ptatc

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 11, 2018 -> 12:28 PM) If he hadn't done steroids, Palmeiro would have been in there. If he hadn't done the PEDs he might not have had the stats. I remember him with the Cubs as an onbase/doubles guy. The Cubs didn't think he would ever develop power that's why he was available. They had an identical skill set player, Mark Grace, coming up who had even better on base skills.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 10, 2018 -> 05:59 PM) https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-seem...-002307665.html Woops, guess Republican's didnt think that states could figure out a way to get around the new rules on State and local tax deductions. Basic gist is that state will set up a "charity" where you can "donate" and it will count as a credit against the state's taxes. Have to imagine that if any state starts writing these bills they will pass pretty easy. Another way to help the wealthy avoid taxes.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 10, 2018 -> 02:02 PM) I'm with ya. Feel same about guards, safeties and now receivers. But if the guy looks elite then I'm good with it. And he looks that way to me. But anyway, whatever works. Yes. The Steelers did well with DeCastro in the firzt round.

QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 10:40 PM) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if a relief pitcher enters a game with the tying run on base from a previous reliever and allows them to score, they get charged with a blown save, but the run is charged to the previous pitcher. Thats true. I took his comment as not allowing a runner to score, meaning any runner not just one he put on base.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 04:04 PM) In 5 of 7 blown saves, Soria allowed 1 or 0 runs. Relievers will give up a run here or there. He only really had 2 very bad blown saves. That's why context is important. Roberto Osuna had 10 blown saves this year but I'd take him closing games for the White Sox in a second. How do you have a blown save while not allowing a run to score?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 04:41 PM) I'll just throw my ballot out here, as this seems the best place, for fun... Chipper Jones Vladimir Guerrero Jim Thome Edgar Martinez Mike Mussina Larry Walker Scott Rolen Curt Schilling I'm on the fence and could be talked into Omar Vizquel, maybe. Andruw Jones is tough for me because of the domestic abuse stuff, and I do believe the character clause is meaningful. Numbers-wise he belongs, but it's not like he just said some stupid stuff a la Schilling - Jones was violent. Hard to know how to balance those things quite right. Still can't believe Lou Whitaker (who lasted just one ballot!) and Dale Murphy fell short when they did. Just want to throw those out there to further stir the pot, lol. I agree on Murphy. There were a couple of years where I thought he was the best player in the game.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 03:21 PM) I think he's a HOFer myself. I just think either you are or are not. Making someone wait a year or 2 or 10 because of the level of HOFer they alledgedly are seems a bit silly to me. I fully agree. I'm just pointing out the voter rationale. There is no limit to players who get in, unlike the NFL, so the worthy should just get in. I think the voters create their own limit.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 01:34 PM) I'm actually glad they didn't either. Could backfire big time, also sets up locker room where players know they aren't all equal. That's pretty much a given.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 12:47 PM) Richie Incognito is still trash. But he can play at a high level so he will have a job.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 01:43 PM) Under 5% falls off. IMO Jones is the definition of a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. While I agree he is HOF worthy, he doesn't scream 1st ballot. At no time did I think he was the best player in the game.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 12:16 PM) That's not true. We're so far away from DIPS being new that people forget where it came from. Voros McCracken mathematically tested the year-to-year stability of every pitching metric he could think of, finding that relatively few were significant predictors of themselves going forward. He noticed a pattern: that the ones that WERE significant predictors of themselves going foward were those least affected by defense. He took ONLY those factors that were statistically significant predictors of future totals, and developed a formula that scale the results to ERA. Then, hundreds of people have rigorously tested and proven that FIP (and eventually xFIP, which is essentially just FIP with normalized HR rates) is a better predictor of ERA than ERA itself is. This is true throughout the entire live ball era. It is math. It's calculating probabilities, so it isn't as black and white as 1+1=2, but the formulas were derived and proven from actual data. I guess the issue i have is with the phrasing of "mathematically proven fact" you sed. It's still a regression type model that is not "proven." It's a probability based on the regression model that no one has ever presented the actual %. does the model predict 51% of the variation or a 91% of the variation. It does predict better than ERA itself but that may be the tallest short person in the room.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 12:02 PM) I have no interest at ALL in a dick measuring contest with you. God forbid someone point out that the random, free, lost-year bullpen flyer that the White Sox picked up might have some reasons for hope in his peripherals. If you have to pick up random dudes for your pen so that Dylan Covey doesn't have to pitch all year, it's smart to buy low on a guy with better peripherals than results. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that? I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding the BASICS of probability. Mathematics factually proves that pitchers with the numbers that Joakim Soria had last year are MORE LIKELY to improve (assuming health) than those that do not. Nothing, anywhere, EVER has suggested that it's LOCK that Joakim Soria improves. A guessing game, therefore, means nothing. If he sucks because you guessed he would suck based on nothing at all, it doesn't make you smart or correct about anything useful. If Soria becomes the best reliever in the league, it will not prove that low FIP always leads to improvement. No matter what happens, it will just be another data point contributing to a general trend that currently, whether or not Soria ultimately strengthens or weakens the argument, shows that low-FIP pitchers are more likely to improve. I know you love to contradict everything I say, though, so I'm sure you'll reply again with something that either (1) quibbles with some specific component of what is above, despite the fact that it doesn't change the argument at all, to try to get me away from my point, or (2) presents absolutely no useful information, likely including a snide comment about biased moderators or making some pathetic "wager" involving comment signatures like we're a couple of s***ty third graders on a playground. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It won't change the tiny, non-controversial anecdote of a claim that all of us are making that there may be some hope to Soria in the numbers. And I know that you understand it, even if you pretend not to. This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 11:36 AM) Can someone please explain to me why it seems like so many people dislike this trade? In essence, the Sox traded a superfluous middle infielder for two relievers. One of which is lefty and is pretty good and the other is only a short term piece. The Sox have the payroll flexibility to absorb Soria's contract and the Sox got a bit of money back in the deal anyway. Relief pitching was a massive need and Hahn killed two birds with one stone. Am I missing something? The discussion isn't about the trade. It's about a few people (myself included) who said Soria sucked last year while others say the peripherals said he did ok.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 05:34 AM) Peripherals lie just like the eye test. It is hard for some to believe it but it's true. Look at the peripherals, Javy Vazquez was a far superior major league pitcher to Mark Buerhle . I don't know why people defend these peripheral kings to the death when you say they suck. Who is invested in Joakim Soria. I got the same crap you are getting a few years ago when the White Sox signed a pitcher from KC who I said sucked, but evidently the peripherals didn't agree, therefore I was a stooge. Felipe Paulino, how you doin? Zach Duke, same thing. Luckily for White Sox fans, Soria's stay will be closer in length to Paulino.. Prediction models aren't an analysis of results. This is why they don't always agree with the actual results of a players performance. They are Boras' way of getting players more money when they don't have good results.

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Jan 8, 2018 -> 10:42 AM) Actually there are stats based on results rather then predictions that he could have used to make his argument. His WHIP was high last year. His HR/FB was abnormally low. His LD% was the highest it's ever been. I mean he was hit hard last year of course his BABIP suggests he was still unlucky given all the other factors but there is risk. Saying he sucks though because he blew saves as a reliever is like saying a batter is great because of RBI. It's just a meaningless stat and even if you end up being proven right it's more random chance then an accurate prediction. With this statement, you are discussing a different point than him. He is saying he sucked last year and the fans are ready to get rid of him. blown saves is a stat that says he gave up the lead when the team was winning. That is important. All of this is correct. He did not discuss any predictive measures. He only said he sucked last year. You are discussing measures which may predict future performance. These may or may not be good measures but it is a different discussion than his.

These are 2 really bad quarterbacks.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 01:43 PM) Yeah, that’s what I was trying to argue. Ptatc said the opposite. He said the average is indicative of the performance, because by definition it is the average performance. Which is correct. It is the true look at the performance, good and bad, throughout the season.. I never said it was a predictor of future performance only that it's a true look at current performance. the reason that bullpen performance is so difficult to predict from year to year is that the season for them is a small size. They don't pitch enough that there is an allowance for aberrations. No stats can truly correct for that. It's a little easier with starters. However, this is the reason that the "stats" people like Epstein have a better handle on predicting hitter outcomes. The more data points you have, the better the prediction model. It's why he drafted hitting and paid for proven pitchers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 11:33 AM) Forget it, he's rolling Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO!

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 06:49 PM) Say this blow-up occasion is one time, and is not a 3-4x per season type of deal. A reliever goes 60 IP allowing 18 ER for a 2.70 ERA. On his last outing of the season, he has a total nightmare performance and pitches 1 inning, allowing 7 earned runs. His season ERA goes from 2.70 to 3.68. The average fan looks at that 3.68 ERA at the end of the year and deems him an okay middle reliever. In reality, his season was likely stellar, but his average stats like ERA are heavily skewed by that one outing. Fans in general just seem to take stats such as ERA out of context all the time. For relievers especially, I think there are far better options for judging their performance. Sure its statistically possible that heblows up on must one outing. Odds are that isnt the case. It could happen. ERA isnt all that important for a reliever with few innings. As I said earlier, the better way to look at it would be ,only one blown save, thats a good year.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 03:10 PM) That’s the issue though — it’s a small sample size. The conclusions you are mentioning aren’t ones that are reached through looking at the average. That is entirely the point. You are reaching those conclusions by digging deeper into his performance and pulling out specific instances. This is essentially the very point the poster was making — you need to look deeper into the numbers to really get a sense of who the player is the vast majority of the time. The ERA skews that. Exactly, the average is is true performance. They can look deeper to see if they can find a reason for the high average, that's the deeper, small sample size part. However, the average is the true performance over time.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 03:03 PM) Evidence has been posted. You are choosing to ignore it. 3.70 ERA, 2.23 FIP, 3.08 xFIP, 10.29 K/9, 3.21 BB/9, 54% GB rate. 1.7 fWAR. I'm sorry. That's not a pitcher who sucks. It just isn't. The biggest gripe is the home runs allowed and the blown saves. He probably doesn't have to close in Chicago. There's literally no downside to the trade. There is no downside because of the LA pitcher, no doubt. Blown saves are a big deal with middle relievers. It means the team had the lead and no longer do. The whole object of the game is to have more runs than the other team after 9 innings. Pitchers who come in the game and give up the lead are not useful pitchers. Blown saves are a far more important stat than saves.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 10:55 AM) And that's one of many reasons ERA isn't a stat that should be thrown around as often as it is for relievers. One bad outing completely shatters it, and thus makes the pitcher seem a lot worse than he actually is. Sure, the stat is simply displaying an average, but said average doesn't really say much about how good a reliever is over time. Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 09:36 AM) Arguing over if he had a good or bad season is pretty irrelevant . Sox got 2 RP's they either flip (both of them) or keep (Avilan) for a song and got cash. There's nothing to dislike about this deal. 2 major league bullpen arms who not only solidify our bullpen needs and since relievers are a hot commodity at the deadline Sox put themselves in a position to add more prospects. And what did they give up ? A guy who was just exposed to the Rule 5 draft and didn't get picked by any team. 2 major leaguers who could be on the hot list at the deadline and replace parts traded at the deadline last year for a guy the Sox basically had no use for. This might be the best trade Hahn ever made that on the surface appears to be a nothing trade. It's the classic results vs. stats discussion. His results were bad (gave up leads and lead to losses). The peripherals overall were good so they predict he could be better. I agree with you. He's worth the chance especially because of the player they received from LA. Anytime you trade an unproven position player for 2 MLB pitchers, it's going to end up a good trade.

QUOTE (wrathofhahn @ Dec 31, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) Actually the biggest exploit that exists today isn't the star players. Judge will get paid eventually. Machado will get paid. The top talent always gets paid. The biggest exploit in the system is the middle end talent. For example the 2-3 WAR guys. With there being teams on the rebuild every year it's going to hard for these guys to make the money they used to because teams are starting to figure out they can fill holes via trade much cheaper. This will be the interesting part. With some fan bases willing to allow teams to tank and be bad for a few years, the middle level players may be in trouble.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) I think the only league right now where they're anywhere close to risking all the gains of the last 10 years via labor issues is the NFL. Everyone in baseball is still getting rich. Owners, players both. Just an interesting trend to see teams ponying up for fewer years to avoid the long term risk. Welcome to the post-PED era.