Eminor3rd

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 01:56 PM) Please do explain, including the X and Y values. + The X axis is games, essentially. The Y axis is leverage index when entering, which is basically a measure of how important the situation was when Robin called the pitcher in. If the Y value is high, it means Robin is depending upon that guy a lot. What this graph shows (by being very wavy) is that Robin was very quick to exile a guy to a crappy role if he was bad, and elevate a new guy to a better role until he started sucking.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 12:33 PM) 2014 he really didn't play. 2013 he stunk 2012 better left In general he stinks. How many times did he play back to back games with a hit in three years? Without looking I am going with none. What? No he didn't. Look past his batting average. He gets on bases more than Adam Eaton, and puts 8-10 homers up in 200 at bats.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) In these cases, I am going to trust my managers perception to understand why a player is hot, do the match ups work, is there a history with a players, are there signs that they need to keep playing etc, versus putting myself into either the extreme of always starting a hot player, or going fully by statistics. I agree with you, but not because the manager may know better when a streak is going to last. Instead, I'd argue that the things a manager sees that the statistics CAN'T see are related to adjustments and developments that cause changes in true talent. A streak is can be "real" when a player has legitimately improved, but the stats won't get that because they would treat it as a random streak for a long time until it happened enough for it to affect the career results. And by then, we'd already know the guy deserved more playing time, and so they wouldn't help us at all. Also, the manager will know when he should throw Leury out there just to keep him fresh/sharp/mentally stable, even if it means he's a bit less likely to get a hit than the starter he would replace that day.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) It ends the streak. Not playing ends the streak. It's not harder than that. But I'd argue the alternate approach can make more sense. Case in point: George Kottaras Take a look at his numbers the past four or five years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=C He's been a substantially above average hitter even compared to the LEAGUE, let alone compared to catchers, and yet he's never had more than about 200 plate appearances. Why wouldn't someone give him a full-time job? The answer is because he's been used in a strict platoon, which is where he is best positioned to succeed. As recently as 2010, he was getting a third of his at bats against lefties, and he was terrible. Since then, however, he hasn't picked up more than a quarter, and usually much less, and he's been awesome. Just by his numbers, you'd think he would deserve much more time. If his manager kept letting him play because he was successful, he probably would have mediocre numbers. Instead, they've used him strictly when he was most likely to succeed, and the result has been an extremely productive part-time player.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 11:38 AM) Very good read. Thanks!! My comment would be that for a bench type player a streak should be shortened to two games, not five. In general bench players are what they are, bench players. By the time the streak hits 5 games I think the streak is played out so to speak. But I really liked that article. Thanks again! You're very welcome. To my knowledge, I haven't seen anybody do a study that controls specifically for bench players. I'm guessing the inherent small sample issues scare the researchers away

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 11:32 AM) I'm not the one saying there is evidence that points to this. I'm saying if it exists I'd like to read it. Geesh So what would be the evidence? Showing the results of non-starters after two games of consecutive hits would be a part of it. Also, if you want to go further in depth than the summary I posted (and don't feel like buying Tango's book), here's the Pizza Cutter (Russel Carlton) research that is commonly referenced: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=10170

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) If this was a craps table you would be right. But this isn't. You've said yourself the hot hand is real and I don't think anyone doubts that. But to assume that a streak ends because of a matchup isn't the right play. You don't know when the hot hand ends so you ride it out until it does. The moment trumps the history in the majority of cases. If there is evidence that this doesn't work, I'd be interested in reading it Eminor3rd EDIT: Benching a player ends the Hot Streak every single time. This is the best little summary I've found, which cites Tango's original research: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/strategy-...ust-the-streak/ Again, to be clear: No one is saying that players don't get "dialed in" for streaks. However, there is no way to predict how long those streaks last. A hot day does not beget another hot day. So if a player has been hot for three days, he is NOT more likely to be hot on the fourth day. So if you're deciding how to put the best team on the field for a given day, looking at recent trends instead of statistically significant career data will mislead you. Leury Garcia is Leury Garcia even if he's been hot, and Jose Abreu is Jose Abreu even if he's been cold. EDIT: Here's a relevant snippet

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 10:47 AM) I'm not talking predictive. Predictive is odds based and with that you can just use the sheet which anyone can do. This is riding the hot hand. Yes the hand will end. But one player in a lineup ending a hot streak does not mean the game is lost. It could mean though that the streak continues and thus could mean a win. It's also the opportunity to see if perhaps a bench guy can be something more. The streak shouldn't be interrupted. This maximizes value. You ARE talking predictive. You're saying that if a guy just had a good game (or several good games), he is likely to have another good game. Statistically, that just isn't true. So it isn't predictive, and so it doesn't make sense to "ride the hot hand" if that means putting a guy in a situation where he seems less likely to succeed than the alternative. If it's close to a wash and the manager feels it's important mentally for a bench guy to feel like he can earn himself playing time, I get it. Makes sense. But it ISN'T maximizing a guy's value in terms of his on-field contributions, because his hot hand doesn't make him more likely to produce the next day.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) Logically I am riding the hot hand. In your scenario you need to only look at percentages and those that do not succeed from day one won't be provided an opportunity to succeed later. That's poor managing. There's been a ton of research on this. All of it concludes that while hot streaks are certainly real, they hold no predictive value whatsoever. In other words, a guy is hot until he cools down, and there's no way to know when that will be. In any given at bat, a player's career numbers are better predictors of the result than his recent numbers. Even though a guy may be hot for a week, he isn't any more likely to STAY hot the next day. So if you put a guy into a terrible match-up, you're setting him up for failure no matter how hot he's been. You're "helping" the hot streak end. QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 17, 2015 -> 10:11 AM) It's riding it out. All players slump and all players have hot hands. When they are hot you play them out. That's the right thing to do. More than likely the bench guys regress back to the norm fairly quickly. But while they are hot, you ride that out. That is maximizing the value. Yeah I see why this makes sense intuitively, but it turns out that things don't actually work that way. You maximize a guy's value by putting him in the best position to succeed. If you ride him until he fails, that huge failure takes a chunk out of the value he got you with his streak.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 16, 2015 -> 05:51 PM) its not going to happen, he is young and controllable for more yrs, plus his salary if 600 k +/-. QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 16, 2015 -> 05:56 PM) Have to agree. With Zimmermann and Fister being free agents after this year, they need Roark. Fister I can see resigning with the Nats as I can't see him costing as much as Zimmerman. My vote still goes to Beachy. Offer him what the Royals gave Medlen (he is under team control for two years, but we can guarantee him the second year if that's what it takes). Definitely. The Nats know how important SP depth is, and Fister hasn't exactly been able to stay off the DL the past couple years.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 15, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) How the hell can anyone rank all 30 managers?

QUOTE (shysocks @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) At the risk of sounding like a s***-head, I have to take issue with people characterizing this move as "low risk, high reward." First of all, such a signing is inherently impossible - that's not how risk and reward work. Second, I would not call Matt Albers a "high reward" guy. That would imply some kind of big upside, but realistically, the most we'll get out of Albers is a pretty good groundballing middle reliever. And while that'd be lovely, it's not going to change the outlook of the team. FALSE. Low risk/high reward things: 1. Insurance industry 2. Fan takes half court shot to win a million bucks 3. $1 lottery ticket

There's just no way JR would ever dump $80-100m into a 19 year-old prospect. I don't blame him.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/02/mino...onico-todd.html

QUOTE (hi8is @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 02:05 PM) Can the f***ing season start tomorrow, please? I dream of the day that I can watch mother f***ing White Sox baseball every god damned day, especially during the week while at work. Mother f***ing f***ing f*** f***..... f***!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 11:15 AM) Really? I always though he seemed like a decent guy. They do give him a lot of crap on his show for being over the top on the saber stuff, especially when they talk about clutch stuff, but he seems to laugh it off. In fact I was watching the other day and they were talking bullpens. The argument was getting outs vs. having a defined roll. I guess the saber thought is getting high leveraged outs doesn't matter whether it's the 7th, 8th or 9th, and the more traditional guys and Rosenthal who I think is in between embraced roles, and were of the belief the 9th inning is different than the 7th and 8th. They were arguing but laughing the entire time. I think the stuff I like the least was his Clubhouse Confidential segment where, at the end of the show, he would deliberately find someone who would never agree with him and they'd outvolume each other for like 4 minutes. But I haven't had cable for over a year now, maybe I'm just remembering him at his worst.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 11:04 AM) I bet you would feel different if Hawk dissected baseball games these days like Brian Kenny. And even if you don't give him credit for what others did, he still came out ahead from what was left him. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded. Do you mean if he was on TV explaining his thoughts, or do you mean if he was into sabermetrics? I'm not sure either of those things would change how I felt about his tenure as GM. As an aside, I'm actually not much of a Brian Kenny fan. I like that he sticks up for modern analytics, but he's needlessly divisive and condescending, and I don't think the a lot of the conclusions he draws make a ton of sense. I don't think he's a good ambassador. Brian Kenny is like Bill Maher. He's fighting the good fight, but not doing a good job of it and acting like a prick the entire time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) Read the link, and wouldn't you have to give him credit for selecting Bonilla in the rule 5? Yeah, he does get credit for getting Bonilla. But then he gets credit for pissing him away for DeLeon, too. I read the article -- I just don't agree that he should get credit for what others' did. I'm glad that the regime after him was able to make some good trades with what Hawk left him. But Hawk did not trade DeLeon because he knew that he could flip him for Lance Johnson a year later. Additionally, the next regime could have gotten a LOT more than that for Bobby Bonilla in 1988. That type of argument DOES lead you to the conclusion that "it didn't end up so bad after all," which I concede. But it isn't to Hawk's CREDIT that it didn't end so bad. The next FO did a good job turning Hawk's lemons into lemonade.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:46 AM) I might be the last Hawk Homer left in the world, but I love the guy. Sure he doesn't know when to shut up at times, but I love the fact that he articulates what I am thinking during the game. When I am pissed, he is ranting. When I am thrilled, he is over the moon. I don't want to think about the day that Hawk isn't in the booth. He is pretty much the only voice of the White Sox I can remember. Except for the 2005 playoffs, the guy is the soundtrack to every single great memory I have of my favorite team. I think he was among the best in the business in his prime. I think he is clearly NOT that now. He pisses me off sometimes because he says some of the dumbest s*** I've ever heard and he represents the White Sox, but most of the time I'm fine with him still. Not because he's good at his job necessarily, but because he usually makes me feel like him and I are in this thing together. He's just a part of the experience at this point. I don't agree with hardly anything my grandpa thinks, for example, but I still love him and want him around at Christmas.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) As I stated, the team was doomed. It was going to be bad. The next regime did a lot better job drafting players than ANY regime in White Sox history. And Hawk made some good trades. Calderon was a good player, and he also got the White Sox Tim Raines. Jose DeLeon, acquired for Bonilla, who Hawk selected in the rule 5 draft, was a good pitcher, and he also eventually netted Lance Johnson. Bonilla was better than DeLeon, but not as good as what the Sox might not have had if they had kept him. http://www.southsidesox.com/2013/1/11/3862...y-minor-leagues Right but you can't give Hawk credit for trading for Tim Raines or Lance Johnson. Hawk gets credit for DeLeon and Calderon. One of those was a good trade, one was a bad trade.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) Maybe a late spring training addition. They have spent the money. If there is something that really needs addressing, I think they now will try to do something about it instead of waiting. If, for some reason, all the computers are right, and this is a 77 or 78 win team (without huge injuries), it will be a huge blow to the franchise. More than any other year, I'm really nervous about health. This is a team that's totally fine if everything goes according to plan, but an injury to Abreu, Eaton, or any of the three top starters could ruin the season before it begins. And I think that's a lot of why the projections don't like the team -- they have playing time projections built in, and they assume contributions from much further down the depth chart than we typically imagine because they expect an average amount of injuries.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) Hawk's year as the GM has been written and talked about as something that basically set the team back for 5 years. That team was going to be bad regardless of who the GM was. All you really have to do is check the roster. There were some pieces acquired that helped in the future. I laugh at all of the people now who made it seem like Hawk committed some sort of felony when he got rid of LaRussa. LaRussa got booed every time he went to the mound. Many of the same people who would call into radio shows to say LaRussa sucked and needed to go are fans that now use firing LaRussa as proof Hawk is an idiot. You're right -- if someone claims that he set the franchise back several years, they're off base. Still, if the BEST thing you can say about a guy is that "the next regime was able to take advantage of all the great draft picks he earned them," and "the next regime was able to salvage some value from all the bad trades he made," then the guy was really bad.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) Flowers would definitely get claimed. If someone had an injury to fill, sure. But he's making $2.6m this year. That's not a salary you just stash in the minors unless you really see some upside.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 10:02 AM) Flowers can't be sent to Charlotte. I'm assuming no one would claim him, lol.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 09:09 AM) You do know in 1986 he picked Bonilla in the rule 5 don't you? Trading him probably turned out well for the White Sox. A few more wins the next couple of seasons, they might not have had McDowell, Ventura, Thomas and Fernandez later on. And if Soxtalk were around in 1986, LaRussa would have been about as popular as Robin Ventura if he brought Cleto in to close a 1 run game with the bases loaded. I think Larry Himes did a pretty good job as Hawk's replacement. I doubt Dombrowski, if he would have been the replacement had Hawk kept him around, would have been able to match. Hawk wasn't a great GM. He will be the first to tell you that. But it wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of people made it out to be. The 1986 team was doomed. Burns was done. Seaver wanted out. James was done. Hawk got Bonilla, who eventually turned into Lance Johnson. He also got Calderon who was pretty good, and became Tim Raines. Hawk got the job because the minor league system was worse than it has been at any point the last 20 years. The year before they drafted the great catcher Kurt Brown in round one. The next pick.........Barry Bonds. Lol DA, this might be the faintest praise I've ever read/heard.