Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 03:06 PM) It wasn't bragging, but if you go back to when they signed him, any post not positive about his future performance was ill informed, exactly like not being positive about Soria. Peripherals. Based on the content of this thread, I cannot fathom how you can continue to accuse people about being certain about Soria's future performance. There are dozens of posts in this thread acknowledging uncertainty. Most in this thread are hopeful about a Soria bounceback because peripherals. LITERALLY NO ONE is certain that Soria is good because peripherals. You are creating a strawman, pretending we're arguing for that strawman, and then tearing down your own strawman.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 01:30 PM) It seems to me this particular example doesn't really fit the bill. Using FIP and xFIP after last season, you wouldn't have predicted his FIP and xFIP numbers in 2017, and would have told anyone who did that they are arguing with math . The fact is, even if this is all you claim it is, it is not 100%, and everyone has access to this information. To become better than average, one must find anomalies with these numbers. Personally, I think his numbers were a bit inflated towards the positive, and he will be 34 years old with 2 TJS under his belt. Regression seems way more likely than anything else. 1) Practically every post I've made in this thread has specifically stated that I do NOT claim that this is 100% 2) This is the best post you've made on this subject. Because you're citing actual reasons that you are skeptical about his "regression" toward his FIP. That's all anyone is asking. It's totally reasonable to point out his age and TJ history as reasons that his stuff may decline quickly.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 01:06 PM) This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions. That's not true. We're so far away from DIPS being new that people forget where it came from. Voros McCracken mathematically tested the year-to-year stability of every pitching metric he could think of, finding that relatively few were significant predictors of themselves going forward. He noticed a pattern: that the ones that WERE significant predictors of themselves going foward were those least affected by defense. He took ONLY those factors that were statistically significant predictors of future totals, and developed a formula that scale the results to ERA. Then, hundreds of people have rigorously tested and proven that FIP (and eventually xFIP, which is essentially just FIP with normalized HR rates) is a better predictor of ERA than ERA itself is. This is true throughout the entire live ball era. It is math. It's calculating probabilities, so it isn't as black and white as 1+1=2, but the formulas were derived and proven from actual data.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 10:13 AM) I will bet Soria's ERA, K-rate, FIP and x-FIP are all higher in 2018 than they were in 2017. If they are not I will apologize for ever questioning peripherals permanently at the bottom of my posts, if you will put at the bottom of your posts that Greg and Dick were correct if that does occur. How bout dat? I have no interest at ALL in a dick measuring contest with you. God forbid someone point out that the random, free, lost-year bullpen flyer that the White Sox picked up might have some reasons for hope in his peripherals. If you have to pick up random dudes for your pen so that Dylan Covey doesn't have to pitch all year, it's smart to buy low on a guy with better peripherals than results. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that? I refuse to believe that you are incapable of understanding the BASICS of probability. Mathematics factually proves that pitchers with the numbers that Joakim Soria had last year are MORE LIKELY to improve (assuming health) than those that do not. Nothing, anywhere, EVER has suggested that it's LOCK that Joakim Soria improves. A guessing game, therefore, means nothing. If he sucks because you guessed he would suck based on nothing at all, it doesn't make you smart or correct about anything useful. If Soria becomes the best reliever in the league, it will not prove that low FIP always leads to improvement. No matter what happens, it will just be another data point contributing to a general trend that currently, whether or not Soria ultimately strengthens or weakens the argument, shows that low-FIP pitchers are more likely to improve. I know you love to contradict everything I say, though, so I'm sure you'll reply again with something that either (1) quibbles with some specific component of what is above, despite the fact that it doesn't change the argument at all, to try to get me away from my point, or (2) presents absolutely no useful information, likely including a snide comment about biased moderators or making some pathetic "wager" involving comment signatures like we're a couple of s***ty third graders on a playground. If that's what you need to do, go ahead. It won't change the tiny, non-controversial anecdote of a claim that all of us are making that there may be some hope to Soria in the numbers. And I know that you understand it, even if you pretend not to.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 06:34 AM) Peripherals lie just like the eye test. It is hard for some to believe it but it's true. Look at the peripherals, Javy Vazquez was a far superior major league pitcher to Mark Buerhle . I don't know why people defend these peripheral kings to the death when you say they suck. Who is invested in Joakim Soria. I got the same crap you are getting a few years ago when the White Sox signed a pitcher from KC who I said sucked, but evidently the peripherals didn't agree, therefore I was a stooge. Felipe Paulino, how you doin? Zach Duke, same thing. Luckily for White Sox fans, Soria's stay will be closer in length to Paulino.. Naming the exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. If you're going to list all the pitchers that DIPS got wrong, put them next to the massively larger list of pitchers DIPS got right. No one has ever claimed that it works 100% of the time. It is a fact that it works most of the time. That is why it makes sense to target DIPS anomalies like Soria.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2018 -> 04:37 PM) Honestly? They got LUCKY. Anyone here who saw Verlander being both dominant enough to earn his contract and available because the Tigers otherwise fell apart going into last season? That deal doesn't happen and the Astros don't have the ammunition to win it. To some extent, I think every championship winner gets lucky.

Greg’s line of reasoning makes no logical sense, and it’s frustrating to hear him consistently ignore repeated attempts to explain what everyone else is talking about, but I don’t think he’s trolling here. I don’t think he’s said much that’s overly antagonistic, at least not at first. There are many times when he has been out of line, but this isn’t one of them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 02:43 PM) Yeah, that’s what I was trying to argue. Ptatc said the opposite. He said the average is indicative of the performance, because by definition it is the average performance. Sorry, I shouldn’t have jumped in without context.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 04:23 PM) You have me entirely confused. A smaller sample size increases the possibility of an average being skewed by a number of anomalous outings. If I am relying on an average that is more easily skewed, than it makes that average less informative. While every outing is important, if I am team, I want to know what kind of pitcher a guy is the vast majority of the time and work on eliminating those few instances where he isn’t pitching like he does the remainder of the time. The peripherals ARE the peripherals because they're mathematical shown to be better predictors of future ERA than ERA is itself. They were "mined" specifically for dealing with the problem you're bringing up. This is theoretically because they are closer proxies to measuring skill than the run-results are. Now, they aren't perfect, and come with many of the same risks and flaws as the run numbers, but they are BETTER at least. The idea is, essentially, that if you see a bad team result (which ERA is), try to isolate the player results and see if they line up. So, yeah, Soria might suck but there are reasons to believe he might not. That's really the whole gist.

Padres got him for 4m. Boo

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 04:06 PM) Sure it does. That's why it's an average. In this situation you have a player who pitches pretty well most of the time but has a tendency to lose it on occasion. This can very helpful in how they use him. Maybe the blow up was after three straight days of pitching or after 3 days of not pitching. the definition of average is combining all of the performances together. it can tell you an awful lot. It's better than the "small sample size" look. Although to be honest anything less than a 110 games or so is a small sample size when looking at a full season performance This is a great point and it's especially true for relievers, who pitch fewer innings than I think people consciously realize. James Shields probably pitched 50 great innings last year, but it was the other 100 bad ones that made him a disaster. Well, many relievers pitch ONLY 50 innings in a year. What does it say about them going forward? Compounding the issue is that by the times you get that 150-200 IP of sample on a guy, three or four years have passed, and you're no longer evaluating the same guy. This is why relievers are so hard to predict, and it's not unreasonable for a guy to buck a trend suddenly if you see some underlying signs that don't match the previous season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 03:40 PM) Right, I have no problem with the trade, but a lot of people got their panties in a bunch when Greg called a spade a spade and said Soria isn't so good. So talk about arguing a small point just because. I doubt anyone will give him credit when he turns out to be correct. It will just be of course he wasn't any good, that wasn't the point of the deal... The only issue I have with what you said is that the peripheral argument is weak, because you're not providing any evidence for that claim. You're saying that Soria must suck, otherwise the Royals wouldn't have traded him for so little. That might be true, but that doesn't invalidate evidence to the contrary.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 02:49 PM) Examples? If Soria was thought of as highly around MLB as he is on this board, not only would the Royals have been able to trade him and not eat money, they wouldn't have had to include a valuable piece with him. They had to do both. Just to be clear, the argument you're making is "Soria can't be good because if he was, the Royals wouldn't have traded him." The argument you're NOT making is "Soria is bad as evidenced by his peripherals."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 11:38 AM) I will say he will not get an organization top 20 guy back. Let's wager. lol ok

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 11:19 AM) This peripherals argument is weak. I look at his peripherals in 2016 and they suggest he is well on the road to done. Now his peripherals, like his traditional stats improve and suddenly he is a good flip candidate. The trade was fine, but lets not talk about him being a good flip candidate. A good flip candidate gets you something interesting back. This guy will get you maybe, if all goes well, a 26 year old in A ball who throws 100 and walks about 1 an inning. How do you figure ANY of that? His peripherals in 2016 suggest he had bad homerun luck, but everything else was fine. There might be something else going on that's important, but if so, it certainly can't be gleaned from his peripherals. What are you referring to? And if he puts together a strong first half, given his affordable salary and team option, he'll absolutely bring back a significant return.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 10:36 AM) Arguing over if he had a good or bad season is pretty irrelevant . Sox got 2 RP's they either flip (both of them) or keep (Avilan) for a song and got cash. There's nothing to dislike about this deal. 2 major league bullpen arms who not only solidify our bullpen needs and since relievers are a hot commodity at the deadline Sox put themselves in a position to add more prospects. And what did they give up ? A guy who was just exposed to the Rule 5 draft and didn't get picked by any team. 2 major leaguers who could be on the hot list at the deadline and replace parts traded at the deadline last year for a guy the Sox basically had no use for. This might be the best trade Hahn ever made that on the surface appears to be a nothing trade. Exactly. Soria can both (1) have had a bad season in terms of results and (2) have shown a lot of reasons to believe he'll have a decent season going forward. The latter is enough reason to to be interested in getting him, and the former is why the opportunity presented itself.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 10:10 AM) Greg, stop. I don't need to ask Caulfield or any dumbass Kansas City goobers s***. You are acting like a clown. I know, I should be used to it by now but I'm trying to catch up on an informative thread and you've hijacked it with nonsense. Let's pump the brakes here, man.

Like all rebuilders after year one, it's going to be a high-variance team. It's possible that players develop quicker than they should. But the expectation should be high draft pick. Success is possible but would be a pleasant surprise. Root for players this year.

QUOTE (KnightsOnMintSt @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 06:31 PM) This is how I look at a potential Yelich trade: Moncada, Giolito, Lopez, Jimenez, Robert, Hansen, and Kopech are all off limits. But after that, I think I would be willing to do about any 3 players, plus a lower level prospect. So if they would accept something like: Rutherford, Cease, Dunning and Hickman, I would do that for sure. They definitely would NOT accept that offer.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 10:39 PM) He's so bad a city is rejoicing he's gone. I'll stop now but you guys have to calm down about Soria. He's really bad. Ask Caulfield. He has the numbers. If Coop can save him then yes you could 'maybe' flip him. But if Coop can't, I'm surprised you guys who don't seem to want to spend Jerry's money are OK with 9 million going to this guy per season. Here's how bad he is: "Over the last two seasons, Soria had 14 blown saves and a 3.89 ERA. He became a lightning rod for the frustrations of Royals fans, who had become accustomed to unprecedented success from a bullpen combination of Kelvin Herrera, Wade Davis and Greg Holland." Here's why it's a good pickup: despite the blown saves and high ERA, Soria posted excellent peripherals last year, which means there is reason to believe that he'll have a bounceback season and end up a trade-able piece. Given we have nothing in our bullpen and aren't trying to win anyway, it seems like a good risk to take. Might not work out, but there's very little downside.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 03:47 PM) On a per game basis, his WAR the last 3 seasons is on par with Jose Abreu. He's also a year and a half younger. If Abreu signed an extension, not many people would be complaining. I don't know why they would complain about a LH 3b/!b guy with power. I wouldn't give him $20 million a year. Jose Abreu means much more to the franchise than does a free agent from a hated rival. Moreover, much of what has kept Moustakas on par with Abreu is his defense, which declined sharply last season probably due to an injury that could possibly cause long-term effects. Might not, but it's a significant risk factor. It doesn't look like he'll get $20mm, but he'll almost certainly get $15mm. The point is there is a lot of downside with a guy like this, and the while the cost may not be astronomical, it's still certainly significant. It's a risk you don't need to take because what he brings to the table (corner power with passable defense that might be good or bad going forward) isn't difficult to find at market rates closer to the time you need it. Again I'm not arguing with your idea that sometimes you have to buy a guy early because that's when he's available, I just don't think Moustakas is that guy. Your Edwin Jackson example is perfectly apt, but it should be a cautionary tale, not an argument in favor. It's easy to see and defend Theo's strategy with Jackson, but that's what it looks like when you pick the wrong guy.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 03:17 PM) How pissed will Soxtalk be if Machado, Harper, and Donaldson all sign with teams not named the White Sox and the White Sox need some offense? Homers are what wins now. This guy could be a 40 HR guy at GRF. I understand it may be a year too soon, but like trades, a year too soon is usually better than a year too late. If the price is right, I don't see how it's a bad idea, unless they are on 2020 as the target year. Then I could see, no way. Eventually, the White Sox are going to have to add something other than prospects. Wellington Castillo is hardly aligned perfectly for the rebuild. Moustakas would be aligned a bit better than him, and he's an asset that doesn't cost you your better prospects, just basically JR's money. Theo went after FA pitching early. Edwin Jackson didn't work out. He wanted a couple of others he was lucky he didn't get. Prices aren't going to come down next year or the year after. If the deal is right, you make it. If Moustakas signs for $5m per year, then the Castillo comparison becomes fair. Obviously, if the price gets too low, there becomes a point where it definitely makes sense. But we need to remember that even though it feels like we have a s***-ton of payroll space available now, those $10-15m deals can become really problematic with a franchise like ours that isn't willing to push the payroll up to the CBT like other large markets. I couldn't care less about how rich JR is now or in the future, but the reality is he's only going to spend so much, and the story of the White Sox during this recent playoff drought can pretty much be summed up as "blowing payroll on 2 WAR players whose names carry more weight than their actual production." For team that has been 10 million bucks short on filling their holes several times, there's a lot of risk signing an average player two years before you need him.

I'm interested. LMK if you still have space, thanks.

I don't think the draft pick is the issue as much as the timeline. He profiles as a guy who will likely be an average player by the time we need him -- and while average players are important, you can sign them when the time is right without absorbing the risk of early decline and the opportunity cost of a better option developing (Burger? Machado?) that you'd incur by getting them early. It's not a bad idea, I just don't think Moustakas has enough upside to be the right guy.

If you remember before KD originally left, he was frequently talking about trying to find time to do a complete tool grade database for every player in the MLB and MiLB, but it was just impossible to even begin with all the list-related work that needed done. Now, he's alluded to taking on "larger scale projects he's been excited about," so I bet he's going to be primarily focused on stuff like that, secondarily on supporting EL and doing other content. Which makes sense.