CaliSoxFanViaSWside

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 08:17 PM) Is RaBBit (poster on here) now a reliable rumor source? Come on Brian, spill the beans! Yes ! Everyone PM him . Nightengale said it on MLB Tonight . That's where the info came from.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 06:21 PM) The 2012, 2013, and 2014 IL pitchers of the year are not in the major leagues. Yes ,I know ,I looked it up ahead of time. So are you making a point or just giving me facts ? Take a stand buddy. I value your opinion . What's your outlook on his worth in a trade. Will he be a successful ML starting pitcher ?

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 06:22 PM) When it comes to the Sox, he's basically always right. Sox are signing Justin Upton, guys. I'll believe it when I see it. In fact I'd be shocked if it happened.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 06:06 PM) Based on what Cooper said, I don't think Micah Johnson will be with the organization in a week or two What did he say ?

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 01:03 PM) i too agree .... ej failed and then succeeded in the minors again, he was a late call up, but does that really count??? new season, hopefully a well rested arm, and a great mind set will go a long way for him. but i would say this, his value in any trade is nothing, unless as a throw in. The International League pitcher of the year has no value ? Only as a throw in ? Surely you jest. Is this a case of you under valuing him because he plays for the Sox and not the Red Sox, Cubs or Dodgers ? With the price of pitching sky high and teams still reluctant to trade high profile minor league talent I don't understand the value you have assigned to him. As of this moment he likely has more value than Spencer Adams and probably equal to Montas. Are they just throw ins also ?

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 08:01 AM) What would you call EJ? He's already failed once in the majors as well. Not saying I'd make the trade, but I could see the logic. He's been called up 3 times at the end of 2013,14, and 15 . 2 times I would call it a success one time a failure. Why would you focus on the failure since after that failure he corrected what was wrong and once again appears to be a pitcher who could be a fixture in the rotation for a while. He's also our only righty in the rotation at the moment. Number 4 starters on today's market are worth a lot. I"ll go out on a limb and say he puts up similar numbers as Jordan Zimmerman this year.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 05:39 PM) Well put. Hindsight is always 20/20. I was one of those fans that wasn't sure the Sox should extend the QO but that was based on Samardzija's ERA being above 5 and pitching like s*** at the time. Thankfully I was wrong in my thinking. I'm almost always right so that's why I say revisit the threads. . I remember Rock Raines thought the Sox had a good chance to extend him and everyone jumped on board that idea since Rock used to have a contact that has since dried up. I don't think I ever thought he'd get extended. I mean ,seriously, common sense says when you got a shot for a mega contract odds are you go for it. Even his suck ass season didn't prevent him getting a pretty lucrative deal.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) Remember when posters on this site didn't want to give him a QO? Talk about dumb ideas. Remember when posters on this site were sure the Sox would be able to extend his contract and he wouldn't go to free agency ? Just for s***s and giggles we need to revisit those threads just to humble some of us.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 05:34 AM) 1 - trade Micah Johnson instead. 2- awful; 3- very solid 4- ugh Wait ! Weren't you against trading Micah for Brett Lawrie in the Lawrie thread when I posted it ?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) Long time Sox 3B target for many Soxtalkers. His prospect star has faded, but is still only 24. Played mainly LF last year, so must not be much of a 3B. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Sox take a gamble. I really need to make a folder for all my posts. Don't think I ever wanted him but I'll just say I don't know for sure. Might have called him one of those over rated Red Sox prospects since every east coast writer espouses them ad infinitum.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 09:11 AM) Shy / Cali...just wanted to point out that you two have some awesome discussion going on and the way you all are handling the back and forth is also awesome! Thanks Jason. It's basically new school versus old school and I take a lot of pride in knowing baseball and how its played and I trust my eyes and years of keenly observing the game and players to form my opinions. I can be testy at times but I'm aware that certain words are unproductive to a discussion where both parties feel strongly about their opinions.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) All right, I'll lay it out step by step. Keep in mind there is at least one other system, Baseball Prospecus'. Its data is behind a paywall. 1. We have pitch F/X data for pitches that were not swung at. I think you are misunderstanding this part: Pitch F/X is what determines the location of each pitch, not the author studying the path of the ball. It's just data he already has. It is not that much to ask that you trust the pitch F/X system. MLB trusts it enough to use it in the Gameday app. It has shown it can be slightly flawed in judging pitch type and velocity, but for pitch location – which is all we care about here – it is basically unimpeachable. Each of these data points was called either a strike or a ball by the umpire; that's something we also can't dispute. 2. We have an interpretation of the strike zone. Studying the rulebook strike zone wouldn't do us much good because the data shows umps do not follow it. So we want a "recognized" strike zone. To me the methodology makes plenty of sense. What is up for grabs is how much credit or blame to assign to the catcher, which the piece goes out of its way to acknowledge. I don't know the answer, and I've already gone out of my way to acknowledge that. But if you accept the premise that how a catcher receives the ball affects how the umpire sees it, then you have to accept that the catcher deserves some share of the credit or blame. And I don't see how you could deny that premise – that evidence is out there. How many times have we seen a catcher drop a pitch right down the middle and have the ump call it a ball, for example. I appreciate you making the effort and I'll also point out that I make an effort to get used to new stats. I don't say negative things too much any more about sabermetric offensive stats but the defensive ones are still a bit much to handle. I think pitchframing is cited way too often and people do trust the new data and guys like you who spout it for fear of falling behind the times or appearing stupid (ones who trust it without hesitation ,not you) Now too many people think Flowers was good defensively which is absurd because he might (and I say might with great hesitation) get some strikes called that aren't strikes . The data may say its 169 or 38 or somewhere in between but as you acknowledge just because the data has assigned it to the catcher doesn't mean its the catcher who caused the difference As for my issues . I've seen the Gameday app online many times And pitch f/x does follow the flight of the ball unless the graphics used on Gameday are for show.I know it also shows its ultimate destination. Even if the final location of the pitch is basically unimpeachable my issue stills lies with how its determined to be a ball or strike. In order to get a true view of the strike zone one first must see the stance of the hitter . Then to be truly accurate you need a directly overhead view of the plate This will determine if any part of the ball went over the plate. . Then you need a side view . After its determined that the pitch was over the plate , next you see if it was in the batters strike zone . While it was crossing the plate was it between his lower knees and whatever the upper part of the zone is now (varies from ump to ump). If pitch f/x uses all that then I apologize for wasting your time but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. So if I have it right it still takes a person prone to his own biases and judgments about the strike zone to call a ball or strike from what he sees as location from pitch f/x. I do accept that how the catcher catches the ball affects how the ump sees it but also how he sets up and catches the ball as close as possible to where he set up. The example you cited about dropping a pitch right down the middle and it being called a ball , frankly I don't see a lot. What I do see a lot more often is when a catcher sets up outside and the pitch goes inside and the catcher has to move a lot to catch the pitch, that pitch is called a ball when it appears to be a strike much more often. That means the ump is giving the catcher and the pitcher some credit for doing what they tried to do which in my eyes means the pitcher has to be accurate as to where the catcher sets up. I give the catcher almost no credit for crouching still and presenting a target and catching the pitch as quietly as possible ( meaning glove doesn't move very much after he catches the pitch). In other words, an umpire is more consistent and accurate when the pitcher displays those same qualities. Good discussing it with you though. I just don't think even if you do trust it ( which I don't) the significance of how important it is is pretty low. I mean if Flowers was 2nd in HR's or RBI's or in batting average or walks or OBP or slugging or OPS ,OPS+ or wRC it's highly doubtful he would be non tendered. There's a few guys out there whose defensive skills make the a much more valuable guy and Tyler Flowers isn't one of those guys by a longshot and that's the truer crux of the matter.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) Thank you! even Dave Cameron has said on several occasions that pitching framing and the added value to it is flawed because you can't accurately assign value to the catcher or the pitcher for making said pitch. Personally its refreshing to me to have a new catching core and i think it affords them the ability to go with a pretty hard platoon, health and herm willing the catching core should be able to provide above average offense and average defense. Navarro vs LHP .270/.336/.439 - wRC+ 110 Avila vs RHP .251/.358/.423 - wRC+ 116 thats for their respective careers. And also the problem with pitch framing is now people point to it and say Flowers is a good defensive catcher. His strongest point of value is his rapport with the pitchers and maybe how he calls a game ( debatable). That's it .He's terrible at blocking pitches in the dirt . It's not his fault he's a huge guy and just not nimble or quick enough. Why don't people trust their own eyes ?

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 08:12 PM) Trades for Lawrie White Sox get: Brett Lawrie As get: Erik Johnson and Thaddius Lowry Trades for CarGo and DJ LeMahieu White Sox get: CarGo and LeMahieu Rockies get: Frankie Montas, Adam LaRoche, Carlos Sanchez and Avi Garcia Bold trade prediction White Sox trade Jose Quintana to the Dodgers White Sox get: Joc Pederson, Jose DeLeon and Austin Barnes Dodgers get: Jose Quintana Then after Hahn makes a flurry of trades, signs two pitchers: Doug Fister 3 years $36 million Trevor Cahill 1 year $4.5 million plus incentives (Coop'll fix him) Ok let's see how bad I get crucified If it takes EJ to get Lawrie that's too steep and the Sox only RH pitcher in the rotation though I see Fister and Cahill are both righty's.

I think the Sox deal for AL only players .

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) Third base? I don't know. I see what you did there Abbott.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) You edited so I'll add: I'm not that interested in teaching you anything, turns out. Than why are you bothering to defend pitch framing ? I'm not the only onnly one who thinks its useles . You wouldn't just be teaching me but un named others . I read the explanation given for the pitch f/x leaderboard but even he says "There's still plenty of work left to do on examining the strike zone and how it is actually called by umpires in baseball. Clearly, there is no one single strike zone. Its size and placement vary based on circumstances, just which are not yet fully determined." And he is still a guy interpreting data weather its pitch f/x or a camera makes no difference. He is following the path of the ball and making a judgment if that pitch should be called a strike or ball of which many variables effect that. He tries to take variables into account but I'm not so sure it's even possible . He also used this example: " using an actual example of Miguel Olivo this past season. Olivo in 2012 caught 4,929 pitches that a hitter didn't swing at; 1,693 (nZ) of them were deemed within the strike zone and should (simplistically) have resulted in 1,693 strike calls. Instead, 254 (zBall) of them were called a ball giving a zBall% of 15%." The key word there is "deemed". He is making a judgment ( not a fact) of balls within the strike zone just as an umpire does. He is making a judgment (his) on a judgment (the umps) is that not correct ? Only we are assuming his judgment is more accurate because he uses pitch f/x ? So I am supposed to trust his judgment of because mathematically he has eliminated as many variables as he can. Since I can't or won't be taking statistic classes or whatever math applies here I have to break it down in more simplistic terms which unfortunately many of us here have to do. Just because you trust the new data doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I have to assume too much here. Trust the data, trust the guy interpreting the data, trust pitch f/x , trust his math, trust his baseball knowledge, trust you. Sorry no can do.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) PITCHF/x Look, no offense, but the fact that you thought this was based on a guy watching every pitch of every game makes it impossible to take your opinion seriously. You called it the most ridiculous stat in the history of baseball without knowing the first thing about it. So why show me Pitch F/X ? It uses no camera's? No computers ? Sonar ? Radar ? It's infallible ? If you are going to try and teach me something better give me the whole package. Does the person using pitch f/x see where the ball crossed the plate from over the top ? From the side ? Does it determine the height of the batter and determine his strike zone ? I don't see anything in what you showed me saying its used in pitch framing stats and even if it is why does the catcher get credit for it? Next year Flowers could be 20th in pitch framing for all we know. It's just another useless defensive stat based on judgment calls that you are saying "no I can tell you that catcher made the difference on that pitch being called a strike when he is only 1/3 of the people involved in that pitch with 100% accuracy. " Actually 1/4 of the people involved in the pitch if you count the batter and his strike zone based on his stance/crouch . Ricky Henderson is a good example of a hitters stance with his exaggerated crouch impacting an umpires determination of balls and strikes.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) I love how there's a metric that determines that a catcher's framing caused an umpire to call a strike instead of a ball. Think about that for a minute. Oh yes and it impacts the count . Oh my goodness now its 0-1 instead of 1-0 the hitter is now at a disadvantage because of the catcher. Wait maybe its because of the pitcher. Maybe the ump blinked ? Maybe its because the pitcher has a reputation for always being around the plate and not walking a lot of guys. Maybe its because the guy looking at the film has every available camera replay to determine the the accuracy of ball and strike calls. And then he determines it's all because on a guy sitting back there catching a baseball as close to the plate as possible or somehow moving his glove ever so slightly to fool the poor boob behind the plate who gets paid to make the decisions.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 09:01 AM) Would love to see a citation on that because I'm pretty sure you're way off. The oft-cited leaderboard that had Flowers second shows 169 calls going in the Sox' favor when he caught. Regardless of how much credit you want to give Flowers for that, if you think it's unimportant you are wrong. Sorry. As for the other little things like positioning, if a guy does them whenever he can it will show up in his ratings. Not really sure how that's an argument. Framing is talked about because it has a direct impact on the count. It's on Southside Sox in the comments section. I knew that was the weakest part of what I said because I based it on my memory . You are so very gullible it's beyond belief weather its 38 or 169 makes no difference. Do you defend Avi because he has a strong arm ? It's just miniscule part of how a catcher plays defense. The fact that he can sit there relativity still makes it very easy to film/chart. You are just a new age disciple who pays homage to the new stat Gods of baseball without realizing there are too may variables in the equation to even begin to think its a thing that can be accurate to any degree.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 08:52 AM) most of those 38 are by Sale, so I still dont understand if its Flowers getting those called strikes or the fact the Ump also cannot pick up Sale's pitches. Now only the umps and pitchers rep. Wrap your mind around this. Another variable is the guy charting all this stuff. How does he determine that a pitch was a ball and/or strike ? How does he determine that ? Are all center field camera's directly in line with home plate ? Does he look at every pitch from a directly over head shot of home plate ? So now you got another Umpire with a computer and a pencil calling balls and strike based on cameras and camera angles of those pitches.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 05:42 AM) Flowers pitch framing was elite. Navarro's supposedly poor. Flowers did have a tough year behind the plate, Navarro is supposed to be decent behind the plate. This could be a good case study on the importance of pitch framing. Pitchers liked throwing to Flowers, but supposedly they like throwing to Navarro as well. All in all, it isn't an earth shattering upgrade, but perhaps change is good. Beckham, Flowers, Alexei...next year Danks and LaRoche. Avi supposedly on the block. They are running out of punching bags. Some outfielders have strong accurate arms yet they suck in all other areas of offense and defense . That's what bringing up pitch framing for Flowers reminds me of . How many people defend Avi and continually defend him based solely on his one and only ability that is above average ? The fact that PF is even a thing just shows you how gullible people are to even believe such a thing with so many variables involved in its accuracy is important. When all you believers are old I hope some con artist doesn't sell you swamp land in Florida because he can draw a pie chart of it.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 08:35 AM) Did they mention how many pitches in the zone that he got called balls? That would be an interesting counter metric. I actually thought of that when writing the post but figured I'd just stick to balls that are called strikes for the sake of the logic behind pitch framing . I hate even saying PF now . A lot.

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 07:42 AM) Haven't read the whole thread, but I wonder what the long term plan is? 2 catchers signed for one year each. Wondering if possibly they are waiting to see how Weiters pans out after this year?/ ORRR if they have something else completely in mind that we may not be aware of. Long term plan on catching ? Here it is. Hope some catching prospect you have turns into gold. This is the long term plan in all of baseball. Even if you do get lucky and you find a catcher who can hit you probably turn him into a 1st baseman because his offense is too valuable to subject to the torture catchers go through. If you are even more lucky you find one who wants to catch everyday , somehow most years avoids taking too much of a beating and can actually field his position too.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 07:07 AM) This is why FanGraphs doesn't include it in fWAR, despite the fact that Prospectus clamors for it. Cameron isn't ready to assign 100% of the value of the "stolen strikes" to the catcher, but there isn't any data at all pointing to what fraction the the pitcher or catcher. It's universally acknowledged that it is a skill of the catcher and adds value, but the amount of value is not known. Certainly, it's some fraction of the actual value of the added strikes. I saw some graph on SSS that had Flowers getting 38 pitches outside the zone called strikes. A whole 38 if it's accurate . Woooo damn think how bad the Sox would be if they didn't get those 38 called strikes which by the way could be on the ump or a pitchers rep. Way way way too much discussion about it. Catching a fly ball properly gives you a better chance to throw out runners as do a lot of little things make you a better defender. The fact that it is easily charted is the only reason it's even talked about in this crazy environment of stats. All the other little things other fielders do is less definable. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen stats yet on how accurate infielders throw to first yet. Pitch framing talk is the most ridiculous new stat in the history of baseball.