $40 million over. All other sports the amount spent by teams is based off revenue. Just for a second project the Red Sox revenue in 2023 and 2024. There's a difference between long-term deals that create issues for years and one year deals. You don't want a 300 million dollar team locked up long-term with no farm system. If your the Dodgers the tax should be the last thing on your mind. Wouldn’t shock me if ownerships plan hinges on fans being allowed back in Fenway by playoff time. I don’t think it’s wise to go over now, it just means you’ll have to reset a season earlier and I don’t think they’ll have a reasonable shot at winning a WS. But who knows- if they look really good halfway through the year sometimes you just have to ride the wave
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 15, 2021 15:46:11 GMT -5
His not having a mandate to stay under this year doesn't mean that he doesn't have a mandate to go under every third year and may want to pick next year to pop back over.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 15, 2021 17:49:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Feb 15, 2021 17:53:53 GMT -5
I saw that. It made me nostalgic for the time the Twins said “ yeah, we’re cutting him loose, but we still think he’ll be a legend and a Hall of Famer.”
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 15, 2021 18:13:00 GMT -5
You would think they might actually be able to find a picture where he actually hit the ball rather than out on the front foot lunging
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Feb 15, 2021 18:51:10 GMT -5
August 3, 2020 Franchy Cordero...... Rowan Wick..... Single to CF.....Line Drive)
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 15, 2021 18:56:21 GMT -5
August 3, 2020 Franchy Cordero...... Rowan Wick..... Single to CF.....Line Drive) It wasn't on that pitch... Best case he fouled that one off
|
|
|
Post by patford on Feb 15, 2021 20:09:35 GMT -5
This is a really good observation: "Getting good reads is the skill you need to make first-step quickness in the field evident to an observer." Clearly the first step is completely meaningless without a good read and is in fact the strongest possible evidence that a player makes good reads. Because if not a quick first step in the wrong direction would be a negative.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Feb 15, 2021 20:29:30 GMT -5
August 3, 2020 Franchy Cordero...... Rowan Wick..... Single to CF.....Line Drive) It wasn't on that pitch... Best case he fouled that one off groundout to SS on an 80 mph changeup from Alec Mills link. single later in the game
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 15, 2021 20:50:56 GMT -5
Dude is fast. That was a hard hit ball and first base has to pay attention.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2021 5:54:24 GMT -5
Run value of plays made in OF according to 3 sources:
DRS: 1, -5, 0, -1 UZR: 1, -4, 0, -1. Statcast: 4, -2, 0, 0
The three metrics need to be weighted to get the best estimate of actual performance. The proper weights are 0, 0, and 1.
DRS and UZR use the same data source, Baseball Info Solutions, who measure hang time for every ball hit in play, plus where it landed, or where the fielder was when they caught it, according to people who watch the video and mark a spot on a diagram. Studies have shown that's riddled with bias.
Statcast uses measured data of the ball's actual, complete trajectory, plus actual data of where the fielder started and ended up, etc.
The thing is, this is in 637 total innings! When you rate a +4 R / 150 fielder as -9 ... do I even have to complete that sentence?
He was +25 R/150 or more in range in 192 innings in CF in 2017.
2018 is really interesting, and misleading. He played 11 of his first 14 games in CF, and was -9 R / 150. That made me wonder whether he was hurt. Naturally, the first thing I looked at was a stat, Bill James' Speed Score (based on 3B, SB attempts, SB%, R / times on base), which had been 6.6 in 2017. Sure enough, it had plummeted to 3.8, which is below MLB average. And that from a guy who was 96th percentile in Sprint Speed the year before! Then I Googled ... and sure thing, he had started the season on the DL with a groin injury.
They moved him to LF and from that point on his Speed Score was 7.1, but he was -11 R / 150. That's not knowing the position. Those games played numbers are earlier in this thread.
Oh, and his first week in LF his Speed Score was 4.2. It went up to 7.1 in his second week out there.
He's only played 58 innings in CF since then, so it's no surprise that he measures at 0 runs saved after rounding. He would have had to be +/- 26 R/150 to have registered as anything but 0 in 2019, and +/-18 in 2020.
I don't know about you, yet don't those three stats all basically agree? The range is slightly different, yet they all agree with best and worst season. Oh course you think statcast is the best, yet it's also the newest and most unproven. Yet it fits your narrative so you adjust to just look at that. I'd call that cherry picking data.Where's the proof he has good instincts and Baseball IQ? In most parks a good CF going to LF will result in crazy good defense. Fenway park is an outlier, not the norm. All you've done is give a glass half full opinion on him, which is fine. Yet it's also not concrete proof either. A guy that has a good first step doesn't mean he reads balls great, it just means he has great first step and moves very well. Gets up to full speed quickly. I do appreciate your detailed write-up on guys the team picks up. Yet your conclusions always go to extreme levels. As I said in my post, no, the stat's don't agree; one has him as a +4 defender per 150 games and the other has him as a -9. Good versus marginally unplayable!
No defensive stats are proven. And new stats are generally better than old ones. Gee, why is that? Oh, because if you devise a stat that isn't better than the old ones, you throw it out!
I've been using Statcast range data exclusively since the day it was released, for the reasons I gave, so the whole "it fits my narrative" is total bs. I have no narratives that aren't based on stats. I've been known to go from absolutely despising a trade to being totally onboard after looking at the numbers (Espinoza for Pomeranz). Just in the last two weeks I've gone from ripping Marwin as a terrible clutch hitter to praising him as a good one after discovering that his awful career numbers constitute unimaginably bad numbers before 2017 and great numbers from 2018 on (2017 being a year where he very obviously changed his hitting approach to turn his old cold zones into hot ones, and annihilated everyone for the first nine weeks of the season, before they adjusted to him).
I use Statcast because it's demonstrably better. COVID's cancellation of this year's SABR conference probably cost JBJ a Gold Glove, because they were based entirely on SABR's Defensive Index, which has not been revised to include it.
Cherry picking? In the sense that if you have a choice between eating a cherry and eating dirt, you pick the cherry, sure.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2021 5:58:30 GMT -5
@eric At risk of looking like an idiot here - what is R/150? Runs saved per 150 games? Yes. Not sure who invented it, but it's been around for a while.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,962
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2021 6:34:40 GMT -5
[...]] Getting good reads is the skill you need to make first-step quickness in the field evident to an observer.
Your whole endless post is full of false claims like this. First-step quickness is evident to the observer no matter what direction you run in. You can look at two basketball players play and say "This guy can't guard that guy because he doesn't have first-step quickness." That you would embolden this claim makes it even sadder. Please stop. People said good things about his CF defense in 2017. Then they stopped. None of the statements by Jauss or others that you say are evidence of his suitability for CF are in fact useful evidence for that claim. As is often the case, there's obvious context here that you're not getting.
The BA writeup credited his first step quickness as a key component to his plus fielding.
If you don't get good reads, it renders any first-step quickness you have unusable, moot. It wouldn't be a key component of his plus fielding; in fact, you might note that he's still a work in progress in CF skills and will be better once he can exploit his great first step by getting better reads.
So I left out "useful" or "usable" in that sentence because it seemed superfluous, since the quote in question has it as usable.
Obviously I know you can spot first-step quickness in other ways, the most obvious being on the bases, and in fact the BA writeup goes on to credit it for his SB success. That's why I specified in the field. You wouldn't talk about it in relationship to fielding if it weren't usable there. You might start with his great first step and how it's made him a SB threat and then say that it's not yet useful in the field because he doesn't get good reads.
I mean, I get the sense that you're not even aware what you're arguing here. You're M.O. is to pull out a sentence and explain how it might be wrong while setting aside the point being debated that establishes all of its context. Because your argument is this:
Franchy had +25 R/150 range (according to Statcast) in 2017. BA says he has exceptional first step quickness and that he "uses his speed" to be a plus defender in CF. But he doesn't get good reads in CF. (Since you disagree with my argument that he does.)
And BA fails to mention that! Even though it would make him a plus-plus defender if he could learn that skill.
And he still was a +25 R/150 defender! (Which is already a plus-plus performance, in a SSS.)
People said good things about his CF defense in 2017. Then they stopped.
I have to be honest with you. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. I mean, burst into laughter.
He stopped playing CF after that.
(I have to admit, I burst into laughter again, typing that.)
He pulled a groin muscle in ST, Manny Margot went to CF, he came back still hurting and they put him into LF. I ran through all that already.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,002
|
Post by jimoh on Feb 16, 2021 7:57:55 GMT -5
[JIMOH SAID] People said good things about his CF defense in 2017. Then they stopped.
I have to be honest with you. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. I mean, burst into laughter.
He stopped playing CF after that.
(I have to admit, I burst into laughter again, typing that.)
He pulled a groin muscle in ST, Manny Margot went to CF, he came back still hurting and they put him into LF. I ran through all that already.
Franchy Cordero literally never "stopped playing CF". Don't you ever check your facts? He played LF more, but he played 10 games there in 2018 (of 37). In one of them them Tyson Ross had a no-hitter in the ninth when a guy hit a ball a ball to cf with a 99% Catchability score according to Statcast. He "needed to run 50 feet in 4.7 seconds" (a guy with his speed can run almost 40 YARDS in that time). He took a step in (with his great "quick first-step quickness") and the ball sailed lazily over his head. The manager tried to make him feel better by saying it was a tough read of the bat. It was an easy play. Cordero played 3 of his 7 mlb games in CF in 2019 and 5 of his 12 mlb games in CF in 2020. in 2019 he played only CF in the minor leagues, and some games in all the other milb seasons. He played 6 games in the Dominican in cf in 2019-20 (a year ago) But, hey, thanks for continuing to put in bold the parts that are most obviously wrong. How many of the stats in all your long posts are this carelessly wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 16, 2021 10:15:20 GMT -5
People, please stay away from the personal insinuations. The arguments can go on without all the huffing and puffing.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 16, 2021 15:19:09 GMT -5
I don't know about you, yet don't those three stats all basically agree? The range is slightly different, yet they all agree with best and worst season. Oh course you think statcast is the best, yet it's also the newest and most unproven. Yet it fits your narrative so you adjust to just look at that. I'd call that cherry picking data.Where's the proof he has good instincts and Baseball IQ? In most parks a good CF going to LF will result in crazy good defense. Fenway park is an outlier, not the norm. All you've done is give a glass half full opinion on him, which is fine. Yet it's also not concrete proof either. A guy that has a good first step doesn't mean he reads balls great, it just means he has great first step and moves very well. Gets up to full speed quickly. I do appreciate your detailed write-up on guys the team picks up. Yet your conclusions always go to extreme levels. As I said in my post, no, the stat's don't agree; one has him as a +4 defender per 150 games and the other has him as a -9. Good versus marginally unplayable!
No defensive stats are proven. And new stats are generally better than old ones. Gee, why is that? Oh, because if you devise a stat that isn't better than the old ones, you throw it out!
I've been using Statcast range data exclusively since the day it was released, for the reasons I gave, so the whole "it fits my narrative" is total bs. I have no narratives that aren't based on stats. I've been known to go from absolutely despising a trade to being totally onboard after looking at the numbers (Espinoza for Pomeranz). Just in the last two weeks I've gone from ripping Marwin as a terrible clutch hitter to praising him as a good one after discovering that his awful career numbers constitute unimaginably bad numbers before 2017 and great numbers from 2018 on (2017 being a year where he very obviously changed his hitting approach to turn his old cold zones into hot ones, and annihilated everyone for the first nine weeks of the season, before they adjusted to him).
I use Statcast because it's demonstrably better. COVID's cancellation of this year's SABR conference probably cost JBJ a Gold Glove, because they were based entirely on SABR's Defensive Index, which has not been revised to include it.
Cherry picking? In the sense that if you have a choice between eating a cherry and eating dirt, you pick the cherry, sure.
Eric didn't you literally just say defensive stats over three years old are worthless when predicting players going forward? I'd say basing everything off of four years ago and weighting those stats so they matter more is cherry picking stats. He's negative his last three years. Also if I go check, I'm not going to find you using other defensive stats over the last five years? Come on. We have defensive stats that have been studied and adjusted for a long time versus ones that you literally don't even have enough data to do that with yet. If they are clearly better, yet even you say they aren't proven, why haven't Baseball Reference and Fangraphs switched over? You know they are doing much more detailed analysis than you are. Do you really believe that everything new is better just because it's new? Remember our talk about actual versus expected results with Jackie Bradley Jr. They literally weren't taking shifts into account and it messed up his expected results for years. I'm not slamming statcast data either, it's just going to take decades to get where you think it has been since day one. Even then it's just more information, not an end all. Eric that's kinda my point. You'll dig into every player, even if you were at one time negative and find something positive to run with. Every single time. Then dig in and act like it's a fact that can't be disputed. I truly appreciate the time you take to gather the data, yet the conclusions are always glass half full.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 16, 2021 15:27:35 GMT -5
I think it's worth mentioning what Keith Law said about Durran versus what people on this board have said after seeing him more and having access to more information. Law is projecting what he could become based on tools, people like Chris and Ian are telling you what he currently is.
I also don't for a second think a quick first step equals reads the ball great. One is an athletic trait, one is a skill. I've seen guys that aren't great athletes without a great first step be very good OF because they read the ball perfectly.
If you're an athletic freak, with a quick first step that gets great reads you will be one great outfielder. We can only hope!
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Feb 16, 2021 16:02:31 GMT -5
I think it's worth mentioning what Keith Law said about Durran versus what people on this board have said after seeing him more and having access to more information. Law is projecting what he could become based on tools, people like Chris and Ian are telling you what he currently is. It would be nice if someone mentioned this - I'd be curious to know what he said!
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Feb 16, 2021 16:43:48 GMT -5
I think it's worth mentioning what Keith Law said about Durran versus what people on this board have said after seeing him more and having access to more information. Law is projecting what he could become based on tools, people like Chris and Ian are telling you what he currently is. It would be nice if someone mentioned this - I'd be curious to know what he said! "Duran changed his swing in 2020 to drive the ball more in the air, addressing what I thought was the big issue with his outlook: He struck out too much for a guy who wasn’t hitting for power or making consistent hard contact. Duran is a 70 runner who is a plus defender in center and might end up a 70 out there as well, while at the plate he has been a good singles hitter so far in pro ball, but with an isolated power of just .105 in 2019 between High A and Double A at age 22. Now that he’s lofting the ball more, and has gotten stronger, he should at least see double digits in homers and more doubles (and triples, thanks to his speed) that will balance out any swing and miss he’s likely to have. We’ll see how well it carries over into games, but it’s enough to change his outlook from someone outside the top 100 in 2020 to on the list now."
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Feb 16, 2021 17:02:01 GMT -5
|
|
|