Eminor3rd

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) I agree that OPS is flawed because OBP is a bit more valuable than SLG, but I also think that is context dependent on how you are trying to fit a guy in with the rest of the team. If you already have a team with decent OBP but lacking pop, you might favor SLG even though OBP is generally move valuable. Also, I'm not sure OBP points ARE more valuable than SLG points at this juncture. At the very least, they're much closer. Which is part of the issue. Check out this table, noting that run values for HR have steadily increased since the steroid era, whereas run values for singles have decreased: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:49 PM) I get what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with it. A right-handed Yankee getting the same park adjustment as a left-handed Yankee is getting f***ed right up the ass. Maybe by a percentage point or two, and really only if you're a homerun hitter. here's the table with handedness park factors: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=pf...amp;season=2014 Regardless, it's substantially MORE accurate than OPS and OPS+. And if you think the park factors throw it off, you can always cite wOBA, like shysocks said. But even then, you're guessing as to the adjustment that's proper. In cases of extreme handedness advantages, such as homers in Yankee stadium, the overall park adjustment is still much closer to the truth than any other number out there. I could see it being an issue if there was some park where any particular offensive event was substantially above average from one side and substantially below average from the other, but like in Yankee Stadium, it's homer-happy from both sides, it's just extra homer-happy from the left side.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 25, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) I wonder if after a few weeks off Dunn has already changed his mind. There's no reason for him to quit if some team is willing to pay him and I'd suspect he could still get a contract. The guy is going to hit 20 homers again if he gets similar amount of at bats to this year. Of course he's going to do all the other things Dunn does. I think he's content to be rich and hang out with his family. MLB is one of those things you have to be 150% committed to -- I think if there's any doubt, you hang it up. I think he made the right decision. It's not like he needs more money.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) Cancel the rant. Actually the Top 10 MLB players in WRC are the same top 10 in OPS. Guys like Eaton, DV, amd Conor all fall into the same range in both categories. I am sure there are some odd instances both ways but quick look tells you both stats are very similiar. OPS has no adjustment for context and inaccurately assumes that a point of OBP is equally as valuable as a point of SLG. Case in point: GreenSox cited Heyward's OPS to display that he was a mediocre hitter in 2014, when in reality he was an above-average hitter over that span.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) Seems like it should go in the reverse order. Parks can definitely affect types of hits differently, and can affect left/right handed hitters differently. Triples are clearly harder to come by in the Cell than at Comerica, and homers are clearly much easier to come by at Yankee Stadium for lefties than righties. If we are just blanketly saying that the Cell inflates offense by 4%, then that doesn't give me much confidence in that system. Seems pretty lazy to me. But you have to remember that the whole system sits on linear weights, so any blanket run change you make automatically affects all events in proportion to their value. Also, remember what question we're trying to answer. wRC+ is the answer to: How valuable was player x's overall contribution, at the plate, in comparison to those of his peers? This only works if you take steps to equalize the difference between things like triples/stolen bases and homers/walks. A common denominator is essential to this; you wouldn't want it any other way. If you were trying to decide how a player will FIT in a particular ballpark, or how his contributions will translate, you definitely need to dig into the park factors for different offensive events. But if you want to measure how VALUABLE a player was in comparison to another, who might have played in a different park or league, you want to reduce your measurement as much as possible. EDIT: I feel like I'm not explaining myself well. Maybe someone else can try.

Meh

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 08:22 AM) Eminor3rd, since you're the wRC+ guru, can you please explain how the park adjustments work in the metric? While I'm a huge fan of what the statistic is attempting to do and use it frequently, I can't help but be skeptical that adjusting for park factors is that simple/clean of a process. Not all players benefit the same from playing in a given park, so if the park adjustments are applied equally to all players then I would have to consider the stat somewhat flawed. Looking forward to your response, as this has been a question bothering me for quite some time. The park adjustment that is made is crude and is based on adding or subtracting runs rather than adjusting for each offensive component. This ends up being okay because the stat is based on linear weights, so even though it won't factor that a guy has, say, a couple more triples than he normally would in a neutral park, it DOES factor in the runs that those triples represent. From FG: So for example, in 2014, a triple was worth ~1.65 runs on average, so every triple that someone hits gets them that much credit. All of that adds up to a player's Runs Created, and THEN an overall run scoring coefficient gets thrown on. For the Cell, it was 104 this year, which means that the park si expected to produce 4% more runs, so everyone's performances there get a 4% hit. So the TL;DR answer is this: all offensive events get converted to runs first, then the park factors are added. This works out because each type of event is naturally weighted, by runs, in the system to begin with.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 26, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) No Another low OBP strikeout hitter who plays poor defense. At this point, I'd take a good platoon in left, and they could rotate DH as well. I'm with you here -- Cespedes is a complementary piece that expects to be paid like a core piece. You can get that production much, much cheaper.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 24, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) Jason Heyward had an OPS of .735 last year and is signed for 1 more year. The idea that it takes multiple top prospects to get his services for a year is crazy. The only thing sillier is that the Sox should be the team to do it. The Sox have had 3 90 win seasons (and 3 playoff berths) in the last 20 year using that approach. WARNING: OPS Rant Omg why are people still citing OPS and treating it like it's a proxy for a player's overall value? Not only is OPS bad, but everyone is still tuned to the standards of the steroid era, when every outfielder had to be 800+. This is simply NOT representative of baseball today. Let's use numbers that (a) properly weight the constantly changing value relationship between OBP and SLG, and (b) are actually adjusted to the offensive era that we are in. 2014 Jason Heyward: 110 wRC+, +24.1 UZR, 5.4fWAR. This is a guy who hit 10% better than league average and played elite defense in 2014 -- in fact, almost as elite as you can possibly be. The result was an all-star caliber player. You would NOT expect the +25 UZR to be sustainable (though he's done it before in 2012), but since he's always been between +10 and +25, it's reasonable to expect a +10-15. And since the wRC+ is actually a touch BELOW his career of 117, there's no reason to believe he won't be sitting at 110-115 next year. And that would be an awesome season and he would be the best position player on our team, save Abreu. Please stop citing OPS, it's problematic. It gives us an inaccurate picture of the truth and we have better tools that are just as easy to find and utilize. Ok, I'm done. I'm sorry, GreenSox. I know I'm a jerk. The point about the one-year of control is huge, but for like three pages here it looks like everyone is talking about a trade being contingent on an extension. The part that makes it interesting is that his value would conceivably be lower than one might think simply because of the lack of control. I'm not sure how it would be affected if all involved parties knew that a handshake extension agreement was being made.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 22, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) Everyone can be terrible next year. No reason to ever spend money in an effort to improve. As Stacey says, if you are scared, buy a dog. Not wanting to spend money on players you think are bad has nothing to do with being scared.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) I'd rather talk Adam Dunn out of retirement vs Morales. Especially in a two-year deal. To me, he's only a candidate on a one year pillow contract and only if we fail at our main plan.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 01:57 PM) this is not a Danks response but a response for any player in this situation. The contract is sign and sealed. no one can change that, no one. he got hurt, thru no fault except for bad luck. am I happy no. am I saying dump him, no, the sox can not do that. why, rule and the union will prohibit that. what can the sox do about him, nothing. trade him, been there and no one is biting. can he come back, maybe, doubt it, but crazier things have happen. the sox will have to coop with this hole for the length of his contract. What do you mean? Of course they can dump him. They could release him outright if they wanted. They just still have to pay him.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 02:17 PM) different level of cheating. how can 1 come up with an excuse for 1 example of a cheat and let the others go by. it has to be 1 penalty. plain and simple. there is no degrees of interpretation. Rose was not accused of cheating. The ban against betting exists so as not to encourage players/managers to intentionally risk or throw the game in the interest of covering a point spread or whatever.

The only argument for keeping Danks is that we don't have anything else to spend the money on. But if you're (the collective you're) one of the posters who wants the Sox to get in on buying some talent, you've got to be comfortable with the fact that $15m of what we can afford is going to John Danks over each of the next couple years. That is a substantial portion of the resources our front office has to make a winning team. I applaud all of your efforts to squint really hard and see some semblance of hope, but no matter how much you cherry pick, the reality is this: Danks had a shoulder injury that sapped a significant amount of his velocity. In order to throw at his old velocity, he has to sacrifice his command. In order to regain his command he has to pitch at 88. To succeed at 88, he has to have elite control, and he does not have said elite control. There IS a chance he rebounds into a good pitcher next year, either by recovering velocity or by simply pitching his nuts off all year with no mistakes. That chance is VERY small. If you think the team needs another punted year to develop and build talent, then taking those long-odds on Danks makes a ton of sense. But if you want to compete, there's a 90-95% chance that Danks is a financial hurdle; 5-10% chance he contributes.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) I know what you mean but basically Danks averaged one s***ty start per month over a six month season and outside of that one s***ty start, he was pretty good. I'll take that. I believe this is what scs787 is saying, and I agree. Maybe I just prefer rainbows and unicorns, leave me alone you hippo.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) what gets me is when Danks signed his contract, he was healthy. he got hurt in the performance of his job, pitching for the white sox. is it his fault that he got hurt or that he sign a contract before he got hurt. this is the main reason why the players combine and formed the union. to protect themselves. if no team wants to take a risk on him the player but they then have to take his contract. he pitch well for the sox, before his injury and still should have loyalty of the fans. if not, then fans are indeed fickle. Oh, I don't HATE him for getting hurt or being bad. I just don't want him on my team anymore. I have a John Danks shirsey I still wear. Also, I don't feel anyone owes him any sympathy -- he signed a contract that guaranteed him fifty million dollars regardless of his performance, and he's going to be paid every penny. He is plenty "protected."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 09:58 AM) Basically Milton Bradley sucked at The Game of Life, always getting himself into some sort of Twister, and never really able to Connect Four good years together. Bravo haha

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) Except that it is. He has a track record of using PED's in contract years and then falling off the map, which should make anyone take pause when looking at his number from this season. There will always be room for question and speculation because of his past. I would say the same thing about Nelson Cruz and Peralta as well. This is all moot anyway, he is going to receive a QO and that coupled with the money that will be required to sign him will not make the acquisition worth it. There's nothing wrong with talking about how PEDs or lack thereof might affect a guy's performance going forward. My snarky comment was because that is NOT what greg is talking about. He is talking about his personal aesthetic displeasure with Melky, which is related to his PED use, which would make his acquisition grounds for a "ruined offseason."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 07:30 AM) I would rather he have 20 or more really good starts with the 6 or 7 real clunkers, than have a consistent 5.00 ERA for all of his starts. The fact is, most of the time Danks did not suck, advanced stats be damned. And yet he DID suck plenty enough to single-handedly lose 6 or 7 games, which is tremendously significant. Think about the impact of seven guaranteed losses. And when he wasn't single-handedly losing the game, he came in as a mid-rotation starter giving up a little over 3 runs per nine innings. And you can't get those 25 middling starts without taking the 7 automatic losses. The reason 3.16 is a "good ERA" is because it assumes that you INCLUDE the clunkers. If a guy is allowing over three runs per nine when he's at his best, he isn't very good.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 05:53 PM) Also, since everyone loves when I cherry pick....Throw out his 6 truly dreadful starts and he had a 3.18 ERA for 26 starts (164 innings)....Call those innings luck if you must, but as a 4th/5th starter I'll take a guy who gets shelled once a month if he's also keeping us in games the other 4-5. His contract does change things a bit, so with that said I'm cool with trading him for a decent offer. Don't think we need to just dump him or that trading him should be a priority though. QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 11:05 PM) You make some very good points here. Obviously, when Danks was bad he was horrendous but a 3.18 ERA over 26 starts is pretty damn impressive. I knew he was pretty good outside of his bad starts but I did not think he was that good. Fwiw, I don't think you're cherry picking at all. But reality doesn't work that way, lol. He did NOT have a 3.18 ERA because he DID have 6 dreadful starts. EVERY pitcher looks good when you remove all their bad performances.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 06:11 AM) However, if they decide to wait one more year, doesn't a trade of Ramirez make sense? Personally, I think so.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 05:07 PM) I know alot of people on here don't want John Danks to be on the team, but getting rid of him for the sake of not wanting him on the team I don't get. He is mostly likely a former shell of himself and doesn't put up the prettiest numbers. Higher era and has a issue of coughing up the long ball. But you are also talking about the second most durable starting pitcher on the staff for this year. He did tied Quintana with 32 starts most on the team. Also had 193.2 innings pitched this year which is only 6.2 innings short of Quintana's at 200.1. The fact that he made it through the whole year with out going down helps that fact that in the first month of the season the Sox lost Sale, Johnson, and Pualino. Danks and Quintana were the only ones left from the opening day rotation at that time. For most of the year the Sox were trying to fill at least one spot in the rotation. Danks didn't do anything fancy when he pitched but what he did do was eat innings which is most you can ask for from a pitcher especially being the 5th starter. Losing most of your opening day pitching staff in the first 2 months doesn't help. Getting rid of Danks for the sake of not wanting him now opens up 3 holes in the rotations with not alot of back ups just for the 2 spots doesn't make sense. You would have to replace at least 190 innings and 32 starts which on the open market would be coughing up a chunk of change besides the fact you already have 2 open spots in the rotation. Your not likely getting much back for him even if you sending money with him. If you he puts up same amount of innings and starts with a era in the low 4s then I'm fine with that as the 5th starter. Also the thing about him winning 11 starts is him having career year I would take. Quintana only put up 9 wins in each of the last 2 seasons and danks was only one win behind sale this year. People talking about wanting McCarthy as he only put up 10 wins this year and which is the highest hes ever won and hes always injured. Innings are valuable, but replacement-level innings are not. We could get all of those innings out of Scott Carroll + Andre Rienzo for $480k, for example. We have plenty of guys that can be bad for us all year -- Danks is the only one that costs $15m.

All of those lists are pretty spot on, IMO. Only gripe I would have is Roostifier hanging #5 on Ravelo, which seems too aggressive to me. But, aside from that, seems like we're all on the same page.

Cespedes is very overrated.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Oct 18, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) WAR has its flaws and should be used as only part of evaluating a player. At some point common sense needs to be put into the equation. WAR puts way too much stock in flawed defensive metrics. If you trust WAR that much than that means both Zobrist and Alex Gordon were more valuable than Abreu last year. And I'm just not accepting any kind of argument that says this. Which is just you saying that you refuse to accept any argument that you may be underrating the value of defense.