TheFutureIsNear

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 03:21 PM) Uh, Jamie Moyer is a pretty good example of how ACCURATE FIP can be. At the end of his 25 year career, his FIP was 4.47 and his ERA 4.25. That is pretty damn close. He pitched 4074 innings and gave up 1926 earned runs. FIP says he should have given up 2026 runs. 1926/2026 is roughly 95%. So FIP essentially predicted his ERA within 5%. That is pretty good. 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.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) Decades of data tell you that the vast majority pitchers do not have that much control over it. What data is that? You're suggesting that a pitcher who excels in getting outs on balls in play by using deception of movement and varying speeds is simply "lucky" and therefore not as valuable as a pitcher who strikes out a ton of guys. In reality that's not even close to the truth. Just look at how wildly inconsistent FIP is for sinkerball pitchers and guys like Jamie Moyer who don't strike a lot of guys out. In fact now that I'm reading it seems like your idea of thinking is pretty outdated and new formulas are suggesting pitchers have plenty of control of how hard and where a ball is hit. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=15562 http://sabr.org/research/many-flavors-dips...ry-and-overview

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) 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. 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?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 07:08 PM) Here's a beauty of a stat. In his career, Cole Hamels has never put up a single season that produced as much fWAR as Quintana did last year. Quintana put up 5.3 fWAR, Cole Hamels's best season is 4.6 fWAR. At age 25, Jose Quintana outpitched any season in Cole Hamels's career. People like you are why I hate that sabermetrics have become so household. You just regurgitate some number you vaguely understand and it's concrete fact in your mind. Please explain to me, in your own words, how Q was better than Hamels last year.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 12:00 PM) Not sure how Hamels and his huge contract made it at 39. Especially when you consider Quintana was better last year. Is Hamels' contract really huge in relative terms? 4 years 90 million is going to look dirt cheap to trade for after what Lester and Scherzer get as free agents. Hamels is a top 10 pitcher in baseball....Q is very good, but he's not on Hamels' level

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 12:51 AM) But all of that is baked right into wRC+, so you can see that he is still really good after you account for the Coors effect. Since he broke out in 2009 (excepting his injury-driven lemon last year), his has fluctuated between 114 - 147. He's a star level bat even with the park and league adjustment. The question is, of course, is his health. Will he ever be healthy again? The high AAV on a short term deal is not at all outrageous if you think you're getting even a 125 wRC+ OF that plays good defense. No, there is something seriously wrong with the wrc+ #'s for coors...or something just really weird in general is going on. Either way wrc+ isn't a good stat to use for Rockies players. Really interesting read about it below http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/...or-the-rockies/

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 07:31 PM) But like I asked earlier, why is Bruce a better option? Because he is a little bit cheaper? His splits show from year to year he will choose to be a bum either home or away, and be merely ok on the the opposite. I just don't see why you think Bruce is such a better option, unless you think the difference in pay is that big of a deal. I'm not a huge fan of Bruce or anything....I just think he's intriguing enough to take a risk on for what could be at most 2 years and 26M....especially if Leake is attached. Trust me, he's no where near my ideal LF in a perfect world.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 06:53 PM) I don't think there's any underestimation going on. I think the idea is that people are overestimating how much these splits matter. No one is saying that Carlos Gonzalez is going to be a .950 OPS bat (or whatever) if he were to stop playing his home games at Coors, but that he'd still be a pretty damn good hitter. Corey Dickerson is probably not a .930 OPS guy or a 140 wRC+ guy away from Coors, but it doesn't mean he's suddenly a bum. First, I don't know how Dickerson for brought up. Why would Colorado trade a 25 year old that will be cheap for the next 4 years? It would take minimum 2 top prospects to get him. And as for Cargo....the only thing I can judge him on is the 1,833 PA's he's had away from Coors. And those 1,833 PA's say that he's pretty much been a bum. Maybe he'd be better, maybe he wouldn't. Neither of us actually know. But one thing I can assure you of is that it would be really really stupid to spend $53M + prospects to find out.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 05:25 PM) They are bigger than normal, but the issue is substantially smaller than people paint it because of the default home/away effect. Also, the Cell is also a bandbox. I don't think you (and everybody else in this thread) are quite grasping how much Coors affects hitters. And I'm not taking the ball traveling and HR's. Look at the park factors from this year http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor those #'s are insane. Every single year Coors field is #1 in park factor and more specificly the hit factor. And then there's the fact that the Rockies WRC+ as a team is 17 points lower on the road than at home since the year 2002. Is that a big enough sample size for you? The next biggest disparity in the league is Arizona (#2 on that park factor list) at -9. And I could keep going about the foul territory and how Coors has the least amount of foul ball outs too. So yeah, if you believe it's merely a coincidence that Cargo's splits are so drastic then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you as well.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Coors or not, Cargo has put up some monster seasons that Bruce has yet to come anywhere close to. Cargo 2012 Home- .368/.437/.609 Away- .234-.301/.405 Cargo 2011 Home- .331/.402/.597 Away- .252/.317/.440 Saying "Coors or not" doesn't work...not even close.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) Hell no to Cargo, but hell yea to Bruce? I would much rather gamble on Cargos health then go with Bruces "meh" .258/.314/.437 That's why it should be a hell no to Cargo. We'd be trading and paying a big price for a guy who can't hit away from Coors. And then you add in the injuries as well...no thanks, just not worth it.

Hell no to Cargo...and anybody on the Rockies really. I don't see any good fits for us unless it involves us getting Tulo...which isn't happening. Reds make a lot more sense to me though. Bruce and Leake for.....? I have no idea but those 2 certainly make a lot of sense for both sides. Leake is a FA, but could possibly be resigned for a reasonable price

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 08:59 PM) Maybe he will be included if we trade for Shark. I don't know enough to predict trades but as long as it's nothing to serious I'd be ok with it. But previously stated I like the player (Shark) not the price it'll cost. I really don't think the Shark deal is happening. I don't think we are going to commit close to $100 million to him and a 1 year rental makes no sense at all. Reddick, on the other hand, is a fairly young LH OF who will be reasonably priced for 2 years and shouldn't cost too much to acquire either. If he can stay healthy he'd hit 30 hrs while playing very good D. That's 4 WAR minimum

I'd love to se us get Reddick from the A's. Beane pretty much has no choice but to move a LH OF'er and Reddick recently questioned the Donaldson trade publicly so I can see something happening soon. I wonder if Semien + a pitching prospect not named Rodon, Adams, Montas or Danish would get it done?

I think this trade comes down to what's better....Shark and Lowrie/Cabrera/Drew or Alexei and Masterson/Hammel/McCarthy. The 2nd option is considerably more expensive but would be controlled for longer. I really don't think Beane is looking for prospects only in Shark trade.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 10:26 PM) That Donaldson move is a head-scratcher. From what I'm reading Barreto is a very nice prospect....only 18 and hit very well in low A already. Donaldson is super 2 eligible and will start to get expensive after this year so I can kinda see why they would look to move him. Though his contract is still very reasonable so I probably would have let him play out another year to see if he can come closer to his 2013 #'s to maximize his value.

Welp Donaldson gone for Brett Lawrie and others.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) I think you guys are both wrong. - Having a -0.7 UZR is the same thing as having a zero UZR, which means average, which MIGHT be your definition of "mediocre," but is really just that it doesn't hurt you or help you. - The public, for some reason, tends to act as if defense is a remarkably consistent skill where guys are constantly playing at their exact true talents, whereas everyone accepts that offense is streaky. There is no evidence, however, to suggest this is the case. - The public assumes that UZR/DRS are inaccurate without multi-year samples, when the truth is that they are just not PREDICTIVE without multi-year samples, which is very different. That Alexei had a "mediocre" season defensively does not make him a true-talent "mediocre" defender, just as the fact that he was previously elite does not mean that he is currently elite. Probably his age has slowed him a bit, but probably it did not turn him from high-end to below average in the span of one season. He is most likely a tick above average and just didn't have a great season. Both the eyeball test AND the sabermetrics point to this conclusion. Of course it's his age. Just 3 or 4 years ago Alexei was a borderline elite SS....me or anyone else shouldn't be denying that. But as all athletes who get into their 30's he's declining. His RZR (revised zone rating) is pretty damming of this. He went from exceptional in 2012 (.837) to pretty poor (.730) this past year. Maybe it was an anomaly, but betting on a soon to be 34 year old SS to turn his D around is a pretty poor bet in my opinion.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) then why is there alot of emphasis placed on the GG award? By who? It's common knowledge the award is a joke. Derek Jeter won 5 at the same position.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) you were laughing at anyone who said that he was up for the award. the proof is there. if you have a problem with it, take up with the committee for that award. No, as I already said I was laughing at anyone who thinks being a finalist for the GG means anything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) Or there are flaws in the statistics. So they were flawed 3 or 4 years when they were in Alexei's favor too right? Or just when you choose to disagree with them?

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 01:04 PM) He was a finalist for an Gold Glove just a few weeks ago... It's not a joke. I know that. I'm laughing at the actual award and being nominated for it meaning anything what so ever. The fielding bible gave Alexei a -10 in +/- runs saved on the year. His UZR was -.7. His zone rating was in the low .700's....seriously, this isn't debatable. He's AT BEST a mediocre fielder.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) How is he a mediocre fielder? He was nominated for a gold glove, I think he's above average to say the least. And he just won a Silver Slugger award at SS in the AL. He doesn't have a high OPS because he doesn't walk a bunch, but he hits for a high average and can still steal bases. I think your value of Alexei is incredibly pessimistic. Lol nominated for a good glove. Good joke man, I laughed pretty hard. You might want to check these crazy things called stats. They don't lie and they don't paint a very nice picture for Alexei's D.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 02:58 AM) It's much easier to replace a LF spot than a SS spot. SS is the most important position on the field and the hardest to replace and find good talent for. LF is one of the easiest positions to replace. It's like trading your QB to acquire a good FB. When that SS is old, a mediocre fielder, and not a + bat that analogy doesn't even come close to working. This board's value of Alexei is incredibly overblown. If (even though it probably won't happen) they trade Alexei this board is going to erupt with disappointment with the return.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) I think the point is we continue to play hardball and see if the Dodgers ultimately end up biting. Hahn can continue to be out in the media talking through our plans to make big moves, etc. The reality is trading Alexei for Pederson or Seager would be a good deal for the Sox and given the Dodgers situation, you could justify the move on their end. If we move Alexei, it should be for a potential difference maker. Pederson is ready to play in the majors. Is he ready to be a star in year one, no, but you can't have that expectation out of any rookie. Nope, I'd be absolutely infuriated if I was a Dodgers fan. Freidman isn't going to make that move either....just not going to happen.