|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:09:43 GMT -5
For all the stuff Dalbec gets, Verdugo has the same bWAR. They are both closing in on Travis Shaw. They are also both bottom 5 in the AL. Having two of the most worthless players in your lineup not so great. Verdugo should have a higher wOBA than Xander. I know you don't give a s**t about any kind of advanced stats whatsoever, but the goal in the future is that if you want good results, you hit the ball exactly like Verdugo has been hitting it. You don't just start bunting and hope for lucky hits. I'm sure you would have been the first calling for Wade Boggs to not be resigned when he hit .259.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 21, 2022 15:11:56 GMT -5
Results are results, though, in the sense that the Sox are scrambling to make an expanded WC, with virtually no chance of winning the division only 1/4 of the way through the year. This is in no small part due to the abject failure of the bottom half of the lineup. If Dalbec, Verdugo, Kiké et al do get it together and put up decent numbers by year’s end, it will be a bit deceptive: where were they when they were needed? If the Sox are 10 games back with 25 games to go and one of those guys goes on a tear, does that actually justify sticking with them? Results are NOT predictive. Why do we have to have this stupid conversation 100 times? Here’s a prediction: if the Sox don’t make up 11.5 games, they don’t win the division. Who cares about predicting once you are up to your knees? Let’s say, for example, Dalbec is “likely” to hit 25 HRs, so… 24 to go. If he goes on a spree in August and hits 12…. will it matter? There comes a point when the past outweighs the future. If Dalbec hit like this until August and then exploded for 23 home runs, he’s still largely have had a bad season and hurt the team. But you could say “hey, his numbers even out.” To what end?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:13:33 GMT -5
I won't be responding anymore.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 21, 2022 15:14:49 GMT -5
For all the stuff Dalbec gets, Verdugo has the same bWAR. They are both closing in on Travis Shaw. They are also both bottom 5 in the AL. Having two of the most worthless players in your lineup not so great. Verdugo should have a higher wOBA than Xander. I know you don't give a s**t about any kind of advanced stats whatsoever, but the goal in the future is that if you want good results, you hit the ball exactly like Verdugo has been hitting it. You don't just start bunting and hope for lucky hits. I'm sure you would have been the first calling for Wade Boggs to not be resigned when he hit .259. I am actually not sorry they let him go. I do give a s**t… but I don’t live in fantasyland, either. Here are facts: the Sox have gotten off to a terrible start. Verdugo is one of the worst players in the league by results. You can predict it’ll change. If it does, then by result he won’t be one of the worst players, which will be delightful. Add: I mean, seriously: do you award advanced championships? This team *should* have won?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:16:08 GMT -5
Great forum we've got here.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on May 21, 2022 15:17:00 GMT -5
Maybe Seattle has something in the scouting report on Whitlock?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 21, 2022 15:18:02 GMT -5
Great forum we've got here. I don’t get the controversy. Verdugo has sucked. Why are you getting bent out of shape about that? Doesn’t mean he won’t be the greatest player ever from this point forward. But I don’t get how you can argue against where we are.
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on May 21, 2022 15:21:07 GMT -5
How does everyone feel about Whitlock as a starter? I still don’t think he has consistent enough secondaries to be a starter, but maybe that will come with time?
|
|
|
Post by reasonabledoubt on May 21, 2022 15:21:30 GMT -5
Not a lock for the rotation apparently.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,497
|
Post by nomar on May 21, 2022 15:21:56 GMT -5
BABIP
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:25:50 GMT -5
Results are results. Whitlock is so bad at giving up 50 mph hit over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on May 21, 2022 15:26:00 GMT -5
Buzzard luck for Whitlock. 5 hits on balls with an EV under 93 this inning
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on May 21, 2022 15:26:36 GMT -5
Bigger problem is he’s not missing any bats as a starter…he could still be a starter, but he needs to get them off his fastball edit: still reminds me of Papelbon as a starter with high pitch counts and heavy fastball reliance
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:29:08 GMT -5
Bigger problem is he’s not missing any bats as a starter…he could still be a starter, but he needs to get them off his fastball Prior to this game, he struck out 31.0% of batters as a starter and 31.4% of batters as a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 21, 2022 15:29:11 GMT -5
Results are results. Whitlock is so bad at giving up 50 mph hit over and over again. I can’t watch this game. Is he laughing on the bench? He probably is… since he knows he didn’t *really* give up those runs.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 21, 2022 15:30:34 GMT -5
Great forum we've got here. I don’t get the controversy. Verdugo has sucked. Why are you getting bent out of shape about that? Doesn’t mean he won’t be the greatest player ever from this point forward. But I don’t get how you can argue against where we are. It's pretty simple. You're trying to live in the world where the actual results that are happening are what matters but the actual results aren't as encouraging as the virtual suppositions so Jim prefers the virtual world of what should happen versus the world of what happens. Or at least that's my observation. I look at it this way. These advanced metrics can be useful for predicting the future, but things don't always even out. Flip a coin 100 times it should come out heads 50 times and tails the other 50 times, but if you flip it 77 times and get tails 42 times out of 77 that doesn't mean the next 23 tosses will get you heads 15 times. As archaic as it sounds Bill Parcells is right...at some point you are what you record says you are.
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on May 21, 2022 15:33:16 GMT -5
Bigger problem is he’s not missing any bats as a starter…he could still be a starter, but he needs to get them off his fastball Prior to this game, he struck out 31.0% of batters as a starter and 31.4% of batters as a reliever. That’s skewed by his a few of his earlier starts against the Rays and Jays, which were shorter starts, and his xwOBA is way up (this inning was some bad BABIP luck). Again this is all SSS, but his changeup/slider just aren’t consistent and his fastball is a few ticks lower as a starter.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:33:42 GMT -5
I don’t get the controversy. Verdugo has sucked. Why are you getting bent out of shape about that? Doesn’t mean he won’t be the greatest player ever from this point forward. But I don’t get how you can argue against where we are. It's pretty simple. You're trying to live in the world where the actual results that are happening are what matters but the actual results aren't as encouraging as the virtual suppositions so Jim prefers the virtual world of what should happen versus the world of what happens. Or at least that's my observation. I look at it this way. These advanced metrics can be useful for predicting the future, but things don't always even out. Flip a coin 100 times it should come out heads 50 times and tails the other 50 times, but if you flip it 77 times and get tails 42 times out of 77 that doesn't mean the next 23 tosses will get you heads 15 times. As archaic as it sounds Bill Parcells is right...at some point you are what you record says you are. It's really freaking simple. You have no control over luck no matter what you do, so you want the expected stats to be as good as possible in order to have the most likely good results regardless of luck. If that doesn't make sense, then I give up. If you get heads 90 times out of 100, that doesn't mean you're good at getting heads. It means you're lucky and that's all it means. And if you flip a coin 1 billion times, you're going to be pretty freaking close to 50% no matter what your streak was at any point in time.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on May 21, 2022 15:34:57 GMT -5
Is there even any disagreement here?
Other than some people want to have bad feelings about Verdugo, and some people want to have good feelings about Verdugo.
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on May 21, 2022 15:35:19 GMT -5
Also where can I find out how many times Kiké has popped out to the right side of the infield this year?
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on May 21, 2022 15:38:36 GMT -5
Ruh roh, Trevor Story time
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:39:17 GMT -5
Is there even any disagreement here? Other than some people want to have bad feelings about Verdugo, and some people want to have good feelings about Verdugo. It's just that some people don't care about anything other than results when determining how good a player or team will be in the future.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on May 21, 2022 15:39:41 GMT -5
Simple, Don't. Feed. The. Troll.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 21, 2022 15:42:06 GMT -5
lol I'm trolling.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 21, 2022 15:42:09 GMT -5
It's pretty simple. You're trying to live in the world where the actual results that are happening are what matters but the actual results aren't as encouraging as the virtual suppositions so Jim prefers the virtual world of what should happen versus the world of what happens. Or at least that's my observation. I look at it this way. These advanced metrics can be useful for predicting the future, but things don't always even out. Flip a coin 100 times it should come out heads 50 times and tails the other 50 times, but if you flip it 77 times and get tails 42 times out of 77 that doesn't mean the next 23 tosses will get you heads 15 times. As archaic as it sounds Bill Parcells is right...at some point you are what you record says you are. It's really freaking simple. You have no control over luck no matter what you do, so you want the expected stats to be as good as possible in order to have the most likely good results regardless of luck. If that doesn't make sense, then I give up. If you get heads 90 times out of 100, that doesn't mean you're good at getting heads. It means you're lucky and that's all it means. And if you flip a coin 1 billion times, you're going to be pretty freaking close to 50% no matter what your streak was at any point in time. Following that example, the percentage because of the larger sample size will draw closer to 50-50 but odds are it never hits 50 percent so you'll get variance, and in baseball you get plenty of variance, the kind of thing that can swing an 81 caliber win team to 71 wins or the other way to 91 wins. At the end of the day, luck or otherwise, it is the results that ultimately matter, more than could have/should have stuff. If it didn't, you might as well keep score by which team had the most scorched batted balls in a game.
|
|