Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 03:15 PM) That is cool. We actually do that for our top 25...a few of us submit our top 30 prospects and we combine them. Getting the site's top 10 list would be cool though too. It's also funny how similar they are. Either we as a board develop favorites and biases towards prospects and we're totally off, we pay too much attention to numbers and not enough to tools, or we are more dialed in than so called experts. There probably is a good deal of groupthink going on, but we also mostly consume info from the same sources haha

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 08:43 AM) A composite ranking so far from 16 responses. I assigned #1=10 points down to #10=1 point. For consistency's sake, I want ahead and assigned Abreu as #1 to the couple of people who didn't think he was a prospect and bumped everybody else down one notch, because he technically qualifies as a prospect and I think we all agree he should be #1. 1. Abreu 160 points 2. E Johnson 139 points 3. Davidson 129 points 4. Semien 98 points 5. Hawkins 84 points 6. Anderson 82 points 7. Beck 54 points 8. Danish 37 points 9. M Johnson 35 points 10. Webb 22 points 11. Sanchez 17 points 12. Thompson 13 points 13. Barnum 4 points 14. May 3 points 15. Bassitt 2 points T-16. Snodgrezz/Zapata 1 point Good idea. You know, it would be cool to have a section of the site that listed our top prospects lists. It could include the FS list and a 'crowdsourced' one like this.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) We had no problems of this nature with Shingo SHINGO!

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) I loved the Dunn signing LOVED it. I did, I did.

One of the things that makes this fun is that the Cubs, Mariners, and Yankees are all under various amounts of pressure to make this move. Tanaka's lack of communication/fickleness HAS to be driving them insane. The WS, on the other hand, don't NEED him at all, and are almost certainly much more comfortable being patient.

Guys, we have too many OF right now. Ethier was in the realm of possibilities before the Eaton deal, but it would be insane right now. We are currently experiencing a roster crunch. He's a platoon OF who would be a DH in our current situation. We have two DHs already, and a third (Viciedo) that may be on the way. All of this is not to mention the money and the completely divergent philosophical direction Hahn would have to take to consider Ethier. At this point, Ethier may be literally one of the worst possible acquisitions the WS could make.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:37 AM) I know the Mariners have Japanese ownership and have wooed Japanese players in the past, but if I had to bet about being unprepared, my money is on Jack Z. I agree here. Seems he's fired most of the people that were there for his other big signings, too.

I'll still be shocked if the Yankees don't get him. It just makes too much sense for them. As far as the bad meeting -- Cashman is the longest tenured GM in baseball and I doubt he's the type to show up completely unprepared. But who knows

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Pretty sure this is the homer he's talking about Your browser does not support iframes. Didn't he say it left a scar on the scoreboard though?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) I don't think so. I think they are going to their limits to land him. They have been in on guys like Soler even Fukudome they offered more money than the Cubs. 25 year old, potential ace, all it costs you is money is exactly what rebuilding teams with not a lot of future contract committments should be looking for. If, and it is a huge if this guy is as good as hoped, and say the Sox draft Hoffman #3. Rondon is compared to David Price, and I read 2 scouting reports that say Hoffman can get to that level of effectiveness. These are all ifs that couldn't be any bigger, but if they all remained healthy, you are looking at Sale, Tanaka, Hoffman, Quintana, Johnson or whomever else for a long stretch. That is 1990s-2000s Atlanta Braves. If any of the young offensive players reaches their potential, it would be a team that would be expected to make the playoffs year in and year out for quite a while. 1990s Braves?

QUOTE (robinventura23 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 04:58 PM) How does one calculate WAR? I'm sure it's not as simple as calculating .AVG or OBP. Is there a formula one uses? 1. Assign linear weight values to events. These are calculated by breaking down each event into the average amount of runs that it leads to, based on base/out states. There are measured in runs: http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=cn 2. Add up all the "runs created" and "runs prevented." 3. Add or subtract runs based on positional adjustment: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/...nal-adjustment/ 4. Assign one "win" per every ten runs, based on early pythagorean research that shows a strong correlation between team wins and every ten runs a team scores more than it allows. 5. Deduct value for replacement level: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/war/replacement-level/

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) Jays, eh? Didn't know they were in on it. The Jays have a reputation of being more secretive than the CIA though. So much so that some think it's actually a detriment to fans. The thing with them is you just never know what they are doing until they do it.

Another way to think about bWAR vs. fWAR: bWAR prioritizes completeness fWAR prioritizes accuracy fWAR includes only components that "we" are most confident are both precise and accurate. If there's a subject with which no one has been able to find strong correlations to suggest properly isolated variables, fWAR just leaves it out (for example, the effect of defense in pitching performance). In this way, fWAR is saying, "there are some important things going on that we cannot include in this number, but we have most of it in this number, and we are extremely confident that everything we are including is right on the money." bWAR operates under the assumption that if WAR doesn't include every measurable thing on the field, it isn't a useful statistic. So it gives pitchers credit for ERA rather than DIPS numbers, for example. In doing so, it comes up with a value that includes every possible thing a player adds, but it also includes a lot of noise in the calculations, so it's more realistic to expect the bWAR number to assign positive or negative credit improperly. For example, a pitcher may get more bWAR that really should be considered benefit from playing in front of an excellent defense or benefiting from a lot of batted ball luck. This can be problematic because players are more likely to have outlier seasons that don't predict future performance. The difference between these metrics are most pronounced on the pitching side, as isolating and measuring defense remains a much more difficult problem than with offense. The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle. But the midpoint is different for different types of players. Currently, fWAR and bWAR represent the best we can do while erring on either side of the priorities listed above.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) So a catcher essentially has a 2.5 WAR head start over a 1st baseman? (Assuming 162 games, which obviously catchers dont play) That's true in a sense, but that's the wrong way to look at it. The positional adjustments are a way to create a common denominator so that you can have a quantitative way to judge player value across separate roles. The idea is that when a team makes an acquisition, it is replacing an incumbent player, whether that's a current major leaguer or a "replacement" level player available in AAA. X number of offensive value added needs to be compared to the alternative -- since C is a much more demanding defensive position than 1B, the pool of players that can play C effectively is smaller. Since the pool of players is smaller, average offensive performance is lower. Therefore, a given stat line is more valuable coming from C as opposed to 1B because the difference between that level of production and what else is available is much larger. If you could have a player that hit .300/.400/.500, but had to choose if he was a C or a 1B, you would choose C because you will presumably have to choose a lesser player to fill the other position, and a replacement level 1B hits much better than a replacement level C. So your overall production is higher with the good hitting C, thus the positional adjustment in value.

Was just coming to post this. Very good read.

Minor league deal? Sure. Then again, there may be literally no one on Earth that would make me upset on a minor league deal.

1. E. Johnson 2. Davidson 3. Semien 4. Hawkins 5. Anderson 6. Danish 7. Sanchez 8. M. Johnson 9. Beck 10. Bassit 11. Thompson 12. Webb 13. Rienzo 14. Engel 15. Snodgress Lower-ceilinged but close to the Majors guys like Webb/Rienzo would be MUCH higher in seasons past. The system depth has definitely improved.

QUOTE (dayan024 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Phil Rogers ‏@philgrogers 1h Here's the thing about @Dodgers and Masahiro Tanaka. They've gotten every player they wanted in Mark Walter era. Always bet the streak. That is some really bad gambling advice.

Sox outbidding NYY/SEA on this would be a bad move. Could work out, but too risky for this team, IMO.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2918333:date=Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:39 PM:name=pettie4sox)-->QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) <!--quotec-->Source? She can live wherever she likes

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) Just a hunch based on the guys numbers, if he disappoints, it will be in the power area, and not the average or OBP areas. I'm actually mostly afraid of the OBP, because I've heard lots of internet guys say that the Cuban league standard for control is very low. It's one thing to be willing to take your walks when the pitchers are tossing up garbage, but entirely another when they're able to paint the corners.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:53 PM) That would be horrific for so many reasons. Unless the OBP was .340+ and he hit 32 doubles too. AVG + HR just isn't enough detail.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) I'm in the wrong business

I'll be very pleased with 150 games of .250/.350/.450, and I'd expect that he won't reach his ceiling the first year.

I asked Jason Parks via Twitter if he thought Danish could stick as a starter: Jason Parks ‏@ProfessorParks 3m @hipposategod Absolutely. Time and development will prove it true or false, but I like it despite the delivery/release being unorthodox. Collapse