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.
|
Post by dangermike on Oct 29, 2021 9:34:37 GMT -5
This past season bloom brought in some really good talent for cheap and we had some prospects graduate. It seems like a good decision for us to start thinking about selling high on certain players without destroying the chemistry this team has. What do we think the market for players like Renfroe and Dalbec looks like.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 29, 2021 16:26:27 GMT -5
This past season bloom brought in some really good talent for cheap and we had some prospects graduate. It seems like a good decision for us to start thinking about selling high on certain players without destroying the chemistry this team has. What do we think the market for players like Renfroe and Dalbec looks like. I don't get thinking you're selling high on Dalbec. Renfroe was non tendered no? I just don't see how you get anything great and who's his replacement? I'm not saying I want to trade these guys, yet my top three potential sell high guys are Hernandez, Eovaldi and Whitlock. Hernandez and Eovaldi just had by far their best seasons every and Whitlock in his first years was a crazy elite reliever. I'd say there's a good chance all three aren't as good next year.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Oct 30, 2021 5:35:13 GMT -5
I think Whitlock has a good chance to be a starter next year. He pitches like a starter.
Dalbec was their best hitter the last 2 months of the season.
I don't see them trading any of these guys. If JD elects to opt out, a guy like Dalbec could easily be the DH.
Lots of moving parts. I trust Bloom to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Oct 30, 2021 7:45:11 GMT -5
The concept of 'selling high' would imply that their value will begin to decline based on a performance drop. I am not sure there is anything to support that idea with regards to Whitlock. He looks to be the real deal who will perform well (role to be determined) for the forseeable future.
Darwinzon performance has already started to decline so his value is clearly not at a high. Trade him if you can get something for him or include him as a sweetener but I think its more of a "cut your losses" scenario.
The sell-high candidate for me is Jaren Duran. He is a highly regarded prospect which may still have some appeal to other teams around the league. However, watching him earlier this year he is NOT a good outfielder, has a weak arm, and is prone to striking out while trying to hit homeruns, rather than capitalizing his best skill (outstanding speed). His value might be at its peak as more playing time will continue to expose him unless he makes some fundamental changes to his approach.
|
|
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Oct 30, 2021 9:18:45 GMT -5
The whole concept of "selling high" rests on the assumption that Chaim Bloom (along with posters on this board) is smarter than the other teams' executives. It assumes that there are plenty of suckers out there whose naivete can be exploited. I'm not so sure that's true.
The one time you can exploit other teams is at the deadline, when they are desperate to shore up weaknesses on their roster to make a pennant run. That's when you can unload two so-so relievers for a young pitcher with promise.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 30, 2021 11:04:10 GMT -5
The concept of 'selling high' would imply that their value will begin to decline based on a performance drop. I am not sure there is anything to support that idea with regards to Whitlock. He looks to be the real deal who will perform well (role to be determined) for the forseeable future. Darwinzon performance has already started to decline so his value is clearly not at a high. Trade him if you can get something for him or include him as a sweetener but I think its more of a "cut your losses" scenario. The sell-high candidate for me is Jaren Duran. He is a highly regarded prospect which may still have some appeal to other teams around the league. However, watching him earlier this year he is NOT a good outfielder, has a weak arm, and is prone to striking out while trying to hit homeruns, rather than capitalizing his best skill (outstanding speed). His value might be at its peak as more playing time will continue to expose him unless he makes some fundamental changes to his approach. If Whitlock is a reliever again next year, I would say history supports it. The list of relievers that can post back to back 2.9 bwar or better seasons is rather small. Kimberl only did it once, Papelbon only did it once, Andrew Miller only did it once. If you think he won't decline going forward you're betting he's basically Mariano Rivera the best reliever in history. I made a point of saying it didn't mean I want to trade him and if he becomes a starter that changes things.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 30, 2021 11:28:21 GMT -5
The whole concept of "selling high" rests on the assumption that Chaim Bloom (along with posters on this board) is smarter than the other teams' executives. It assumes that there are plenty of suckers out there whose naivete can be exploited. I'm not so sure that's true. The one time you can exploit other teams is at the deadline, when they are desperate to shore up weaknesses on their roster to make a pennant run. That's when you can unload two so-so relievers for a young pitcher with promise. While I agree the deadline is the best time, I full disagree about the rest. I absolutely believe there are smarter/better GMs that can take advantage of other GMs. Baseball is by far and away the hardest sport to predict players going forward. The Padres traded six players to get Mike Clevinger, he made four starts and bam he's injured. Yet Cal Quantrill a guy I really wanted when we were talking Wil Myers trade just posted a 3.9 bwar. Look at Ben Cherington horrible Bailey for Reddick trade. There are so many. Part of it is being smarter, the other part is GMs with orders to win or like with Ben not wanting to pay Papelbon. Look at the Dodgers a few years back trade with the Reds, yeah that's a GM being smarter. The best weapon for any team is a crazy good GM.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 30, 2021 12:05:00 GMT -5
The whole concept of "selling high" rests on the assumption that Chaim Bloom (along with posters on this board) is smarter than the other teams' executives. It assumes that there are plenty of suckers out there whose naivete can be exploited. I'm not so sure that's true. The one time you can exploit other teams is at the deadline, when they are desperate to shore up weaknesses on their roster to make a pennant run. That's when you can unload two so-so relievers for a young pitcher with promise. I mean, that’s the whole basis for any transactional economic system—that some folks value some things more than others. It doesn’t necessarily mean Bloom is a better talent evaluator than other teams, just that their priorities diverge. By way of example, a smaller market, non-contending team with limited payroll flexibility may be more willing to trade for a guy like Dalbec and let him play through the ups and downs on a cheap contract while hoping to unlock that upside while a bigger market team might prefer more certainty with a lower ceiling. That counts as “selling high” in my book.
|
|
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Oct 30, 2021 12:36:16 GMT -5
The whole concept of "selling high" rests on the assumption that Chaim Bloom (along with posters on this board) is smarter than the other teams' executives. It assumes that there are plenty of suckers out there whose naivete can be exploited. I'm not so sure that's true. The one time you can exploit other teams is at the deadline, when they are desperate to shore up weaknesses on their roster to make a pennant run. That's when you can unload two so-so relievers for a young pitcher with promise. I mean, that’s the whole basis for any transactional economic system—that some folks value some things more than others. It doesn’t necessarily mean Bloom is a better talent evaluator than other teams, just that their priorities diverge. By way of example, a smaller market, non-contending team with limited payroll flexibility may be more willing to trade for a guy like Dalbec and let him play through the ups and downs on a cheap contract while hoping to unlock that upside while a bigger market team might prefer more certainty with a lower ceiling. That counts as “selling high” in my book. Doesn't "selling high" mean trading guys who are overvalued based on recent results? For Dalbec, if you think the last two months are not who he really is, you trade him. (I think that is the real Dalbec, so I'd keep him.) A classic sell-high candidate would be Duran, but you have to assume the other teams know his warts. Any one of them could read this board, for example.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Oct 30, 2021 15:21:37 GMT -5
The whole concept of "selling high" rests on the assumption that Chaim Bloom (along with posters on this board) is smarter than the other teams' executives. It assumes that there are plenty of suckers out there whose naivete can be exploited. I'm not so sure that's true. The one time you can exploit other teams is at the deadline, when they are desperate to shore up weaknesses on their roster to make a pennant run. That's when you can unload two so-so relievers for a young pitcher with promise. While I agree the deadline is the best time, I full disagree about the rest. I absolutely believe there are smarter/better GMs that can take advantage of other GMs. Baseball is by far and away the hardest sport to predict players going forward. The Padres traded six players to get Mike Clevinger, he made four starts and bam he's injured. Yet Cal Quantrill a guy I really wanted when we were talking Wil Myers trade just posted a 3.9 bwar. Look at Ben Cherington horrible Bailey for Reddick trade. There are so many. Part of it is being smarter, the other part is GMs with orders to win or like with Ben not wanting to pay Papelbon. Look at the Dodgers a few years back trade with the Reds, yeah that's a GM being smarter. The best weapon for any team is a crazy good GM. It's hard to predict players' future performance; you said it yourself. Why, then, are you assuming trades like these are heists for the GMs and not something that neither side would have predicted? Like, Cleveland's GM traded Clevinger because he lied to his teammates and would have become a clubhouse cancer. I'm sure he wasn't inventing some pretext to trade him because he knew that Clevinger was due to get injured in a few weeks.
Teams are obviously going to evaluate talent differently, but I doubt most trades are completed with either GM thinking that they're robbing the other team blind. Teams just have different priorities, different holes, different amounts of resources available, etc. and sometimes their interests just align.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 30, 2021 19:19:21 GMT -5
While I agree the deadline is the best time, I full disagree about the rest. I absolutely believe there are smarter/better GMs that can take advantage of other GMs. Baseball is by far and away the hardest sport to predict players going forward. The Padres traded six players to get Mike Clevinger, he made four starts and bam he's injured. Yet Cal Quantrill a guy I really wanted when we were talking Wil Myers trade just posted a 3.9 bwar. Look at Ben Cherington horrible Bailey for Reddick trade. There are so many. Part of it is being smarter, the other part is GMs with orders to win or like with Ben not wanting to pay Papelbon. Look at the Dodgers a few years back trade with the Reds, yeah that's a GM being smarter. The best weapon for any team is a crazy good GM. It's hard to predict players' future performance; you said it yourself. Why, then, are you assuming trades like these are heists for the GMs and not something that neither side would have predicted? Like, Cleveland's GM traded Clevinger because he lied to his teammates and would have become a clubhouse cancer. I'm sure he wasn't inventing some pretext to trade him because he knew that Clevinger was due to get injured in a few weeks.
Teams are obviously going to evaluate talent differently, but I doubt most trades are completed with either GM thinking that they're robbing the other team blind. Teams just have different priorities, different holes, different amounts of resources available, etc. and sometimes their interests just align.
The point isn't the injury, it's what Cal Quantrill did and that was something you could see coming.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Oct 31, 2021 10:27:26 GMT -5
It's hard to predict players' future performance; you said it yourself. Why, then, are you assuming trades like these are heists for the GMs and not something that neither side would have predicted? Like, Cleveland's GM traded Clevinger because he lied to his teammates and would have become a clubhouse cancer. I'm sure he wasn't inventing some pretext to trade him because he knew that Clevinger was due to get injured in a few weeks.
Teams are obviously going to evaluate talent differently, but I doubt most trades are completed with either GM thinking that they're robbing the other team blind. Teams just have different priorities, different holes, different amounts of resources available, etc. and sometimes their interests just align.
The point isn't the injury, it's what Cal Quantrill did and that was something you could see coming. I don't think Quantrill's season was nearly as good as 3.9 bWAR makes it seem. If you look at fWAR, which is FIP-based, he only finished with 1.9. In terms of WAR/IP, Fangraphs has his 2021 season just about in line with his 2019 season. With that in mind, it would be malpractice for SD to let him go without thinking he could perform at this level. Clevinger had been a lot better than Quantrill was and still had two more full years of control remaining when they picked him up at the deadline. If you think he's a top of the rotation kind of guy, which he had been in Cleveland, and you're looking to be a legit WS contender, the trade makes sense; it seems reasonable to let go of a serviceable young starter in Quantrill and some other players you can do without - Hedges was replaced by Nola in another trade, for example, and they had an impending 40-man crunch - to go get an elite starter in Clevinger. I might not have made all of the same choices that Preller did, but I don't think he was taken advantage of either.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 31, 2021 15:08:09 GMT -5
I mean, that’s the whole basis for any transactional economic system—that some folks value some things more than others. It doesn’t necessarily mean Bloom is a better talent evaluator than other teams, just that their priorities diverge. By way of example, a smaller market, non-contending team with limited payroll flexibility may be more willing to trade for a guy like Dalbec and let him play through the ups and downs on a cheap contract while hoping to unlock that upside while a bigger market team might prefer more certainty with a lower ceiling. That counts as “selling high” in my book. Doesn't "selling high" mean trading guys who are overvalued based on recent results? For Dalbec, if you think the last two months are not who he really is, you trade him. (I think that is the real Dalbec, so I'd keep him.) A classic sell-high candidate would be Duran, but you have to assume the other teams know his warts. Any one of them could read this board, for example. So the key there is them being actually overvalued based on those recent results, right? Bobby Dalbec hit well for six weeks. If that changed some GMs opinion of him, and they think it means he can be an above-average contributor, then maybe you trade him to that team. But it doesn't seem like anyone thinks that - the consensus seems to be more that he's a very flawed and streaky hitter who had a hot streak near the end of the year as his manager was able to pick and choose his matchups a bit more selectively. And even if there was a sheen there, it came off really fast, right? Including the playoffs, he closed 2 for 33 with 15 strikeouts and no walks, including a lost-looking 0 for 12 in the playoffs. Selling high almost always involves something that feels painful at the time. The Red Sox sold high on Anderson Espinoza and everyone hated it. Henry Owens was involved in trade rumors throughout the mid-'10s, and nobody liked it. It's very, very rarely "this guy got hot, sell now!!" especially during the offseason. And even that doesn't always work - selling Jamie Moyer seemed like a good idea at the time. Renfroe is a more interesting discussion because there seem to be more views on how good he actually is. He turns 30 this offseason and he doesn't get on base enough and his range is just okay and his power and arm are very good. There are probably GMs out there who think he's a good idea as a starting right fielder in 2022 and others who do not. And Duran's the opposite, right? Selling high on him would've been in July, before he was called up and he played terribly and it was on display for the world that he's not there yet defensively.
|
|
|
Post by lostinnewjersey on Oct 31, 2021 15:55:12 GMT -5
Doesn't "selling high" mean trading guys who are overvalued based on recent results? For Dalbec, if you think the last two months are not who he really is, you trade him. (I think that is the real Dalbec, so I'd keep him.) A classic sell-high candidate would be Duran, but you have to assume the other teams know his warts. Any one of them could read this board, for example. So the key there is them being actually overvalued based on those recent results, right? Bobby Dalbec hit well for six weeks. If that changed some GMs opinion of him, and they think it means he can be an above-average contributor, then maybe you trade him to that team. But it doesn't seem like anyone thinks that - the consensus seems to be more that he's a very flawed and streaky hitter who had a hot streak near the end of the year as his manager was able to pick and choose his matchups a bit more selectively. And even if there was a sheen there, it came off really fast, right? Including the playoffs, he closed 2 for 33 with 15 strikeouts and no walks, including a lost-looking 0 for 12 in the playoffs. Selling high almost always involves something that feels painful at the time. The Red Sox sold high on Anderson Espinoza and everyone hated it. Henry Owens was involved in trade rumors throughout the mid-'10s, and nobody liked it. It's very, very rarely "this guy got hot, sell now!!" especially during the offseason. And even that doesn't always work - selling Jamie Moyer seemed like a good idea at the time. Renfroe is a more interesting discussion because there seem to be more views on how good he actually is. He turns 30 this offseason and he doesn't get on base enough and his range is just okay and his power and arm are very good. There are probably GMs out there who think he's a good idea as a starting right fielder in 2022 and others who do not. And Duran's the opposite, right? Selling high on him would've been in July, before he was called up and he played terribly and it was on display for the world that he's not there yet defensively. I agree with everything you're saying. I was commenting (with a little bit of snark, admittedly) that when posters on discussion boards talk about selling high on a player, what they mean is that we here at Sox Prospects are savvier talent evaluators than various GM's around the league who can be exploited because, you know, we are smart and they are dumb. I do not think that is how it works.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 31, 2021 19:43:39 GMT -5
The point isn't the injury, it's what Cal Quantrill did and that was something you could see coming. I don't think Quantrill's season was nearly as good as 3.9 bWAR makes it seem. If you look at fWAR, which is FIP-based, he only finished with 1.9. In terms of WAR/IP, Fangraphs has his 2021 season just about in line with his 2019 season. With that in mind, it would be malpractice for SD to let him go without thinking he could perform at this level. Clevinger had been a lot better than Quantrill was and still had two more full years of control remaining when they picked him up at the deadline. If you think he's a top of the rotation kind of guy, which he had been in Cleveland, and you're looking to be a legit WS contender, the trade makes sense; it seems reasonable to let go of a serviceable young starter in Quantrill and some other players you can do without - Hedges was replaced by Nola in another trade, for example, and they had an impending 40-man crunch - to go get an elite starter in Clevinger. I might not have made all of the same choices that Preller did, but I don't think he was taken advantage of either. You do understand FIP is based on strikeouts right? Any pitcher who doesn't have the strikeout numbers to match their numbers is treated like it was just luck. It's the huge flaw with FIP, it can overvalue guys with huge strikeout numbers and undervalue guys with lower ones.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 1, 2021 5:52:19 GMT -5
Lots of good thoughts here in this thread. Bottom line IMO is not all GMs are equal right. Not all talent evaluators are equal. They might each have stats they like more and or scouting reports they like about a player more. Some might tend to overlook certain cons about a player they like the pros of and vice versa. And then all scouts aren't created equal either. Like how about the Sox scouts finding Yorke when it seems like nobody else did.
Nobody has a crystal ball but they have their intuition, knowledge, experience, scouting reports etc, etc to make these decisions. And then their is the difference between the Red Sox and the A's or Rays of the league. Teams need to dump guys when they become high priced or lose them for nothing. Right now it is the A's, they have some great talent they will have to trade for prospects soon. They unlike the Sox can run guys out there to learn and struggle while they figure it out and improve. It was hard for the Sox to do that with Dalbec this year. Maybe they wouldn't have if they had higher expectations this year. I think it will be hard to run Duran out there next season based on expectations.
I think Whitlock is a keeper because he has both a very good floor and a good ceiling, same with Renfroe. And they both are great values salary wise. Of course Whitlock is younger and has a lot more room to grow.
I know the Sox just started to get their pipeline of prospects going but I look at Duran and Downs as guys who won't have a future here. I like Dalbec but I don't know if he really does either. Not sure it is selling high, especially in Downs case, but I wouldn't mind those 3 being moved. Question is what does a team like the A's think of those guys. They have pros and they have cons. Duran reminds me of Reddick a bit, I could see him having a decent career. Can the Sox give him the time in the OF to get there? He needs playing time and that might be hard in Boston.
As far as selling high goes lets just hope that years from now we can look back and say that Chaim made a lot more good decisions than bad when making these trades. He is off to a good start.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 1, 2021 6:08:05 GMT -5
The concept of 'selling high' would imply that their value will begin to decline based on a performance drop. I am not sure there is anything to support that idea with regards to Whitlock. He looks to be the real deal who will perform well (role to be determined) for the forseeable future. Darwinzon performance has already started to decline so his value is clearly not at a high. Trade him if you can get something for him or include him as a sweetener but I think its more of a "cut your losses" scenario. The sell-high candidate for me is Jaren Duran. He is a highly regarded prospect which may still have some appeal to other teams around the league. However, watching him earlier this year he is NOT a good outfielder, has a weak arm, and is prone to striking out while trying to hit homeruns, rather than capitalizing his best skill (outstanding speed). His value might be at its peak as more playing time will continue to expose him unless he makes some fundamental changes to his approach. IMO Darwinzon should spend some time in AAA next year and be told to find the strike zone period. Just learn to throw strikes and trust your stuff or you aren't a major league pitcher and let another team take the chance with him if he can't. I obviously agree on Duran.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 1, 2021 9:39:58 GMT -5
I don't think Quantrill's season was nearly as good as 3.9 bWAR makes it seem. If you look at fWAR, which is FIP-based, he only finished with 1.9. In terms of WAR/IP, Fangraphs has his 2021 season just about in line with his 2019 season. With that in mind, it would be malpractice for SD to let him go without thinking he could perform at this level. Clevinger had been a lot better than Quantrill was and still had two more full years of control remaining when they picked him up at the deadline. If you think he's a top of the rotation kind of guy, which he had been in Cleveland, and you're looking to be a legit WS contender, the trade makes sense; it seems reasonable to let go of a serviceable young starter in Quantrill and some other players you can do without - Hedges was replaced by Nola in another trade, for example, and they had an impending 40-man crunch - to go get an elite starter in Clevinger. I might not have made all of the same choices that Preller did, but I don't think he was taken advantage of either. You do understand FIP is based on strikeouts right? Any pitcher who doesn't have the strikeout numbers to match their numbers is treated like it was just luck. It's the huge flaw with FIP, it can overvalue guys with huge strikeout numbers and undervalue guys with lower ones. Yep, it's based on the three true outcomes. You can do just fine with low strikeout numbers provided you don't walk tons of guys or allow tons of homers. There are better stats than fWAR, but Baseball Reference's formula is basically just based on runs allowed, making it even less reflective of underlying performance.
By xERA, which takes into account quality of contact, Quantrill was still 3.89, a full point higher than his ERA but only .18 lower than his FIP. That xERA mark is only good for 58th percentile btw - solid enough for a starter, but nothing spectacular. Compare with Eovaldi (77th percentile), Erod (73rd percentile), and Pivetta (63rd percentile).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 1, 2021 11:24:45 GMT -5
You do understand FIP is based on strikeouts right? Any pitcher who doesn't have the strikeout numbers to match their numbers is treated like it was just luck. It's the huge flaw with FIP, it can overvalue guys with huge strikeout numbers and undervalue guys with lower ones. Yep, it's based on the three true outcomes. You can do just fine with low strikeout numbers provided you don't walk tons of guys or allow tons of homers. There are better stats than fWAR, but Baseball Reference's formula is basically just based on runs allowed, making it even less reflective of underlying performance.
By xERA, which takes into account quality of contact, Quantrill was still 3.89, a full point higher than his ERA but only .18 lower than his FIP. That xERA mark is only good for 58th percentile btw - solid enough for a starter, but nothing spectacular. Compare with Eovaldi (77th percentile), Erod (73rd percentile), and Pivetta (63rd percentile).
That's not true, Baseball Refrence adjust for which teams you face, the teams D, your park, inter league games, starter versus bullpen arm and compares that to what an average pitcher would do. FIP is just HRs, walks and strikeouts, it doesn't take into account hits allowed and non strikeout outs, it assumes those are just luck. You really can't look at Quantrill nothing wrong with his HRs or Walks, it's his strikeouts that are low which hurts him. It's a rather bad formula for determining value, heck fangraphs says it's more forward thinking than backwards. All based on the best way to get an out is a strikeout.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 1, 2021 12:26:59 GMT -5
Yep, it's based on the three true outcomes. You can do just fine with low strikeout numbers provided you don't walk tons of guys or allow tons of homers. There are better stats than fWAR, but Baseball Reference's formula is basically just based on runs allowed, making it even less reflective of underlying performance.
By xERA, which takes into account quality of contact, Quantrill was still 3.89, a full point higher than his ERA but only .18 lower than his FIP. That xERA mark is only good for 58th percentile btw - solid enough for a starter, but nothing spectacular. Compare with Eovaldi (77th percentile), Erod (73rd percentile), and Pivetta (63rd percentile).
That's not true, Baseball Refrence adjust for which teams you face, the teams D, your park, inter league games, starter versus bullpen arm and compares that to what an average pitcher would do. FIP is just HRs, walks and strikeouts, it doesn't take into account hits allowed and non strikeout outs, it assumes those are just luck. You really can't look at Quantrill nothing wrong with his HRs or Walks, it's his strikeouts that are low which hurts him. It's a rather bad formula for determining value, heck fangraphs says it's more forward thinking than backwards. All based on the best way to get an out is a strikeout. Fangraphs also adjusts for park factors, starter vs. reliever, etc. In theory there's no reason to make a defensive adjustment in a FIP-based calculation, though, since FIP is designed to be independent of the effects of defense. I'll take that over a DRS-based defensive adjustment since DRS is a pretty unreliable stat.
I do prefer fWAR for pitchers, but I put the most trust in xERA, since it's directly coming from xwOBA. That's fully based on the quality of contact allowed, so it's naturally going to be independent of luck, defense, park factors, etc. xERA shows that Quantrill's 2021 was not as special as Baseball Reference thinks it is, as I pointed out in my last post. It also shows that he's not really a different player now than he always was. He was 38th percentile in 2019, then 51st percentile in 2020, and finally 58th percentile in 2021. That's a pretty typical trajectory for any pitcher in their age 24, 25, and 26 seasons; improvements over time, but nothing earth shattering. I'm sure this is not news to both Cleveland and San Diego.
You don't have to like xERA as much as I do, mind you - if anything, differences in how certain statistics are valued are just reflective of why real-world GMs may value the same player differently.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 2, 2021 13:45:25 GMT -5
That's not true, Baseball Refrence adjust for which teams you face, the teams D, your park, inter league games, starter versus bullpen arm and compares that to what an average pitcher would do. FIP is just HRs, walks and strikeouts, it doesn't take into account hits allowed and non strikeout outs, it assumes those are just luck. You really can't look at Quantrill nothing wrong with his HRs or Walks, it's his strikeouts that are low which hurts him. It's a rather bad formula for determining value, heck fangraphs says it's more forward thinking than backwards. All based on the best way to get an out is a strikeout. Fangraphs also adjusts for park factors, starter vs. reliever, etc. In theory there's no reason to make a defensive adjustment in a FIP-based calculation, though, since FIP is designed to be independent of the effects of defense. I'll take that over a DRS-based defensive adjustment since DRS is a pretty unreliable stat.
I do prefer fWAR for pitchers, but I put the most trust in xERA, since it's directly coming from xwOBA. That's fully based on the quality of contact allowed, so it's naturally going to be independent of luck, defense, park factors, etc. xERA shows that Quantrill's 2021 was not as special as Baseball Reference thinks it is, as I pointed out in my last post. It also shows that he's not really a different player now than he always was. He was 38th percentile in 2019, then 51st percentile in 2020, and finally 58th percentile in 2021. That's a pretty typical trajectory for any pitcher in their age 24, 25, and 26 seasons; improvements over time, but nothing earth shattering. I'm sure this is not news to both Cleveland and San Diego.
You don't have to like xERA as much as I do, mind you - if anything, differences in how certain statistics are valued are just reflective of why real-world GMs may value the same player differently.
What are you trying to measure? Value to the team? That's clearly Baseball Refrence because it's based on results. How can you feel great about the value a player gives his team by fangraphs when it's just strikeouts, Walks, HR and adjusted for Park and innings? It all comes from the belief that balls in play are just luck, yet that's not true. I can give you many examples to prove that false, guys with consistent numbers above or below .300 on balls in play. xERA is strikeouts, Walks, hit by pitches and quality of contact. No adjustments at all. It's certainly giving you some useful information, I certainly don't see how that equals value to the team. Again it's based on balls in play are just luck, which is crazy. That was a concept disproven years ago. Rather than coming up with ways to try and remove defense from the equation why don't you just adjust for it? Fangraphs even says FIP is more forward looking than backward looking, yet they then use it to look backwards and determine value. It's rather comical, they are basically going against how they say you should use it. If you base everything off that balls in play is just luck and anything above or below. 300 shouldn't count, you are going to hurt and help a rather large group of players every year. I look at FIP for Cal Quantrill going into next year and see he likely needs to increase strikeouts to repeat what he just did. I think he will, I see a young pitcher just learning how to pitch versus just throwing. I can use FIP to predict if nothing changes he's likely worse next year. I just don’t see how that equals value to his team this year versus a replacement player.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Nov 2, 2021 16:58:54 GMT -5
Fangraphs also adjusts for park factors, starter vs. reliever, etc. In theory there's no reason to make a defensive adjustment in a FIP-based calculation, though, since FIP is designed to be independent of the effects of defense. I'll take that over a DRS-based defensive adjustment since DRS is a pretty unreliable stat.
I do prefer fWAR for pitchers, but I put the most trust in xERA, since it's directly coming from xwOBA. That's fully based on the quality of contact allowed, so it's naturally going to be independent of luck, defense, park factors, etc. xERA shows that Quantrill's 2021 was not as special as Baseball Reference thinks it is, as I pointed out in my last post. It also shows that he's not really a different player now than he always was. He was 38th percentile in 2019, then 51st percentile in 2020, and finally 58th percentile in 2021. That's a pretty typical trajectory for any pitcher in their age 24, 25, and 26 seasons; improvements over time, but nothing earth shattering. I'm sure this is not news to both Cleveland and San Diego.
You don't have to like xERA as much as I do, mind you - if anything, differences in how certain statistics are valued are just reflective of why real-world GMs may value the same player differently.
What are you trying to measure? Value to the team? That's clearly Baseball Refrence because it's based on results. How can you feel great about the value a player gives his team by fangraphs when it's just strikeouts, Walks, HR and adjusted for Park and innings? It all comes from the belief that balls in play are just luck, yet that's not true. I can give you many examples to prove that false, guys with consistent numbers above or below .300 on balls in play. xERA is strikeouts, Walks, hit by pitches and quality of contact. No adjustments at all. It's certainly giving you some useful information, I certainly don't see how that equals value to the team. Again it's based on balls in play are just luck, which is crazy. That was a concept disproven years ago. Rather than coming up with ways to try and remove defense from the equation why don't you just adjust for it? Fangraphs even says FIP is more forward looking than backward looking, yet they then use it to look backwards and determine value. It's rather comical, they are basically going against how they say you should use it. If you base everything off that balls in play is just luck and anything above or below. 300 shouldn't count, you are going to hurt and help a rather large group of players every year. I look at FIP for Cal Quantrill going into next year and see he likely needs to increase strikeouts to repeat what he just did. I think he will, I see a young pitcher just learning how to pitch versus just throwing. I can use FIP to predict if nothing changes he's likely worse next year. I just don’t see how that equals value to his team this year versus a replacement player. I'm trying to measure underlying performance. As in, I want to know to the greatest extent possible, how well did a given player perform in a given season AND how well might they be expected to perform going forward. xERA is a far better tool than WAR looking both forward and back if you're looking to remove the impacts of luck, defense, etc. Every stat we've been discussing is based on results. None of the results they measure directly measure underlying performance, though. Runs are notoriously fluky, even if you try to adjust to remove external factors, and especially when sites like BR are using dubious stats like DRS to accomplish this. I feel FIP is more reliable than runs, but it's still unable to capture many nuances in pitcher performance. Both of these stats are going to hurt and help players each year, and that's why I don't think either is very useful looking forward or back. They're good as a litmus test, or an "at a glance" sort of thing, but that's about it.
I don't think it gets much better than evaluating the speed and angle of every single batted ball allowed compared to the statistically likely results for those batted balls. It's possible, but unlikely, that a pitcher would be able to systematically and substantially over or underperform against a metric like this for their whole career. Maybe they're a wizard at giving up 150' bloops right back of second but they prevent those bloops from ever straying behind first and third base; they'd forever overperform the xBA on balls like that! In reality, though, it's just not likely. Certain players may be better or worse suited to certain ballparks given the contact they typically allow, which could bias their ERA even outside of factors like defense and luck. It's not really any different than a batter with a swing well suited to a certain stadium. That is the biggest failing I see of xERA, but even then, it's probably not going to be that far off, and I see these deviations as more of a reflection of the GM acquiring the right/wrong guy rather than the player actually playing poorly/well.
Let's apply this to Quantrill - imagine the batted balls he tends to give up would play better in Cleveland than in San Diego. If Cleveland's GM knows this, and seeks to trade for Quantrill, does that mean he's fleecing SD? Of course not. San Diego is probably going to be unable to unlock that extra performance. So, when evaluating whether some GMs are just outmaneuvering others, you can't just say "wow, look at the WAR" when the pitcher isn't really performing that different under the hood.
Better examples to take a look at would be cases where a guy changes locations and the underlying stats also start rapidly improving. Then it could be a question of approach / coaching / motivation / sticky stuff formula / health / physical changes / what have you. Some of those factors are things that I might blame the GM for not seeing and attempting to capitalize on. Others may still be unavoidable. I really don't think that sort of thing is happening with most trades regardless.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 3, 2021 11:54:41 GMT -5
Baseball Refrence is using runs, actual results that lead to wins and losses. The other two are trying to take stats and create hypothetical runs, yet aren't taking into account the actual results that happened. They are trying to create average base lines, this amount of strikeouts, walks and HRs should equal this amount of runs.
Looking at FIP compare Quantrill and Bieber, they played on the same team. So park effect should be rather close. Quantrill has better walk and HR numbers, Bieber has a huge edge in strikeouts. I think Bieber is the better pitcher, I don't think he added more value to his team though. Yet I do believe he'll likely be better going forward. Saying Bieber was more valuable because he had more strikeouts yet gave up more runs isn't going by results. It's just saying you value strikeouts more.
Let's say Quantrill was just lucky, I don't really believe that, yet let's go with that. How does that change the results he gave his team and the value to the team? That's why I asked what are you trying to measure. Brady Anderson had a fluke 50 HR season a long time ago. Say it was steriods, luck, whatever you want, doesn't change what he gave the team value wise.
Do you believe anything above or below .300 on balls in play is just luck? You basically have to, if you believe in the FIP and xERA giving you value. So is a guy like Kimbrel the luckiest pitcher in history? Throw out 15 innings in 2020 and he's had 9 straight years well below .300. I say luck came into play in 2011. That shows me a pitcher, just like certain hitters can control the average on balls in play. It's a skill.
Umm Cleveland had a higher park factor, pitchers gave up more HRS and hits, than Petco known as a crazy pitchers park. So I certainly don't think that's it. Cleveland likely just saw what I did when looking at him when we discussed Meyers. It's the Padres trying to win now at all costs, thinking about the now over the future. Rather than develop a young player, they wanted an instant upgrade. We did the same thing with Chavis. We didn't even give him one full year. He got a partial year, then a platoon facing the guys he does worst against, then a small sample size this year. Padres gave Quantrill 23 starts. Best buy low guys for me are always those former top 100 guys that haven't really been given a chance for one reason or another. It's why I'm not surprised by Christian Arroyo, Tampa Bay never really gave him and chance. It's also why I'm not against taking a look at a Hosmer trade, because the Padres have a bunch of those guys I really like. The Padres GM is rather bad, it shows you how good DD was. Certain GMs are really good at looking at a player and projecting, other are horrible. Selling high and buying low is a skill in my book. No one is perfect, yet it's clear that not all GMs are equal and it's not just luck.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 6, 2021 9:57:49 GMT -5
This past season bloom brought in some really good talent for cheap and we had some prospects graduate. It seems like a good decision for us to start thinking about selling high on certain players without destroying the chemistry this team has. What do we think the market for players like Renfroe and Dalbec looks like. I don't get thinking you're selling high on Dalbec. Renfroe was non tendered no? I just don't see how you get anything great and who's his replacement? I'm not saying I want to trade these guys, yet my top three potential sell high guys are Hernandez, Eovaldi and Whitlock. Hernandez and Eovaldi just had by far their best seasons every and Whitlock in his first years was a crazy elite reliever. I'd say there's a good chance all three aren't as good next year. The idea of sell high is also based on the expected return you would get. Of the three you list only Hernandez to me appears to be worth the you could could get more in return than what you can expect if you kept them. Whitlock is the kind of guy you'd love to acquire however other teams wouldn't want to give up his perceived value includes 5 years of control and would use his lack of a track record against you AND we still need starting pitching as well. If I'm a GM I look at where our roster is deepest and/or redundancy in roles. First base is about to become very deep but until Cassas debut there is no necessary rush to make a move, but that is a spot. Now that doesn't mean Dalbec is necc. traded either. Should both JD and Schwarber leave, maybe Dalbec is your DH backing up first and third base. Further confusing the issue is how much longer is the left side of the infield going to have Devers at thirdbase and Xavier at shortstop? Hell maybe this is the year Devers goes to first and Xander goes to third and we sign a SS, Correa? Maybe we sign Suzuki from Japan, making one of Renfroe (preferably), Durran or Verdugo available. This is going to be a really interesting year and a half in terms of moves the team makes and positional player changes. We do have several earnest trade chips.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 7, 2021 7:16:00 GMT -5
I don't get thinking you're selling high on Dalbec. Renfroe was non tendered no? I just don't see how you get anything great and who's his replacement? I'm not saying I want to trade these guys, yet my top three potential sell high guys are Hernandez, Eovaldi and Whitlock. Hernandez and Eovaldi just had by far their best seasons every and Whitlock in his first years was a crazy elite reliever. I'd say there's a good chance all three aren't as good next year. The idea of sell high is also based on the expected return you would get. Of the three you list only Hernandez to me appears to be worth the you could could get more in return than what you can expect if you kept them. Whitlock is the kind of guy you'd love to acquire however other teams wouldn't want to give up his perceived value includes 5 years of control and would use his lack of a track record against you AND we still need starting pitching as well. If I'm a GM I look at where our roster is deepest and/or redundancy in roles. First base is about to become very deep but until Cassas debut there is no necessary rush to make a move, but that is a spot. Now that doesn't mean Dalbec is necc. traded either. Should both JD and Schwarber leave, maybe Dalbec is your DH backing up first and third base. Further confusing the issue is how much longer is the left side of the infield going to have Devers at thirdbase and Xavier at shortstop? Hell maybe this is the year Devers goes to first and Xander goes to third and we sign a SS, Correa? Maybe we sign Suzuki from Japan, making one of Renfroe (preferably), Durran or Verdugo available. This is going to be a really interesting year and a half in terms of moves the team makes and positional player changes. We do have several earnest trade chips. This I agree with. The whole selling high thing is interesting to me in that it really should just be a byproduct of trading. I don't think as a GM you should be using it as the basis for trades, that would mean you are gambling that you know better than some other GM. Why you make trades is based on needs, roster building, salary considerations etc etc, but to just guess and project selling high shouldn't be the basis for a trade. And as you discuss about being deep at positions both in the system and on the major league roster is a big factor. With Casas coming soon Dalbec becomes a possible trade chip. I feel the same about Yorke and eventually MMayer. Duran I absolutely see as a trade chip and Downs also. For Duran to stay in Boston he will need to adjust and improve a lot quickly or I don't see him getting the playing time to improve. If both his D and AB's don't make major strides at the major league level then his value goes down right. Maybe they need to keep him at AAA where he can dominate and keep his value high. I read on here about platooning him and I have to wonder if that is a good idea considering he needs reps to develop. This is going to be a very interesting couple years as you say.
|
|
|