Madrigal.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

3 minutes ago, Vulture said:

One in a trillion? Somehow I am doubting your statistic here

There's not a scout on planet earth who is more accurate than a well put together projection model. The scout may nail a couple players that a projection model wiffs on or misses, which is why scouts still have value, but if you give both the scout and the model the same list of every single player to analyze, the scout will almost never be more accurate in their 3-5-7 year projections. I left a .00000000000001 possibility because I felt like being kind.

No one is saying scouts don't still have value, but Harold's insinuation that he trusts his thoughts on every player over statistical models is not based in reality, and unless he's a literal machine, his brain can not process enough information efficiently to achieve that task.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[35thstreetswarm]

8 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's simple scouting if you know what you're looking at and you don't need a certain number of games to scout a player. You evaluate the players tools and those tools translate to on the field production.  It's obviously not perfect (nothing is) but I'll trust what I'm looking at a million times out of a million over some stat projection system.

Well in that case, he has a hot girlfriend, a strong jaw and a good "baseball face."  HOF here we come!

[Harold's Leg Lift]

1 minute ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Well in that case, he has a hot girlfriend, a strong jaw and a good "baseball face."  HOF here we come!

He doesn't have a strong jaw, he has an awful baseball face and he buys his jeans at GapKids.  Bench player here we come!

[RagahRagah]

41 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It's simple scouting if you know what you're looking at and you don't need a certain number of games to scout a player. You evaluate the players tools and those tools translate to on the field production.  It's obviously not perfect (nothing is) but I'll trust what I'm looking at a million times out of a million over some stat projection system.

So what "scouts" are that damn balls-on accurate? Supposedly we've been bad at scouting. 

In reality, a player being successful comes down to a number of things and you can't quantify all of them, you just can't. Neither scouting not statistics will be the be-all end-all every time.

Saying you don't need a sample size to make a judgment is just plainly and simply false. 

[Greg Hibbard]

59 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Through Yoan Moncada's first 62 big league games he played like a back up as well.

Weird.

1.1 fWAR in 62 games is playing like a backup???? That’s 2.9 fWAR per 162. 

[ShoeLessRob]

This thread needs more Sandgren for all the curmudgeons.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

18 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

1.1 fWAR in 62 games is playing like a backup???? That’s 2.9 fWAR per 162. 

This really comes down to how much value you want to put on 62 games and 54 game base running metrics. Me personally? I don't put much weight on those numbers.

From an offensive (non BSR) standpoint Madrigal and Moncada have been very similar production wise. Defensively you could argue Moncada was a little better but he was not a good 2nd baseman either. Moncada had a lower wRC+ of 99 a wOBA of .319 and an OPS of 730. Madrigal has a wRC+ of 110, a wOBA of 327 and an OPS of .732.

Maybe you think Madrigal is actually the worst defensive 2nd baseman in the game and one of the worst base runners, but I find that difficult to believe so I'll reserve my analysis in those two areas. Offensively is where I think the comparisons are more aptly mad.

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, RagahRagah said:

So what "scouts" are that damn balls-on accurate? Supposedly we've been bad at scouting. 

In reality, a player being successful comes down to a number of things and you can't quantify all of them, you just can't. Neither scouting not statistics will be the be-all end-all every time.

Saying you don't need a sample size to make a judgment is just plainly and simply false. 

Marco Paddy.  Minus Nestor Molina,  and pretty sure he wasn’t a part of the Viciedo pursuit...

[SonofaRoache]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This really comes down to how much value you want to put on 62 games and 54 game base running metrics. Me personally? I don't put much weight on those numbers.

From an offensive (non BSR) standpoint Madrigal and Moncada have been very similar production wise. Defensively you could argue Moncada was a little better but he was not a good 2nd baseman either. Moncada had a lower wRC+ of 99 a wOBA of .319 and an OPS of 730. Madrigal has a wRC+ of 110, a wOBA of 327 and an OPS of .732.

Maybe you think Madrigal is actually the worst defensive 2nd baseman in the game and one of the worst base runners, but I find that difficult to believe so I'll reserve my analysis in those two areas. Offensively is where I think the comparisons are more aptly mad.

Interesting data here. Madrigal will be very good IMO because he doesn't miss the ball. If he adds some pop to get consistent doubles and triples, his numbers will be pretty good. He will always put more balls in play than the average guy. I am concerned about his defense because I was expecting elite at 2nd. He can improve, but it has been disappointing thus far as that was necessary for him to be all star caliber. 

[caulfield12]

How about let’s be more like the Brewers, Indians, Rays, Twins, A’s and Astros/Cards in our scouting???....since those are all (outside of the last two, and historically the Astros were never a Top 6-8 payroll team, either) pretty much the definition of small and mid market teams, most in our own backyard, so to speak.

[hi8is]

Sucks.

[TheTruth05]

This guy gonna get more than a single?

[reiks12]

What a loser!

[Vulture]

On 4/23/2021 at 2:14 PM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There's not a scout on planet earth who is more accurate than a well put together projection model. The scout may nail a couple players that a projection model wiffs on or misses, which is why scouts still have value, but if you give both the scout and the model the same list of every single player to analyze, the scout will almost never be more accurate in their 3-5-7 year projections. I left a .00000000000001 possibility because I felt like being kind.

No one is saying scouts don't still have value, but Harold's insinuation that he trusts his thoughts on every player over statistical models is not based in reality, and unless he's a literal machine, his brain can not process enough information efficiently to achieve that task.

If there are a couple players that a scout gets that a model misses, that’s a lot more than 1/trillion. Kind of like your claim that the odds of a play going under review in a single half inning is 1/10,000. For a guy obsessed with statistical models, you are really bad at math

[RagahRagah]

1 hour ago, TheTruth05 said:

This guy gonna get more than a single?

Really, in his position it's all he really needs, especially when he's typically working counts so well.

People are clinging so much to certain stats (Frankly, I'm so over people running to WAR over everything) because they need to obfuscate all the numerous little things he does well to contribute that aren't as easily quantifiable.

I'm a stat guy but if that's all you're looking at then you aren't REALLY analytical. More people need to do as much WATCHING as they do reading.

Nick is going to contribute greatly to this club. Already is, really.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

53 minutes ago, Vulture said:

If there are a couple players that a scout gets that a model misses, that’s a lot more than 1/trillion. Kind of like your claim that the odds of a play going under review in a single half inning is 1/10,000. For a guy obsessed with statistical models, you are really bad at math

That's not what I said Vulture and a guy getting one player a model misses doesn't make it better than a model. I actually acknowledge that scouts still get things right that models miss in my actual post which is why they still have value. But please make up stuff to justify your initial wrong post.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

On 4/23/2021 at 1:07 PM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Most people tend to think they're smarter than computers and projection models. Facts will tell you that those people are almost always (99.99999999999%) less accurate over a large enough sample.

Try reading better before making ignorant dunk posts, buddy.

[chitownsportsfan]

He's playing better.  It is ridiculous how talented this team is and in unique ways too.  I hate on Nick but there is no doubt he has some skills that can help a club win.  It is crazy to me that a possible 2 WAR player in Mendick is essentially the 26th man right now.  We should be joyous at this depth.

[Chicago White Sox]

Beware of an incredibly small sample size, but here are Nick’s stats over his last five games:

• Slash = .333/.350/.556/.906
• wRC+ = 147 | wOBA = .373
• BABIP = .333 (career = .340)
• BB rate = 5.0% | K rate = 5.0%
• ISO = .222 (6 1B | 2 2B | 1 3B)
• Hard Hit % = 44.4% (21.8%)
• Line-Drive % = 35.3% (24.7%)
• Fly Ball % = 0.0% (15.6%)

Not suggesting he can replicate these exact numbers going forward, but what they prove is he’s capable of hitting the ball hard and should be able to drive the ball into the gaps enough to rack up quite a few doubles and the occasional triple.  The key for him (as we’re seeing in this stretch) is to avoid fly balls, which will help keep his BABIP running high.  If can do that, dude can be a really valuable hitter for us and a unique weapon for us coming out of the 9th spot.

Also, don’t look now, but his OAA has already increased from the 8th percentile to the 30th over a similar time frame.  Dude will be fine in the field and on the bases, even if he never lives up to the ridiculous pre-draft hype.

[caulfield12]

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=40&type=8&season=2021&month=0&season1=2021&ind=0&team=4&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&startdate=2021-01-01&enddate=2021-12-31
 

Madrigal on pace for 1.6 fWAR, Grandal 0.8 fWAR.  Leury, expectedly abysmal.

Yermin and Robert lead at 1.1 (8.8 over 162) and Robert 0.9 (7.2)...Moncada 0.5 (4.0ish).  Eaton and TA also 0.5, Jose Abreu 0.3.  

Yermin, unsurprisingly, the worst defensive numbers from his limited appearance/s.  Vaughn at exactly 0.0.

 

From Madrigal year, compare to Bohm at -0.1...

Edited April 25, 2021 by caulfield12

[35thstreetswarm]

I think this thread is going to get more and more fun

[reiks12]

1 minute ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I think this thread is going to get more and more fun

nah 40 games is a good enough sample size to determine hes not good.

[SoxBlanco]

OPS up to .800

[hi8is]

His triple today was not on a two stoke pitch... providing he is indeed awful.

[Vulture]

16 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

That's not what I said Vulture and a guy getting one player a model misses doesn't make it better than a model. I actually acknowledge that scouts still get things right that models miss in my actual post which is why they still have value. But please make up stuff to justify your initial wrong post.

99.99999999999% is a trillion just like 0.01% is one in ten thousand, as per your actual claims. How am I making that  up? If models are a trillion times more accurate then there can’t have been a couple times they missed