Just now, Jack Parkman said:

They're called outliers. Ever heard of them? 

Outliers go in both directions. Also it’s not like there’s only a couple really bad hitters significantly dragging down the averages. The true outliers aren’t affecting the average as much as you think.

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

They're called outliers. Ever heard of them? 

Come on, no. Outliers would be trout, outliers would be adam dunn, the bottom 10 players at any given point are not outliers.

I'm sympathetic to idea that Tim may be fine but has not proven he is a necessary piece to the longterm core. There is a really dynamic set of SS out there that you would upgrade over Timmy. Unfortunately that's not the argument you are making, your argument is a player who is average offensively with plus skills outside "sucks" because everyone outside the top 3rd "sucks".

Good luck finding a team with players in the top 3rd at every position.

9 minutes ago, bmags said:

Come on, no. Outliers would be trout, outliers would be adam dunn, the bottom 10 players at any given point are not outliers.

I'm sympathetic to idea that Tim may be fine but has not proven he is a necessary piece to the longterm core. There is a really dynamic set of SS out there that you would upgrade over Timmy. Unfortunately that's not the argument you are making, your argument is a player who is average offensively with plus skills outside "sucks" because everyone outside the top 3rd "sucks".

Good luck finding a team with players in the top 3rd at every position.

The Boston Red Sox? They're damn close

Betts

Bogaerts

Benintendi 

Sale

JD Martinez

Nunez is probably in that category at 2B

Kimbrel

I'd bet Moreland is close because of bad 1Bs all across baseball

 

 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

If our SS is a 20/20 player for the next 5+ years I am totally fine with that. Some people might forget he just started playing baseball full time around his Junior year of high school. His BBs, HRs, and SBs all increased or will increase this year if he plays the last month. I also think he will only get better especially when the players around him get better as well. I love high OBP players as much as the next guy but it isn't like he isn't contributing other ways. He will be a really good 7-9 hitter when this team is good and fighting for the playoffs.

13 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

whoa Ptatc goes in hard

Nobody has seen Billy Madison?

I really shouldn't have said that but the quote from the movie came into my mind while reading this thread.

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They're called outliers. Ever heard of them?  There is the average, which is simple math. Then you take the ridiculous outliers and throw them out. Only then do you have an accurate representation. I wish someone would go through the last 5 years of data and pick out players that have had a 4+year career in the Majors and go look at their stats. I'd imagine you'd find that my baseline for that is pretty close to average. 

The outliers are the 1-2 standard deviations from the bottom AND top of the bell curve. If you are discounting outliers lindor and Ramirez along with a few others mostly need to be excluded as well.

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The Boston Red Sox? 

EEEHHHH nice try.

Rafael Devers SUCKS! He only has a .719 OPS, good for *gulp* 16th among qualified 3b!

Sandy Leon? SUCKS! No where close.

Eduardo Nunez? SUCKS! 20th best second baseman! that's worse than Tim Anderson (perhaps he is an outlier)

Jackie Bradley Jr? SUCKS! 17th best Cfer.

Mitch Moreland doesn't qualify with ABs, but he SUCKS! not in top 3rd, just outside.

WIth all those players outside the top third, that must be a trash offense.

1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Weird thing to post about a player during said player’s good stretch of baseball

Reminds me of the Dunning/Lopez and Hendricks stuff he said all over again.

43 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

That is depressed by the insane number of really bad teams. Much more than most seasons in MLB history. You're going to have to lose 90-92 games to pick top 10 this year.

This is immaterial.  You said average, and those are quite literally the average of MLB and the AL.  Again, this premise is wrong.  You keep making definitive statements as if they are fact, but the numbers are just not there for them.  Your opinions are not supported by the actual facts here.

My perspective is that, as long as the top two thirds of the lineup is productive, a team can well afford to have below average offensive players, in the bottom third of the order, as long as they provide plus defense, particularly at the key positions of SS, CF and catcher. Anderson's offense is more than acceptable at SS, given his improving defensive prowess. Moreover, while his OBP is disappointing, the power and speed, which he provides are big positives.

I suspect that Anderson's role as the team's SS will not represent a hole, which the organization needs to fill. He seems to be getting better and it won't take much for him to become one of the better all around short stops, in the League. He could very well become a 25 home run and 25+ steal player, with well above average defense. I'm sure that most teams would take that, in a heart beat. And that is not his ceiling. The affordable contract, also helps.

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Lillian

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is immaterial.  You said average, and those are quite literally the average of MLB and the AL.  Again, this premise is wrong.  You keep making definitive statements as if they are fact, but the numbers are just not there for them.  Your opinions are not supported by the actual facts here.

Touche. I can't argue with that. 

You win. I'm not afraid to admit that I am wrong. Isn't this what a sports message board is about anyway? 

I'd still like to see what the average BA/OBP/OPS of a player who has had a 5+ year career in the last 10 seasons is. I think it is closer to my number than the average. 

1 minute ago, Lillian said:

My perspective is that, as long as the top two thirds of the lineup is productive, a team can well afford to have below average offensive players, in the bottom third of the order, as long as they provide plus defense, particularly at the key positions of SS, CF and catcher. Anderson's offense is more than acceptable at SS, given his improving defensive prowess. Moreover, while his OBP is disappointing, the power and speed, which he provides are big positives.

+1 Nice post. 

 

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, they all suck because they're not Lindor and Jose Ramirez. Two examples of middle infielders who can both field their position and hit. I realize that players like Lindor and Jose Ramirez don't exactly grow on trees, but that doesn't mean you don't stop looking. If you think that your boss isn't looking for someone who could do your job better and cheaper than you, then you're lying to yourself. 

 

51 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They're called outliers. Ever heard of them?  There is the average, which is simple math. Then you take the ridiculous outliers and throw them out. Only then do you have an accurate representation. I wish someone would go through the last 5 years of data and pick out players that have had a 4+year career in the Majors and go look at their stats. I'd imagine you'd find that my baseline for that is pretty close to average. 

These two posts need to be quoted together.  If you are really wanting to do actual statistical analysis, you would understand that the bell curve of statistics lies in the middle, and not on the wings.  This does NOT apply only to the low end, but the high end as well.  A player like Fransisco Lindor is much of an outlier on the top end, as Adam Engel is on the bottom end.  Their numbers will apply just as much skew to to average, as they are each one person and equally weighted in averaging.

You used the term "lying to yourself" here, and due to the fact that your statements of how we are to view this topic have been repeatedly and quite clearly been proven wrong on a perpetual basis, I think the problem is your internal bias system is telling you that Tim Anderson isn't a good player, and you are lying to yourself trying to make it fact, when in fact cumulative and complete statistics destroy your hypothesis.  I mean in points in this discussion it is your own posts which are providing the best materials to prove your own points wrong.

16 minutes ago, SoxAce said:

Reminds me of the Dunning/Lopez and Hendricks stuff he said all over again.

I just have an irrational hate for Hendricks because he plays for the Cubs and I WANT him to fail because he plays for that team. I don't like him. 

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

 

These two posts need to be quoted together.  If you are really wanting to do actual statistical analysis, you would understand that the bell curve of statistics lies in the middle, and not on the wings.  This does NOT apply only to the low end, but the high end as well.  A player like Fransisco Lindor is much of an outlier on the top end, as Adam Engel is on the bottom end.  Their numbers will apply just as much skew to to average, as they are each one person and equally weighted in averaging.

You used the term "lying to yourself" here, and due to the fact that your statements of how we are to view this topic have been repeatedly and quite clearly been proven wrong on a perpetual basis, I think the problem is your internal bias system is telling you that Tim Anderson isn't a good player, and you are lying to yourself trying to make it fact, when in fact cumulative and complete supports your hypothesis.  I mean in points in this discussion it is your own posts which are providing the best materials to prove your own points wrong.

You're right. I look at this, I went down the rabbit hole of trying to prove Anderson sucks and I couldn't pull it off. Hey, that is what the Scientific Method is for, right? I came up with a hypothesis, tested it and it didn't pass. My internal biases did say "I think Anderson sucks." I want to believe he sucks but he doesn't. He's average and that is fine. Not going to argue this anymore. I'm done. I generally don't like players that don't get on base, but if there is proof of value otherwise I'm not going to argue. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You're right. I look at this, I went down the rabbit hole of trying to prove Anderson sucks and I couldn't pull it off. Hey, that is what the Scientific Method is for, right? I came up with a hypothesis, tested it and it didn't pass. My internal biases did say "I think Anderson sucks." I want to believe he sucks but he doesn't. He's average and that is fine. Not going to argue this anymore. I lost. 

I read a lot of sports message boards and this is the first  time I have ever really seen this. When people are open to listening to valid arguments it makes everything better. I wish more people could admit they are wrong when proven so rather than digging in on being wrong.

30 minutes ago, Tony said:

At least we’re getting somewhere, you confirming your arguments aren’t based on any sort of logical premise, and they are in fact, irrational. Understanding you have a +problem is the first step. 

Not all of them are based on logic, some of that is internal biases. Some of them are based on logic. Giolito was based on logic. I saw his mechanical issues and thought he could be fixed. Anderson was more based on I don't like players who don't get on base. I wanted to prove he sucked otherwise, but I couldn't.

Hendricks, I'm willing to admit is that I don't like his style and he plays for the team on the north side of town. When it comes to pitching, I've always been drawn to the Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez flamethrowing types. I like pure dominance, making hitters look silly. Buehrle was an exception because he could pull that off occasionally without the huge heater. Hendricks is kind of breaking modern baseball because most people think it is all velocity all the time. I actually think this works in his favor, because he's pitching well below hitting speed as a RHP hitters are probably too quick on his stuff because they're used to 93+ all of the time and he's there at 88-89. He's actually a really interesting case study if you think about it. Historically, only LHP could get away with soft tossing. 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

10 minutes ago, yesterday333 said:

I read a lot of sports message boards and this is the first  time I have ever really seen this. When people are open to listening to valid arguments it makes everything better. I wish more people could admit they are wrong when proven so rather than digging in on being wrong.

It's a lot easier to be convinced that you're wrong when the evidence supports that you're wrong. It is easier for things like sports where you have most of the information available to you than something like politics where everything is based on circumstantial evidence, at best. There was overwhelming evidence that Anderson, in fact, is average. People have to be ok with being wrong. I'm fine with it. In life, they say "You can either be happy or right. Pick one." 

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Not all of them are based on logic, some of that is internal biases. Some of them are based on logic. Giolito was based on Logic. I saw his mechanical issues and thought he could be fixed. Anderson was more based on I don't like players who don't get on base. I wanted to prove he sucked otherwise, but I couldn't.

Hendricks, I'm willing to admit is that I don't like his style and he plays for the team on the north side of town. When it comes to pitching, I've always been drawn to the Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez flamethrowing types. I like pure dominance, making hitters look silly. Buehrle was an exception because he could pull that off occasionally without the huge heater. Hendricks is kind of breaking modern baseball because most people think it is all velocity all the time. I actually think this works in his favor, because he's pitching well below hitting speed as a RHP hitters are probably too quick on his stuff because they're used to 93+ all of the time and he's there at 88-89. He's actually a really interesting case study if you think about it. Historically, only LHP could get away with soft tossing. 

Most of if the discussions start with internal biases. Then we look for information to support or refute that bias. Like you said scientific method. All of the research I've done over the years starts with an internal bias in one way or another. This is the way we learn.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Most of if the discussions start with internal biases. Then we look for information to support or refute that bias. Like you said scientific method. All of the research I've done over the years starts with an internal bias in one way or another. This is the way we learn.

Yup. I had my own ideas of what numbers I thought players who had a 4+ year career put up based on years of watching baseball, and that is what I was basing suck/doesn't suck on. I don't have the time to go through all of the data and find out whether or not it is accurate. If I did, I would, but I don't. 

Anderson can be the Uribe of the next good Sox team.  Very good defender at SS, good power at SS, no OBP to speak of and contact issues at times, but you put it all together and you got a solid regular at a position where solid regulars are hard to find.

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by chitownsportsfan

Just now, chitownsportsfan said:

Anderson can be the Uribe of the next good Sox team.  Very good defender at SS, good power at SS, no OBP to speak of and contact issues at times, but you put it all together and you got a solid regular at a position where solid regulars are hard to find.

Uribe was a much better defender than Anderson. Not to say Anderson can't get there eventually, but that is what made Uribe acceptable. 

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Yup. I had my own ideas of what numbers I thought players who had a 4+ year career put up based on years of watching baseball, and that is what I was basing suck/doesn't suck on. I don't have the time to go through all of the data and find out whether or not it is accurate. If I did, I would, but I don't. 

Agreed. We all have favorites and dislikes.  Most of it is just opinion and that's the fun of sports. Even if it can be proven wrong, we will still feel that way and still treat it that way. Afterall it is just a game.

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Agreed. We all have favorites and dislikes.  Most of it is just opinion and that's the fun of sports. Even if it can be proven wrong, we will still feel that way and still treat it that way. Afterall it is just a game.

My opinion is that even though Anderson is average, he's not a player that I'd keep around if I was Hahn. I just don't like players that don't get on base. However, I was shocked that the MLB average for OBP was around .320. That seems kind of low to me. I would have thought it would have been closer to .330. I'd imagine the guys who are and will become MLB regulars would have their OBP at .330+

Edited August 30, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

59 minutes ago, SoxAce said:

Reminds me of the Dunning/Lopez and Hendricks stuff he said all over again.

He also thought Giolito sucked and then 3 weeks later he thought he was good and now he's all "I told you he was good!"