2016-2017 Off-Season Thread

Horsehide Harry said:
See above.
Click to expand...

Yes. See above indeed. Looking above I see some posts about the need for teams to learn from the failure of the White Sox. My point (perhaps made in a slightly smug way) has to do with the difficulty of identifying "bad chemistry" or "bad mix" before it kills your team. It seems to me it is easy ex post to say such and such a team had chemistry issues. "Bad mix" becomes the explanation for all things that happened that could not be explained by other variables. The question I am interested in raising is whether in analyzing the failures of teams like the White Sox it is possible to identify ex ante which teams are learning something from those failures and which teams are not.

I hope the above clarifies things and makes clear how my post fitted in with the conversation that was happening.

If I really wanted to be condescending I would say something to the effect that I was looking forward to your analysis of which teams had a "bad mix" in 2017 after the end of the season. But I resisted that temptation. Until now.

In a similar vein, anyone have a list of players they expect to be clutch this upcoming season?
 
nsacpi said:
Yes. See above indeed. Looking above I see some posts about the need for teams to learn from the failure of the White Sox. My point (perhaps made in a slightly smug way) has to do with the difficulty of identifying "bad chemistry" or "bad mix" before it kills your team. It seems to me it is easy ex post to say such and such a team had chemistry issues. "Bad mix" becomes the explanation for all things that happened that could not be explained by other variables. The question I am interested in raising is whether in analyzing the failures of teams like the White Sox it is possible to identify ex ante which teams are learning something from those failures and which teams are not.

I hope the above clarifies things and makes clear how my post fitted in with the conversation that was happening.

If I really wanted to be condescending I would say something to the effect that I was looking forward to your analysis of which teams had a "bad mix" in 2017 after the end of the season. But I resisted that temptation. Until now.

In a similar vein, anyone have a list of players they expect to be clutch this upcoming season?
Click to expand...

Freeman and Swanson. (Kemp from time to time, but probably not as clutch as the first two.)
 
clvclv said:
Freeman and Swanson. (Kemp from time to time, but probably not as clutch as the first two.)
Click to expand...

Fredito has historically hit well with RISP. Last season was a bit of an exception. I predict Ender will be our most clutch player (which I define by the difference in BA with RISP and overall BA). He will be so clutch that there will be a clamor to move him out of leadoff to a spot where he can drive in more runs. At some point Snitker will succumb to the clamor. At which point Ender will stop being clutch. And a new group of posters will emerge saying the pressures of hitting lower in the lineup were too much for Ender.
 
nsacpi said:
Fredito has historically hit well with RISP. Last season was a bit of an exception. I predict Ender will be our most clutch player (which I define by the difference in BA with RISP and overall BA). He will be so clutch that there will be a clamor to move him out of leadoff to a spot where he can drive in more runs. At some point Snitker will succumb to the clamor. At which point Ender will stop being clutch. And a new group of posters will emerge saying the pressures of hitting lower in the lineup were too much for Ender.
Click to expand...

I expect Tuffy to be extra clutch.
 
nsacpi said:
Fredito has historically hit well with RISP. Last season was a bit of an exception. I predict Ender will be our most clutch player (which I define by the difference in BA with RISP and overall BA). He will be so clutch that there will be a clamor to move him out of leadoff to a spot where he can drive in more runs. At some point Snitker will succumb to the clamor. At which point Ender will stop being clutch. And a new group of posters will emerge saying the pressures of hitting lower in the lineup were too much for Ender.
Click to expand...

JMO, but I can't personally see any point that Ender's moved from the leadoff spot until/unless he's being replaced there with Albies. Also just a personal (non-numbers based) opinion, but I'd prefer Albies as the guy hitting lower in the order even then since I'd rather have the flexibility of having the switch-hitter lower in the order.
 
nsacpi said:
Yes. See above indeed. Looking above I see some posts about the need for teams to learn from the failure of the White Sox. My point (perhaps made in a slightly smug way) has to do with the difficulty of identifying "bad chemistry" or "bad mix" before it kills your team. It seems to me it is easy ex post to say such and such a team had chemistry issues. "Bad mix" becomes the explanation for all things that happened that could not be explained by other variables. The question I am interested in raising is whether in analyzing the failures of teams like the White Sox it is possible to identify ex ante which teams are learning something from those failures and which teams are not.

I hope the above clarifies things and makes clear how my post fitted in with the conversation that was happening.

If I really wanted to be condescending I would say something to the effect that I was looking forward to your analysis of which teams had a "bad mix" in 2017 after the end of the season. But I resisted that temptation. Until now.

In a similar vein, anyone have a list of players they expect to be clutch this upcoming season?
Click to expand...

That will depend entirely on who is putting in the work now, getting that one extra rep, who's first in the gym in the morning, who's playing for a contract, and who really "wants it" this year.

Since Freddie is a new dad and all we see on him are his wife's tweets of him with his kid asleep on his chest, I think we can safely assume some regression to the clutchness mean from Freddie.

Dansby was born clutch. I think we might not appreciate how clutch he is if he starts his career being clutch and retains a high level of clutchness throughout.

Also, I think we can expect Adonis to report in the Best Shape Of His Life, so he'll probably experience a clutchness spike.
 
clvclv said:
JMO, but I can't personally see any point that Ender's moved from the leadoff spot until/unless he's being replaced there with Albies. Also just a personal (non-numbers based) opinion, but I'd prefer Albies as the guy hitting lower in the order even then since I'd rather have the flexibility of having the switch-hitter lower in the order.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Inciarte has an extremely low exit velocity and high ground ball percentage, but I think after three years of consistent success and improving plate discipline it's safe to say he owns it and can hit .300/.360. I know we don't run much, but I like that guy hitting leadoff.

The slide step is a nefarious plot to shred elbows and shoulders while eliminating the running game. It should be outlawed.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I think you're right. Inciarte has an extremely low exit velocity and high ground ball percentage, but I think after three years of consistent success and improving plate discipline it's safe to say he owns it and can hit .300/.360. I know we don't run much, but I like that guy hitting leadoff.

The slide step is a nefarious plot to shred elbows and shoulders while eliminating the running game. It should be outlawed.
Click to expand...

interesting take on the elbow/shoulder vs. slide step. You think slide step makes the pitcher max more than normal wind up.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
That will depend entirely on who is putting in the work now, getting that one extra rep, who's first in the gym in the morning, who's playing for a contract, and who really "wants it" this year.

Since Freddie is a new dad and all we see on him are his wife's tweets of him with his kid asleep on his chest, I think we can safely assume some regression to the clutchness mean from Freddie.

Dansby was born clutch. I think we might not appreciate how clutch he is if he starts his career being clutch and retains a high level of clutchness throughout.

Also, I think we can expect Adonis to report in the Best Shape Of His Life, so he'll probably experience a clutchness spike.
Click to expand...

He has the Jeter gene.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
interesting take on the elbow/shoulder vs. slide step. You think slide step makes the pitcher max more than normal wind up.
Click to expand...

I do. Almost by definition, since you're eliminating any wasted motion and any triggering mechanism that helps your timing.

To the extent you do those things, it gives the arm a bit more time to fully rotate and get in max leverage position. If you're "clean" enough to eliminate .1-.2 seconds, it's a rare pitcher who doesn't have an equal amount of arm lag. So you're pulling it through with the little muscles rather than leaving the load where it belongs - on the tushie.

That is also why I teach a full windup when possible. Too many youth pitchers (all pitchers) get hurt. I also advocate throwing at 85-90% effort, so the springs and wires don't start popping off.

I know Leo Mazzone is considered old school, but Leo was right about a lot of stuff. One of them was max effort. And now Jim Andrews has written a position paper that points to year-round pitching and especially max effort as his top indicators of which pitcher is going to need Tommy John.
 
I've been curious about the market for Michael Saunders this offseason, as I see it as a bit of a test case on Markakis' value. Both are LHH corner OFs who produce in the 1-2 WAR zone. Markakis gets there in a steady but unspectacular manner, while Saunders is more inconsistent and has more injury issues. I think I prefer having Markakis, but it's close.

Given the terms below for Saunders as he enters his age 30 season, I'm thinking we'd be hard-pressed to trade Markakis right now w/o having to include a little money.

[TW]821081438871322624[/TW]
 
nsacpi said:
Yes. See above indeed. Looking above I see some posts about the need for teams to learn from the failure of the White Sox. My point (perhaps made in a slightly smug way) has to do with the difficulty of identifying "bad chemistry" or "bad mix" before it kills your team. It seems to me it is easy ex post to say such and such a team had chemistry issues. "Bad mix" becomes the explanation for all things that happened that could not be explained by other variables. The question I am interested in raising is whether in analyzing the failures of teams like the White Sox it is possible to identify ex ante which teams are learning something from those failures and which teams are not.

I hope the above clarifies things and makes clear how my post fitted in with the conversation that was happening.

If I really wanted to be condescending I would say something to the effect that I was looking forward to your analysis of which teams had a "bad mix" in 2017 after the end of the season. But I resisted that temptation. Until now.

In a similar vein, anyone have a list of players they expect to be clutch this upcoming season?
Click to expand...

You've turned this into something it never was. I never said that the fact that the Chisox were a bad mix in 2016 that it would be predictive in the future in a quantitative fashion. But you can still learn from it. But what you learn may be more subjective than definitive.

For me, you look at the Chisox and have to say:

Rotation: Check
Ace: Check, in fact argument for 2
Pen: OK
Closer: Check
Pitching above league avg. BB below league avg. HR allowed below league avg.

Overall, pitching good to very good.

Offense: 4.23 runs per game, far under league average of 4.52. Finished 11th in the AL. Power, 168HR, well below league average of 197 and 13th in the AL. SB 77, league average. K right above league average. BA league average, OBP below. Slugging below.
Offensively they were a below average team. Got very little out of C, CF and DH.

Team defensive efficiency: league avg.
Errors 95, above league avg of 91.
DP above league avg.
Overall a pretty average team defensively.

Looking at that, I would say that even with an underperforming offense, the WS should have been a .500 or better team. It looks to me that they underperformed by 3-5 wins from where they should have been.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
You've turned this into something it never was. I never said that the fact that the Chisox were a bad mix in 2016 that it would be predictive in the future in a quantitative fashion. But you can still learn from it. But what you learn may be more subjective than definitive.

For me, you look at the Chisox and have to say:

Rotation: Check
Ace: Check, in fact argument for 2
Pen: OK
Closer: Check
Pitching above league avg. BB below league avg. HR allowed below league avg.

Overall, pitching good to very good.

Offense: 4.23 runs per game, far under league average of 4.52. Finished 11th in the AL. Power, 168HR, well below league average of 197 and 13th in the AL. SB 77, league average. K right above league average. BA league average, OBP below. Slugging below.
Offensively they were a below average team. Got very little out of C, CF and DH.

Team defensive efficiency: league avg.
Errors 95, above league avg of 91.
DP above league avg.
Overall a pretty average team defensively.

Looking at that, I would say that even with an underperforming offense, the WS should have been a .500 or better team. It looks to me that they underperformed by 3-5 wins from where they should have been.
Click to expand...

Take a look at their record in 1 run games. Their poor luck in those games explains the missing wins. There is no mystery why they are/were bad.
 
Tigers just got Mahtook from the Rays for basically nothing. His MLB and MiLB splits suggest he would have been a great option to serve as the Braves RHed 4th OFer.
 
The Trumbo contract is interesting. He projects to be about a 1.5 WAR per year player over the next three years. And he is being paid about 12M per season or right at the going market rate for 1.5 wins. Trumbo is a player whose value is concentrated on the offensive side, and more particularly power, with his defense being a big negative. What is interesting is that the contract does not seem to be discounting the defensive shortcomings or to put it another way assigning brownie points for hitting or power. It is valuing value as value regardless of whether it comes from the long ball or defense.
 
One small way the Trumbo deal impacts us -- the draft order is officially set now and our second-round pick will be #41. If Trumbo went elsewhere and Baltimore got a pick, we would've picked at #43 because the Pirates are locked into the #42 pick after not signing their selection there last year. That's looks like an increase of $100,000 in our draft pool based on last year's numbers. With the order sets, our picks in the first three rounds are at 5, 41 and 80 overall, which looks like it'll give us about $6.75 million to spend on those three picks if the numbers are the same as last year.

It's small and a long time away, but hey, it's a slow time in baseball right now and I'm bored.
 
CJ9 said:
One small way the Trumbo deal impacts us -- the draft order is officially set now and our second-round pick will be #41. If Trumbo went elsewhere and Baltimore got a pick, we would've picked at #43 because the Pirates are locked into the #42 pick after not signing their selection there last year. That's looks like an increase of $100,000 in our draft pool based on last year's numbers. With the order sets, our picks in the first three rounds are at 5, 41 and 80 overall, which looks like it'll give us about $6.75 million to spend on those three picks if the numbers are the same as last year.

It's small and a long time away, but hey, it's a slow time in baseball right now and I'm bored.
Click to expand...

That sounds awesome for us! It's crazy to imagine with system once we add those guys.
 
CJ9 said:
One small way the Trumbo deal impacts us -- the draft order is officially set now and our second-round pick will be #41. If Trumbo went elsewhere and Baltimore got a pick, we would've picked at #43 because the Pirates are locked into the #42 pick after not signing their selection there last year. That's looks like an increase of $100,000 in our draft pool based on last year's numbers. With the order sets, our picks in the first three rounds are at 5, 41 and 80 overall, which looks like it'll give us about $6.75 million to spend on those three picks if the numbers are the same as last year.

It's small and a long time away, but hey, it's a slow time in baseball right now and I'm bored.
Click to expand...

3 more multi-millionaire pitchers about to be made!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top