Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) So we don't know to what degree BABIP is random chance and what might attributable to changes in the player's TWIW, do we? I think we do know the degree -- I don't personally, but researchers have been able to attach factors to the influence of batted ball profile, ballpark, and quality of opposition. The end result is, roughly, that the majority of it is random chance, but speed, GB/FB rate, and LD rate are significant factors as well. If you look up a list of all the MVPs, for example, you'll notice that all of them run high BABIPs in their MVP years. You'll also notice that they all run high line drive rates in their MVP years. High LD rates correlate strongly with high BABIPs. High LD rates are not shown to be stable from year to year at all, though; they basically occur when a player is hot for an extended period of time. And that makes sense -- guys that win the MVP are "having good years" and/or "playing to the peak of their abilities." So it isn't that it's random, but it ACTS as randomness because we can't predict its peaks and valleys and is better predicted by its collective average than it is by its recent values. We don't know when a guy is going to have the best year of his career, but we do know what it looks like when it's happening, and we do know that it isn't very likely to occur twice if it's driven by high BABIP.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 01:21 PM) To be fair, Theo did come out and basically say at the time, we're gonna suck for 3-4 years so be patient. At least that front office had/has a plan and are on the same page. Ours does, too. They're going to try to remain competitive every year, without ever "going for broke." And it's fine -- the team has zero market-rate financial obligations beyond 2017 and the farm system continues to improve.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 01:49 PM) So when a guy with 1200 career balls in play has a .300 BABIP and the next year he has 400 balls in play with a .330 BABIP, what's his BABIP going to be next year? There's no way to know -- but the most likely outcome will be whatever the largest total sample shows. So say that after that 400PA year of .330 BABIP, his career total is now .312 or something -- the most likely outcome over the next 400PA is .312 (though you'd have to adjust more for aging curves and anomalies in batted ball profile, which is essentially what the projection systems do).

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) Moving my response to the advanced stat thread. I would say it's because baseball isn't a controlled probability experiment like flipping a coin. It's more complicated. There are dozens of factors that determine what happens to a ball in play. It involves a human being hitting a round ball hurled by another human being at varying speeds and trajectories with a cylindrical bat; the ball can then travel to any part of a 3-dimensional playing field, where any of nine human beings must react to turn it into an out. To get less fluctuation you could do two things. One is simplify the experiment. I would bet that if you could have the same pitcher in front of the same defense throw straight fastballs down the middle of the zone at the same velocity to a hitter for 400 ABs, his BABIP would fluctuate a lot less. Two, you could increase the sample. For a coin flip 400 is a lot of trials, but with all the factors in baseball, it's not that many. But in the last five years, with 180,000 plate appearances per season, the league BABIP has only ranged from .295 to .299. Right. Put simply, there are two answers: 1) Expected value will converge to the mean as sample grows. One season may be far off, but five season won't be. 2) BABIP is NOT supposed to be truly random, it's just that random effects explain most of its value. Players that hit lots of line drives or ground balls, for example, can increase their BABIP.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) Thanks .It just seemed odd to me that Kevin Keirmaier gets a 32.0 defensive WAR this year which is ridiculously high and overall is a 5.5 WAR player but realistically is he that same WAR playing CF in the Cell because much of his value is defensively. FYI - the 32 number isn't "defensive WAR," it's "Defensive runs" which is an input into WAR. The actual number changes year to year, but usually roughly 10 runs = 1 WAR. So, essentially, 3 of Kiermaier's 5 WAR came from his glove.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) That's why advanced metrics make me crazy. As a fan you knew exactly mathematically how to do batting average , OBP , slugging percentage because its all simple math that reveals part of a picture but not all of it. Some of these new metrics you have no idea what went into devising them and just how full of flaws they might be. And on the offensive side what gets rated higher ? Does a walk with the bases loaded contribute as much to WAR and other offensive advanced metrics as a single that drives in 2 runs with the bases loaded ? Oh, it's not that I don't know what goes into them, I'm just not sure if the defensive component is park-adjusted before being put into WAR. If it isn't then that's an interesting area for future study and significant results could move the needle toward making defensive metrics more accurate. As for your second question: the bases being loaded would have nothing to do with either situation. The hallmark of offensive saber stats is that they are context neutral -- which allows us to compare players apples to apples (or close to it) rather than by stats that are as much (or more) dependent on how good a player's TEAM is. Basically, if a guy gets a walk, he gets awarded the difference between (a) the mean run value of what a walk produces on average in the current run environment and (b) the run value lost if he made an out instead. In 2015, a baserunner-starved environment, a walk was worth 0.687 runs more than an out. So the batter would get 0.687 when he walked, no matter how many men were on base. A single, if you're curious, was 0.881 runs in 2015. So he DOES get more credit for a hit that could score multiple runs, but that value gets normalized. EDIT: Sorry, didn't see shysocks' reply =\ In case anyone is curious as to the other wOBA and FIP constant values: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 09:17 AM) Yes he was terrible, awful, a huge disappointment but I often wonder if the elite OF's this year Kevin Pillar, Kevin Keiermaier, Jason Heyward, Lorenzo Cain put up the same defensive WAR in US Cellular ? Seems like Sox OF's somehow get punished for playing there. Who was the last Sox OF who even had a decent defensive rating like say a 5 on the positive side ? The OF's I mentioned are all 15+ so I'm not asking for much with a 5. Everyone harps on Avi's D (well his offense too) but his defensive WAR was a -13.8 while Adam Eaton's was a -8.8 . Someone show me a good defensive OF who played for the Sox in the last ,say, 15 years.Oh hell make it 25 years , still might not find one with a decent defensive WAR. It's an interesting question -- I have no idea if advanced defensive stats are park-adjusted.

Just in case anyone was wondering: here's a graph that shows that ranks the managers on challenging calls: http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-ou...ng-plays-100515

Despite my campaigning, people still don't realize how bad Avisail Garcia was. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=21,a

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 01:05 PM) They need an actual PBP guy though. Those ex-players are all analysts. Agreed, but I'd be surprised if Stone isn't vying for PBP.

I actually kind of liked Brian Anderson, lol.

Trayce ran a .340+ BABIP and slashed his MiLB K-rate by roughly 20%. These are things that must be seen over a much larger sample to be believed. He's still much more likely to be a mediocre to bad hitter in the MLB than a good one. That said, he'll be a plus defender who can do some damage on the basepaths, and he has shown an ability and a willingness to commit to a reasonable approach to plate discipline, so he's much better than Avisail Garcia in my book.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 12:41 PM) Mind sharing this evidence? Would be interested in reading up on this. Just Google. Well, you may have to buy some books, come to think of it. There was a big sabermetric push into understanding the effect of managers the mid-2000's, much of which was published in anthologies like Baseball Between the Numbers and The Book (both haev done a great job of not letting their contents leak to the internet). I saw a study that showed an incredibly strong correlation in Manager of the Year Voting -- it's essentially always the manager of the team that exceeded expectations the most, no matter what, indicating that we have no real criteria other than assuming something magical must have happened. Joe Torre was awful for much longer than he was legendary. So was Tony La Russa. So was (is?) Terry Francona. Joe Maddon is great when his top prospects turn into stars, but very bad when his top prospects bust -- and they've done both under him, suggesting that he just may not be the cause. Studies have shown that "good team" is an excellent predictor of "good manager," but "good manager" is not a statistically significant way to predict a "good team." This gels nicely with the fact that one of those quoted phrases can be measured objectively, but the other cannot. Anyway, I don't have a reading list to link to, sorry

It's time. Hawk was one of the greats. He just isn't anymore. It's time to start phasing out, and it's a model that a lot of guys like him follow. I, for one, am glad that it's starting to happen. I'd much rather it go this way then to have him continue to deteriorate while stubbornly holding the seat until he is run out or physically incapable.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:42 AM) I agree. We can definitely create a package that doesn't include Q. It'll be interesting what the Reds do because they literally have 0 pitching and 0 bullpen outside of Chapman. Their offense is still solid but aging. QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:46 AM) You mean the offense that finished 26th in the MLB in runs scored? This is an awesome interactive graphic that shows how the team offenses stacked up: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs...ts-interactive/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:38 AM) I do agree with the idea that firing the manager would have made it much easier to bring back the same squad. Now the pressure rests squarely on Rick Hahn's shoulders because he has made the clear statement that the manager was not the problem. If it wasn't the manager, then it was the players. Right -- if nothing changes at this point, Rick Hahn will have some proverbial "splaining" to do. QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:39 AM) If the option is- same team with Ventura, or same team with a new manager that they carefully interviewed and made a more informed decision, yes I would take a new manager. Sure, but that's the point: "same team" should not be in the cards. That's the variable we should be focused on. SS2k5 make a good point that by retaining RV, Hahn is signalling that the players need to change. He's placed the flashlight on the correct problem, now he has to step up and fix it.

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:25 AM) Not denying that in a vacuum it's hard to quantify what a manager brings. But when you take everything into consideration from the lack of experience when he was hired, and sloppy, under-performing teams over the last few years, the right baseball move would have to make a change. And it has nothing to do with appeasing fans. 29 other teams probably would have made a change today because that's how it goes. The bolded is exactly what I mean. "That's how it goes." It's just a way to kick the can down the road. Would you be happy if the Sox ran out the same team under a different manager in 2016?

QUOTE (flavum @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 09:14 AM) Well then. They should probably give the entire coaching staff a 3-year extension today. Can't have a manager with lame duck status, after all. The point is "who cares"? I'm not saying that any of them deserve an extension or to be fired or whatever, but just that none of it will actually solve anything. If the Sox suck again next year, it won't be because of Robin Ventura. It'll be because they didn't get a real 3B or catcher, or because they gave LaRoche/Garcia another 500 PA each. If the Sox make coaching changes, fine. But we should stop treating the status of the manager like it's an actual bellwether for our team's performance. It's symbolic, at best.

MLB teams use coaching firings as misdirections. They fire your manager to appease the mob, despite the fact that there's tons of evidence -- observational, anecdotal, sabermetric, and otherwise -- that suggests that the manager has very little, if anything, to do with how well the team performs. Why are you all playing into this? If you want to hold the White Sox accountable for losing, do it by asking why we have Avisail Garcia. Do it by pointing out that there were signs that Adam LaRoche or Alexei Ramirez would fall off a cliff. The players are the ones that are failing. Changing managers will do nothing to help your team, so stop letting the media and PR department "satisfy" you with manager-personnel decisions.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 27, 2015 -> 11:27 PM) The argument I'm making isn't is he worth his contract. He is, and I'm happy with him as an individual player. At the same time, the overall hitting on this team sucks. He's been playing CF and pretty good at it. I think he's peaked, you maybe don't. I'd trade him unless the Sox plan on bringing in a lot more legitimate players with him which it doesn't sound like they plan on doing. You trade him for a position of need. That's what you do in all trades. Seriously, you trade something to get something. I would love to trade Danks and turn him into Trout, but that ain't happening. Instead, you can trade Eaton for someone in the infield (hell, you need all positions but one). That's just one idea. His defense has gone down. His average and OBP have gone down. He k's more. You have more or less seen the best of him. Not saying his peak won't last longer than a year or 3. I'm just saying I don't think he's going to improve dramatically anywhere. The notion that Adam Eaton isn't worth his contract is patently false. The past two seasons, Adam Eaton has produced roughly 3 fWAR each. On the free agent market, teams have been paying roughly $7m per fWAR per season. That would make Adam Eaton free agent value about $21m per season, while he is guaranteed an average of $4.7m per season over the next five years. That, obviously, leaves a TON of roomto decline and still produce a ton of surplus value. You can make the argument that his skillset is one that is not rewarded on the open market in proportion with its overall value, but there's just no way that a "speed/defense/OBP skillset discount" even approaches enough to make Eaton not worth his current contract. It seems to be a somewhat widely held myth that Eaton's offense has declined this year. His average and OBP have dropped slightly, but his SLG has increased just as much, and the result is essentially the same output: 115 wRC+ this year vs. 117 wRC+ last year -- both numbers comfortably above league average, and putting him in the same neigborhood as Ian Kinsler, Joc Pederson, Mookie Betts, Nolan Arenado, Jason Heyward, and Todd Frazier among others. Eaton is 56th in the entire MLB among qualified hitters, in fact. Moving Eaton would create a huge hole, and one that you would NOT be able to fill without absorbing a MUCH larger contract.

The bar for WC contention, every year, is simply a timely six-week stretch of hot baseball. The scorched-Earth rebuild is a relic of the past, friends, at least as long as the current playoff structure/CBA holds.

If you trade your above average players that are locked up to team-friendly, sub-market, pre-free agency extensions, you will ALWAYS be rebuilding.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 12:32 PM) One caveat: If the White Sox thought there was a >50% chance Sale was traded during the offseason then shutting him down would be the correct move. Unless some teams are balking because they thought another shutdown was evidence of an injury or that he could simply never handle 200 innings. But yeah, risks on both sides of the coin there.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) I wanted Zapata, but we know how that worked out. Thanks, Adolfo. Srsly. I mean come on, we could have been chanting VIVA ZAPATA for years.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 12:23 PM) I think offense is the top priority. The defense has been much better w the addition of S&S in the infield. In fact, I think Alexei has played better defense sine they arrived as well. But the problem is S&S are poor offensively. So I think they leave Sanchez where he is and go out and get some offense on 3rd. They also need to add an OF bat who can also field. I would think Q could bring back a quality 3B and OF in a trade. I don't think it's one or the other specifically -- I think it's making sure every player is contributing to at least ONE. We have had entirely too many players that are negatives on BOTH sides of the ball this year.