Eminor3rd

Avisail Garcia has never had any stint in the MLB where he had an above league average bat. Dude has talent for days, but he hasn't shown us he knows how to play. He could learn and become a star, but it's not far-fetched to project him as nothing for next year at this point. I want to believe, I do, but he needs to show me something.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) True, but the linear stats don't take these into consideration. There is no stat available that will predict what the other manager will do thus what your decision must be two innings later. So, regardless of what the linear weights say, sometimes you just can't make that move. It may tell you what the best move would be but that isn't always the correct one. Just like in a given season there are times where a manger will realize that he must lose a game for the bigger objective of having a better season. This could be due to saving a bullpen, starting pitcher or resting players. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think this is completely outside of what we're arguing. I think what you're saying is definitely an important component, but it doesn't relate to the use of context-neutral or context dependent statistics when projecting the likely success or failure or a player at bat. So, good points! But I don't think it's evidence against linear weights in the scenario in the way I just used them.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) Not sure if you mistake Cabrera as someone else, but he's pretty bad on defense. Seconded. Asdrubal is a very bad defender. Flashy hands, but tons of errors and Jeter-esque range. He's a second baseman.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-zips-p...cago-white-sox/

QUOTE (ron883 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 07:51 PM) Let me ask you something. Do you view the Ortiz-Manny championship teams with an asterik next to it? I sure as hell do. I don't like that the Sox #2 hitter and a their #2/3 pitcher are certified cheaters. I don't want any possible championship run tainted by in asterisk, in my mind or in the public's mind. There would be no asterisk. All these players were punished, served their time, and are now presumably clean because they get tested regularly.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 08:12 AM) I would disagree that the only thing that matters is the next likely outcome. I think the manager also needs to look at what the other manager may do in response to certain decisions and think ahead to this decision may impact decisions later in the game. Well, that's a separate issue but consistent with what I'm arguing -- which is that you need to consider only what informs the future when you're making a tactical decision.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 07:48 PM) I love you measure context by citing linear weights. Not all outs are created equal, which is you're completely ignoring. An out right in front of Jose Abreu is much more costly than an out by #7 hitter all else being equal. But hey, all outs = -.299 runs. Regardless, Leury Garcia posted a .067 OBP in the leadoff spot last year. Alexei's career average in the leadoff spot is .339. So in just those 30 at-bats, Alexei could have reached base 8 more times. I'm not going to argue the significance of that, but that's a better estimate of the opportunity cost than the one you provided. You can't put the worst hitter in baseball in a high pressure spot and expect the same exact outcome. My main point all along was that Robin makes numerous decisions that go against all available information. I cited a specific example that I find particularly mind-boggling and you basically said it's ok because "it doesn't matter". I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time arguing this. Whether you think that particular decision was material or not, there's no denying it was a stupid decision. Managers should be evaluated by their decision-making process and somehow Robin Ventura thought the worst hitter in baseball was the best alternative for the leadoff spot on multiple occasions. 1. Leury had not posted an .067 OBP at the time the decisions were being made. Back to my original post that you responded to: "people refuse to judge decisions based on the information available at the time." 2. Linear weights make the most sense BY FAR when making a decision about the thing that's about to happen, because they are designed specifically to measure the mean result. RV was not able to go forward in time and see that Leury Grcia batted almost as bad as anyone can possibly bat in those four games. The ONLY thing that matters when you're about to make a decision are the likely next outcomes and the likely next cost/rewards -- and linear weights stats were literally MADE to do the latter. You want to use context-dependent stats when describing what DID happen, but that is never an option when you're deciding what you WILL do now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) Again assuming that the guy who you put into the leadoff spot doesn't mentally zone out because he isn't in his usual spot. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 03:48 PM) And the bench player who already isn't a good hitter who is forced into the leadoff spot? What happens to him? Right, he still hits and sucks elsewhere in the lineup, he just has like a 50% chance to have one fewer at bat. There's just no argument at all that it mattered or would ever matter when you're talking about a handful of starts.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) God I knew you were going to say something like this. A f***ing stupid decision is acceptable because the old "it didn't matter" excuse. The problem is that these stupid little decisions can have a real impact on the outcome of individual games. Just because you're unable to quantify what that impact is doesn't mean it's not real. Context does matter and Leury Garcia batting leadoff in front of Abreu very well could of cost us a game last year. Yes, you CAN quantify it. The average cost of an out is -0.299 runs across all base/out states. Given Leury's .268 OBP and Alexei's All-Star™ .305 OBP, Alexei could have been expected to avoid that cost four percent more often. FanGraphs game logs (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=5913&position=2B) show us that Leury had exactly 30 PA as a leadoff hitter last year. If Robin had magically known what Leury's OBP was, he could be expected to reach base 8.04 times out of the 30. Alexei, on the other hand, could have been expected to reach 9.15(!) times over those same 30 plate appearances. If luck was on his side, Alexei could have prevented that 0.299 run loss once! Holy crap, batting Alexei instead of Leury at leadoff could have given us an almost 30% chance to score ONE more run last year! What if that one run could have been the difference between winning 73 and 74 games? It's reeling. Except it's WAY less than that because Leury would have had to have batted somewhere else in the lineup. Oh, and many of those PA came as a pinch hitter, making the math even more ridiculous. Also, that run value for an out is from the steroid era, so it's actually too high. So no, it didn't and doesn't matter. At all. I am a batting order nazi, and even I can admit that the difference in batting Leury first instead of some other slightly less bad leadoff option for like 4 games over the course of an entire season is not even REMOTELY close to being beneficial enough to shake up a lineup, even if you BARELY believe in there being a negative effect to shaking up a lineup. You're grasping at straws here.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) Speaking of, I hope at some point MLB teams re-design their sites. Their home pages are still from like 10 years ago where every possible bit of information is shoved all over the page. All the sites are awful and the back-end CMS is somehow even worse. It seems like the platform was invented in like 1997. It's horrible.

Based on that video, to me, he looks like Asdrubal Cabrera that will strike out 40% of the time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) That can also come from knowing your players. Some guys can't handle change. Some guys take change too seriously. Changing around your entire line up to replace the leadoff hitter could do more damage than just putting a bad hitter into the leadoff spot for a day. Right, if Leury batted leadoff when Eaton was in the lineup, then I'd be crying bonkers. But I don't know, he could have moved Alexei there for a day I guess, but why mess with Alexei when he's miscast there too?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) Please tell me what information was available that suggested Leury Garcia should ever bat leadoff? He posted a -81 wRC+ over 10 games in that spot last year, there's really no excuse for the decision. There wasn't any. It didn't matter. Team sucked, players sucked, no one on the team could get on base except Abreu. Who else was going to bat leadoff? It never mattered. Also, my comment was directed toward criticism of his bullpen management.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) He can compete for a spot. If/when he gets shelled in ST then no harm done. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) Because it's fun when the Sox sign people and I literally just said that if they can bring in someone like this who might work at the right cost, and Brad Penny might fit a rotation spot at the right cost. Seriously, there's absolutely no harm in doing this. Depth

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 16, 2014 -> 08:31 AM) I'd be curious as to why everyone thinks he's average, or below. Are there statistics? Is it the eye test? Or is it that he bears the brunt of frustrations when the team is full of crappy players? Mostly the latter. Everyone needs a scapegoat and people, for some reason, refuse to judge decisions based on the information that was available at the time.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) I just can't bring myself to support this team fully. Sure, they will be good, but it is full of cheaters. Melky, Q, Flowers. Signing Melky was the final straw for me. I can't support a team full of roiders. I hate the Bosox championship teams with Manny and ortiz. Its going to be tough to support them because I can't stand cheaters in baseball, and I know a championship will be marked by an asterik if they DO win it. Anybody else feel that same way as me? I wish Melky was not signed. Leaves a poor taste in my mouth. I'm legitimately happy to not share in your dilemma at all.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 10:54 PM) Why am I still wearing a shirt? Excellent question

Thank you. I'm not trying to say RV is an amazing manager, but he is probably neutral and mostly irrelevant. The team (and especially the bullpen) sucked balls, and that's why they lost. Not because RV used them incorrectly.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 06:10 PM) Welcome Mike. I want you; please want me. I don't even

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 08:25 PM) To which I said in the other post how these projection systems are extremely conservative and projects the most likely outcome, but rarely predicts well with breakout seasons. I believe the Sox will have more players who are positive outliers compared to the projections. I wasn't advocating to look at WAR to predict team record, but I believe it's a good indicator of team success. And FWIW, the average variance of last season's record for all teams compared to team WAR total is 4.3 wins, which might be better than some of the beat writers' projections. I agree with this. But this is reflected in the mean. It's just as likely to miss a breakout as it is to miss a meltdown. It simply isn't likely that the Sox will experience more of one than the other. It's possible, surely, but it's a less likely outcome. The distribution of those breakouts and meltdowns is, largely, what no one can nail and why the projection systems will never accurately predict a season record for all the teams at once. But, they do a good job of putting everyone on an even playing field and showing you the average outcomes. What we should take from these is that the Sox have a lot of guys who, if they act like history shows, have shown signs that their performances were better in 2014 than they will be in 2015. It doesn't mean that they won't go undefeated and have the 25 best player performances in the Majors next year, but it's a useful piece off information that we should keep in mind.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 05:16 PM) I did as well. I like WAR as a rating system, but I take these WAR projections with a huge grain of salt. Having WAR in the 40 range would mean you're an 88 + win team, and in the 20's says you'll win around 70 games. FWIW Sox ended up with 24 WARs last year, and they end up winning 73 games, so I think it's a pretty good indicator. I'm not talking about WAR, I'm talking about the top projection systems and what they say about players. If you add up WAR and guess records, you're going to be way off. Everyone agrees with this.

84, I think we make a good run for the playoffs but ultimately fall short.

I might try to sneak into Chicago in April/May, before our Penn League seasons starts. Wish I could be there to see this stuff more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) The reality though is that some guys should get better, some guys should get worse, right? It shouldn't be "every single guy will perform worse than he did last year" as shown here. What I found fascinating is that with a projection of "every single guy on the White Sox has a worse 2015 than they did in 2014", we're still right on the edge of what would make that a competitive team. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) How did the WAR projections work out with the standings last season? I think I read the Red Sox led the AL East in actual WAR, not projected, and finished in last. Some guys will beat their projection, some guys won't. That's how it goes every year. And even if they don't win the WAR trophy, it doesn't mean they won't actually be better than teams that finished ahead of them. Exactly, and that's why it makes sense to use the aggregate as a frame of reference rather than get caught up in the specifics. That's what math is really good at: macro-level trends. At the end of the year, you'll be able to go through and find all kinds of outlier players that the system missed on, but as a whole, it's going to be pretty damn accurate.

In general, fans are never realistic about their players' upcoming regression. We always assume the guys that underperformed will get better, but the guys that overperformed have "broken out." If we're being realistic, we'll probably get worse performance out of 3B, SS, and C. We're hoping for upside out of RF, CF, and 2B. There's a good chance we'll see noticeable negative regression out of Sale and Quintana, because they both had AWESOME seasons. I mean, can you really ever "project" a guy to be a Cy Young finalist? We can't bank a 2-flat ERA out of Sale any more than we can bank a league average bat out of Gillaspie. There are TONS of problem with these WAR projections, but there's some truth in what they illustrate, which is that it isn't safe to expect that every player on our team performs within 10% of their absolute peaks.