Eminor3rd

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) That's why I think the deal will involve Rameirez if it's done. The A's need a shortstop this season. They have top SS prospects. That could make sense. Hahn could argue that we need a 3-win RHP more than we need a 3-win SS because of our respective replacement options.

I think he'd be a great buy-low guy to see if he could bounce back. We do need his skillset pretty desperately, and it would put another left handed bat down in the order to break up all the righties. I'd much rather give him a shot than play Viciedo every day.

QUOTE (Real @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) why wouldn't oakland allow a negotiation window? i just woke up, so rational thinking hasn't kicked in yet wouldn't this up the value to their team by netting them more/better players in return? I have no inside info (obviously), but I'm guessing they aren't granting a window because they don't think he'll sign and they don't want their deal to be contingent on something that isn't likely to happen and is out of their control.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) Is there a scenario where Beane "gets something rather than loses him for nothing at the end of the year" and acquires another pitcher by another means? Yeah, I think that's what he'll probably do regardless. But when you look at our system, it seems like it's either Anderson or an underpay, IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) I can't come up with parameters of any deal that makes sense for the White Sox to my eyes unless Samardzija gives the White Sox a large hometown discount that he wouldn't give the Cubs. Otherwise, moving anyone of even minor value from the White Sox's system for Samardzija seems silly to me and a much worse option than going and spending that huge, 9 figure money on someone like Shields or Scherzer. This is what I think, too. I just can't see this deal happening without it being nonsensical for one of the two sides. Either we give up way too much for a short term gain, or the A's take way too little for a good #2 starter.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:37 AM) Only he's not Papelbon and we have seen how a closer by committee works along with trying to find an in house one. You say "closer by committee" like that was actually the plan, but it never is. That's a term that gets thrown around when the bullpen sucks and the manager can't consistently go to anyone to hold a lead at the end of the game. If there's ever a "committee," it means something has already gone horribly wrong. Just because we don't have a $50m commitment to a reliever doesn't mean we can't have a closer.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 07:05 AM) If they are willing to go $9+ mill on a closer, I thimk that means they are willing to let the payroll go to about $115 mill I would certainly hope so. Or at least they had better make sure it goes high enough to accommodate a LF and a mid-rotation starter. I'd have a lot of trouble getting down with the Sox giving out a Papelbon contract.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 09:21 PM) I fully understand McCracken's interpretation and have read plenty on it. And despite that I still choose not to put heavy stock into FIP. What I think you're not understanding is that isn't NOT fact, it's merely 1 man's interpretation that gained traction. As you said, there is no way to factor in pitcher's influence...yet. Will you honestly be surprised if FIP is irrelevant in 5 years? Look, if the stat works for you then go ahead and use, I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong. All I'm saying is that a stat that interprets the skill of keeping hitters off balance and missing the barrel of the bat as "luck" or "random" isn't for me. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. The last line just isn't correct, and I think that's what I'm having trouble with. It doesn't claim or "interpret" that as luck -- it just can't isolate the effect so it isn't included. But nothing else can isolate the effect either. The "fact" part of the situation is that, even without being able to factor the "off-balance-ness" in, it's still mathematically more stable and a better predictor of future performance, so it's an objectively better tool for player evaluation than anything else out there right now. And so that's why most people put more stock in FIP-based WAR than they do in ERA-based WAR. And that's the argument that Quintana was better than Hamels last year. When I'm saying it is "factually" the best, I'm not making any sort of claim based on philosophy or comfort or intuition, and I'm not saying that its assumptions are infallible, I'm just saying it provides the most accurate results right now. That's what the studies have shown. Basically, FIP based WAR is more accurate because it strips away factors that don't belong to the pitcher, but is an incomplete model because it also strips away the ability to limit or allow hard contact. bWAR is a complete model which catches everything, but it is an inaccurate one because it gives the pitcher credit for things he cannot control. Mentally, we have to make concessions when using both, such as "yeah well he played in front of a crappy defense" or "yeah, but he's shown a consistent ability to repress homeruns throughout his career" and make the appropriate subjective adjustment in our valuations. But at the end of the day, the one that does a better job predicting future outcomes is the more useful one, and that is currently FIP-based WAR. You're right though, that it almost certainly won't be in five years.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 07:12 PM) You saying that things are fact doesn't make it so....hate to break this news to you. Of course not. The decade and a half of research that is freely available for you and anyone else to read, though, DOES make it fact. I'm just telling you what I've read. My opinion has nothing to do with it. I mean, if you're interested in this stuff, I can point out some stuff for you to read so you can see it for yourself. I know that some random dude just SAYING something is true isn't convincing, but you can look and scrutinize these studies yourself and see how it works and that it's real. I don't have any reason to lie to you, I have no vested interest in making sure Voros McCracken's legacy lives on. I'd change my tune TOMORROW if some new study came out that proved all of this wrong.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) Try reading the exchange again....he bolded a specific part of my post and then said that there is "actual data" saying that a pitcher doesn't have any affect on the type of contact a hitter makes, and I informed him that there isn't data that confirms anything. Something you yourself have stated. So maybe you should brush up on your own reading skills before you question mine. I've read every word you've said, and I respect your opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You keep stating your opinion as if its fact. FIP isn't nearly as widely accepted as you're making it out to be. There are tons of people and tons of articles that question FIP. If it works for you, and you want to you use it that's fine, but don't act like I'm wrong and you're right just because I don't agree with your view. The fact that people question FIP and that there are imperfections in FIP does NOT mean it still isn't the most accurate model we have to isolate pitcher performance from the "noise" of defense and randomness. That is a fact, not my opinion. It's not really something that can be "disagreed with" unless you want to argue that all of the research is fake. And that's exactly why FIP IS as widely accepted as I'm making it out to be -- because it works better than anything else, even if we know there's a better mousetrap that will hopefully eventually be built.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 04:59 PM) Did you even bother to read the post I responded to? shysocks's? Yes. He's saying that studies have shown FIP to be more accurate, despite its flaws. That's really the crux of the argument. I think that if you were to argue against it, you'd need data showing that bWAR/ERA is a better true talent estimator, not simply data showing FIP as imperfect.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 01:03 PM) No there's not. It's an interpretation, there's no tangible evidence either way. I've already posted 2 articles in this thread with supporting evidence that contradicts what FIP says about the pitchers influence on contact. We'll agree to disagree on this because I'm honestly tired of arguing about it at this point. I don't think you're reading what people are writing. Are my posts too long? Serious question No one thinks that FIP is complete. Everyone knows there's an element of soft/hard contact that no one has been able to isolate from any model. Those articles you're linking are attempts to try to find what's missing and add it to the model. But FIP is mathematically a better estimator of future performance than is ERA. The truth is in the middle of the two, but it's closer to FIP, and so FIP is better. There's more research to be done, but until the next breakthrough, fWAR is a better indicator of true talent pitcher performance than bWAR. To put it another way: You're bringing up gaps in the model that everyone agrees are there, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the best model we have right now.

I like the idea of Melky in a vacuum, but to pay free agent price for a good-not-great LF seems (at this point) like a poor use of limited resources, because the team is still so short on pitching and still so mediocre in other positions. It seems like if we're going to spend that much cash, we need to get a major upgrade, or, alternatively, we need to make a Melky-sized upgrade without spending that much cash.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) Jamie Moyer 1996- 3.98 ERA and a 4.95 FIP 2001- 3.43 ERA and a 4.17 FIP 2002- 3.32 ERA and a 4.03 FIP 2003- 3.27 ERA and a 4.01 FIP 2008- 3.71 ERA and a 4.32 FIP Basically a huge part of Jamie Moyer's success is considered "lucky" according to FIP was my point. Look at Garland's '05 season for a point of reference...4.24 FIP and a 3.5 ERA. Now was he lucky that year or maybe was he perhaps spotting his sinker well and inducing weak ground ball outs? Either way I can assure you that it wasn't Juan Uribe's fantastic defense at SS that made him good that year. So you picked 5 non-consecutive years out of a 25+ year career where those numbers didn't align, and you call that evidence that the system is wrong? Because that seems like evidence that the system is right. What I was trying to explain was that we currently do not know how much of any given pitcher's success or failure can be attributed to luck/good defense specifically, but we CAN tell you how much of it came from the pitcher -- with one notable exception, which is the effect of limiting hard contact. But that factor appears to vary from year to year across every pitcher's career (which you illustrated nicely with the Moyer example), which makes it not predictable, which implies either that it isn't a skill that pitchers can control or that it doesn't make enough difference to ensure sustained success or failure. As wite said, NO one thinks that limiting hard contact isn't a factor, but none of the numbers in existence currently capture it, and FIP is closer to the truth than ERA. Time will give us an even better model if we're patient.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) I don't think any of it is dumb luck, that was sarcasm. Jamie Moyer was a magician who got guys to swing at pitches they couldn't hit hard. That's what made him good, same with Buehrle. There is an art to throwing pitches in spots guys can't square up and even more so to getting guys to swing out in front of the ball by changing speeds. You can't just dismiss these things as luck when there is an actual skill to it. Roy Halladay is another pitcher who has some crazy ERA/FIP years because he's a guy that often pitched to contact. My overall point is that the stat is flawed and it, along with most sabermetric stats, should be used as part of the picture, not the entire thing. Such as Jose Quintana was not better than Cole Hamels last year just because his FIP was better. Then make a case that Hamels was better. You say it should only be "part of the picture," yet you're making the exact same type of absolute claim the opposite direction, with less evidence to back it up.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 02:51 PM) You can give them Johnson without giving them Semien. That's what condoms are for. Ha. Oh man...

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 01:09 PM) So you're telling me that you honestly don't believe a pitcher has a lot of control over what kind of contact a batter makes? Basically, studies have shown that if you document and classify all the "types of contact" a batter makes, in terms of how hard it is, where it falls, etc., there is little to correlation year over year. So if a guy has an awesome season where no one made "good contact," it isn't likely to carry over. It is concluded that if there is skill that plays into HR/FB rate, for example, then pitchers would either be consistently good or consistently bad at it. But they aren't. It goes all over the place, and so whether the cause is luck or focus or anything else, it isn't a reliable predictor of itself, and so it is treated as randomness. Again, that doesn't mean it IS random, but that it cannot be predicted and thus cannot be controlled, so for the purposes of evaluating a player's performance going forward, it isn't considered something that should be credited. (I should clarify that GB and FB rates ARE fairly predictive and can be used to make inferences to BABIP and regressed HR/FB rate, which is where ERA predictors like xFIP come along, but that's a whole different discussion) There are a few exceptions to this at any given time -- guys that have seemingly defied the DIPS model for several years, either positively or negatively -- but it almost always seems to come crashing down eventually. It's tough (impossible) sometimes to tell whether that's simply the "luck" regressing as we predicted or if it's related to the pitcher changing by either losing stuff or changing pitch mix or whatever. I think that the newest technological tools that are coming out are going to shed a ton of light on the "black box" of good/bad contact for pitchers by giving us ball velocities/trajectories/spin rates that we can attach to different pitches and situations. I think that at some point, these measurements are going to lead us to being able to quantify a pitcher's ability to limit hard contact. But, any attempt we'd make now would simply be a wild, intuitive guess, and that's a silly way to make an argument and a sillier way to make a multi-million dollar investment. For now, the DIPS model is, objectively, the most accurate way we have to isolate a pitcher's performance from the other things that affect whether a guy is out or not. And it wasn't created based on someone's ideas of what should be important, it was created by performing studies to see which factors are actually stable/predictive. So that is the lense through which you can look and see Quintana as better than (or at least as good as) Cole Hamels. When you factor age, Quintana clearly comes out as the more valuable asset going forward.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) NO GIVE THEM SANCHEZ OR JOHNSON, NOT MY SEMIEN (this does not read well out of context) Haha. Micah Johnson and some unknown live arms for Brandon Moss. Would you do that? I think I would.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) In Blengino's article yesterday about Donaldson, he made a really interesting point when talking about Felix: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/some-belate...donaldson-deal/ Where I am going with that is basically that I think elite prospects, which we can safely assume Montas is at least on the precipice of being if not already there, are even MORE valuable then their semi-less talented contemporaries based solely on that talent alone due to the roster crunch. Given that, I think you want to save that added value to trade him for an elite or semi-elite player, and I don't think we can safe Moss is that at this point in his career. I'd definitely give up some prospects for him, just not sure what yet, but I don't know that I'd give up anyone in the top 10. Maybe Beck/Bassitt and Ravelo? Not a lot, but they're legitimate prospects and should be MLB contributors even as soon as this season. I actually had that quotation in mind when I was thinking about what Moss might cost, haha. That was the only part of the article that stuck with me. Here's the other thing: forget about Montas. I bet that a big part of what the Indians send is a MI of some type, probably close to the MLB if not ready to take a shot. They're not giving up Lindor, so whoever they give up should theoretically be in the neighborhood, value-wise, of our own glut of 2B/SS types. I know you love Semien, but that sounds like a reasonable piece from us.

Dave Cameron has written a ton about this type of system, and is on record claiming that a tandem/multi-use system is where pitching will go in the long run. That said, he also clearly brings up the point that moving to this sort of system is a massive undertaking that has to take place from the bottom of the minors up to the Majors, and represents a severe issue when trading or acquiring players that are changing systems.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) I don't know that this is necessarily a good reason to trade him for Brandon Moss though. I think, given the helium in Montas's stock over the past 15 months, you want to capitalize on his ceiling as a starting pitcher rather than his projection as a reliever. I don't think you want to trade him unless it's for an elite or semi-elite kind of player, and I'm not sure that Moss fits that level. I'd have no problem dealing a couple legitimately decent prospects for him because he'd be a nice left handed bat in the middle of the lineup, but Montas seems a bit much at this point. Yeah I mean I'm not like EAGER to trade Montas for Moss, just saying that would be my ceiling. Also I have to admit that now that I'm less drunk, I don't like Moss QUITE as much. But I still think he'd be a big upgrade for us, and I think when we see what the Indians give up, it'll be less than we expected.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:57 AM) FIP probably overrated Quintana last year, his HR/FB rate screams fluke Absolutely. That's going up this year. But if that means he was a flat 3 ERA, that's phenomenal.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) I think it's absolutely true that Hamel would be in more demand and don't think it's all that close. People like to use WAR as a standard and Hamels almost doubled Quintana's, 6.6 to 3.5, last year, and has been a 4+ WAR 6 of the past 7 years. Plus, Hamels is just a better pitcher. Q is good. He's just not at Hamels past or present level, yet. There's nothing wrong with that. Not too many pitchers are at that level. Industry consensus is pretty strong that fWAR is a better model for pitchers than is bWAR (which is what you're referencing). Quintana had 5.3 fWAR last year to Hamels' 3.8. The truth is in the middle, but most people believe it's much closer to fWAR. The gist of the difference is that a much larger amount of Hamels' success came from the ball being fielded by his defenders (which is assumed to be a combination of good fielding and lucky batted ball placement) and a presumedly unsustainably high strand rate that was much higher than both his career rates and league average. If you wanted to argue that Hamels deserves more credit, you'd have to make the argument that he is able to control the type of contact he allows (making it weak and/or making it go where he wants it to go) to a degree that very few, if any, pitchers have shown a consistent ability to be able to do. Most people believe that there IS a factor of this "weak contact" that exists, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's a strong enough effect to warrant the type of WAR evaluation that Baseball Reference uses. Basically, Hamels had a better year by the things that batters and fielders have the most control over, but Quintana had a better year by the things that pitchers have most control over (strikeouts, walks, homers). Most people believe that Quintana's brand of success is much closer to "true talent" success and, therefore, is more likely to continue going forward.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:52 AM) Put them both on the open market and Hamel's is going to get the better contract and be more in demand. Part of Q's value is tied to his team friendly contract. There's just no way that is true. Quintana is going into his age 26 season, Hamels is going into his age 31 season.

Age is also a factor. Quintana is SO good.