TheFutureIsNear

Seems like a guy they brought in to compete with Phegley/Nieto for the backup spot with Smith likely gone. Wouldn't surprise me to see Brantley open up the year as the back up though. Nieto did the best he could last year, but it was pretty clear he didn't belong in the majors so he'll likely be Charlotte's catcher next year. No clue how Brantley's D compares to Phegley, but I imagine whoever is the better of the 2 will win the job.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) Why on earth would anyone want Phil Coke in their bullpen? That's the equivalent of wanting Belisario back. Ok bad example. I knew he was a LH free agent and thought he had a pretty good year last year for some reason. Obviously wrong on that.....either way I still think 2 quality arms > 1 expensive closer.

We could probably sign both Gregerson and Phil Coke for less than Robertson over 4 years and not have to give up the draft pick either. This team has too many holes to fill to be spending top dollar on a closer.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 10:19 PM) Based off those 3 opinions, more like an $8M posting fee and a 3 yrs/$12M deal, which I feel is absolutely worth risking on the best player in Korea. That's basically the cost of a 7th inning reliever. That does sound better....but would still depend on whether JR would count that $8M(I assume it has to be paid upfront) against what he's willing to spend on the team in 2015. Not sure if I'd be willing to risk $12M of whatever we have to spend on such a risk.

So $5M posting fee and 3 years $15M seems to be about the consensus? I'd have to be pretty convinced he could definitely start at either 3B or 2B for that. Realistically he'd probably be a UTL infielder and the right handed platoon at 3B. I think there are better uses of $20M for this club ultimately.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 08:30 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 06:52 PM) 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. You saying that things are fact doesn't make it so....hate to break this news to you.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 05:55 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) 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. Posts too long?This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. Did you even bother to read the post I responded to?

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 08:52 AM) There is actual data that says it's not BS. It's not like people just make this stuff up out of thin air. 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.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:50 PM) No it's not. Here I was using some hyperbole but in so many words that's what this means "the amount of balls that fall in for hits against pitchers do not correlate well across seasons". I call BS on that. A pitcher who can consistently hit his spots and keep hitters off balance with varying speeds will have significantly more success on balls in play being outs. Will there be exceptions every once in a while where a guy inside outs a blooper or something? Of course, but there have been plenty of guys who made successful careers out of pitching to contact and not striking a lot of guys out.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 05:23 PM) 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. Jose Quintana 200.1 IP 8.00 K/9 2.34 BB/9 3.42 K/BB 3.32 ERA .254 BA Against 1.24 WHIP 6.3 IP/Start 1.35 Ground ball/Fly ball Cole Hamels 204.2 IP 8.7 K/9 3.36 K/BB 2.46 ERA .232 BA against 1.15 WHIP 6.8 IP/Start .93 Ground ball/Fly ball Paints a much broader picture in my eyes and Hamels was better. Not by a lot, but he was better.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 05:31 PM) 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. Jamie Moyer had 10 seasons with an ERA under 4, every single one of them his FIP was over his ERA. The 5 I chose to highlight were the most egregious examples. My point being that pitchers who pitch to contact and don't strike a lot of guys out are always going to have a high FIP and fWAR regardless And to the bolded....Or maybe it just points out that having pinpoint control as a pitcher and avoiding mistakes is a very difficult skill to master and maintain? There's a reason only a small percentage of guys can do it year in and year out. FIP suggests that any batter can hit any pitch hard at any time. Just not true. You're telling me there's no skill in getting a guy to roll over a 2-2 change-up for an easy out to the SS? Or to get someone to beat a low and away 2 seamer to the second baseman? If I'm getting this straight you do indeed acknowledge that this is a factor in a pitcher's success, but yet choose to use a stat that says it doesn't exist? That may work for you my friend, but not me. If it doesn't pass my common sense test I'm not going to use the stat, and common sense tells me that a pitcher can make certain pitches in certain spots to keep a hitter from hitting the ball hard. It's just that some are better at it than others and some can do it more consistently

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) It's not necessarily dumb luck. Some of it can be, some of it can be randomness, and some of it can be a pitcher pitching well and above his peripherals. Mark Buehrle's career ERA is 3.81 and his FIP is 4.10. He has obviously pitched better than his peripherals. Javier Vazquez's career ERA was 4.22 and his FIP was 3.91. That's the other extreme. You will see that, and these will show bias for power pitchers and against finesse pitchers, but it will never be that far off as indicated by those two extreme examples where the two numbers were stil within three tenths either way. Compare Jon Garland's year in 2005 to the rest of his career. Do you believe he got lucky? There's no doubt he pitched well, but considering how well he pitched and how he never got that close again, I'd say he got lucky to some extent. It doesn't mean he was a bad pitcher or that he didn't have a great year. 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.

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.