06 Nov 2019 16:51:53
White Sox Offseason
Trade RHP Dane Dunning & (RHP Alec Hansen or OF Luis Alexander Basabe) for OF Joc Pederson
Joc's on a 1-year deal and LA has plenty of LHH. I'm sure they like Verdugo for $8M cheaper and they'll probably go big game hunting for a starter where the savings will come in handy. Dunning could come in handy for rotational depth in 2020 and then they choose one of those high upside, low floor guys.
Sign 1B Jose Abreu - 2/$24 Million (Mutual 3rd Year Option)
Sign C Yasmani Grandal - 4/$80 Million
Sign RHP Zack Wheeler - 4/$85 Million
Sign LHP Wade Miley - 1/$8.5 Million (2021 Club Option)
Sign RHP Steve Cishek - 1/$5.75 Million
Sign 1B/DH Justin Smoak - 1/$3 Million
Lineup on May 1st-ish?
2B Nick Madrigal
C Yasmani Grandal
3B Yoan Moncada
1B/DH Jose Abreu
RF Joc Pederson
LF Eloy Jimenez
CF Luis Robert
SS Tim Anderson
DH/1B Justin Smoak
Bench
UTL Leury Garcia
C/1B/DH Zack Collins
C James McCann
OF Adam Engel/UTL Danny Mendick
Rotation
RHP Lucas Giolito
RHP Zack Wheeler
LHP Wade Miley
RHP Dylan Cease
RHP Reynaldo Lopez
RHP Michael Kopech*
LHP Carlos Rodon*
Pen
RHP Alex Colome
RHP Kelvin Herrera
LHP Aaron Bummer
LHP Jace Fry
RHP Evan Marshall
RHP Steve Cishek
RHP Jimmy Cordero
RHP Ian Hamilton
Believable6
Unbelievable6
07 Nov 2019 00:08:38
With the amount of money the White Sox have, it's pretty much believable no matter what.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they become serious players for Rendon.
Agree2
Disagree2
07 Nov 2019 22:18:11
You're right, and there might end up being some rumblings that they are showing interest, reaching out to his reps, etc. But when it becomes time to outbid Washington, Texas, and any others - they'll balk when it becomes time to pony up the money. (See: Manny Machado)
Agree2
Disagree3
08 Nov 2019 14:15:39
Looking at your lineup, that bullpen needs some additions. That's a bullpen that will lose them a lot of games in 2020.
Agree2
Disagree3
08 Nov 2019 18:01:47
I sacrificed some pen additions to stay within where I think they'll want to keep the payroll - $120-140 million. The pen is better than it looks on the surface. Evan Marshall and Jimmy Cordero were both really good last year and Bummer was an elite reliever. Hamilton and Fry have big upsides, but yes, the two highest-paid guys (Colome and Herrera) are worrisome. I figure if they are are a couple bullpen pieces away in July they can make a move.
Agree3
Disagree4
08 Nov 2019 22:54:45
Knowing the volatility of relievers, it's a good bet that several of those guys will have a bad season. It's almost a pretty sure thing at this point. Every team is prone to it.
They'll want to add to that bullpen, and probably make it Priority 1.
Agree2
Disagree3
09 Nov 2019 15:38:26
This team I proposed has a payroll of about $132 million. They could easily add another arm and go to $140 mil should ownership allow
Yes, relievers are volatile, but they definitely found something in Bummer, Cordero, and Marshall. Nothing to suggest that major regressions are coming, unlike Colome. Kopech, Rodon or Lopez could also be in the pen at some point.
Agree3
Disagree2
09 Nov 2019 23:15:25
Bummer:
ERA vs. xFIP: 2.13 vs 3.49 (1.36 difference)
BABIP vs. career: .228 vs .270
Cordero:
2.89 vs 3.69
.227 vs .264
Marshall-
2.49 vs 4.67
.266 vs .350
Every one of those players should be expected to see negative regression, especially Evan Marshall. Bummer and Cordero's numbers aren't terribly concerning, but they show that they certainly over performed, benefitted from some good defense and quite a bit of luck.
That bullpen was bottom 10 in xFIP, they over-performed in BABIP, by quite a bit.
Agree1
Disagree3
10 Nov 2019 14:55:27
There were exactly 2 major league pitchers (min 100 BBE) that found less barrels that Bummer. He had a 72.1% (! ) groundball rate. 20th in all of baseball in xwOBA. 5th in the league in xSLG. His -3.4% LA was only bested by Britton. He was essentially Zach Britton.
Before you compare career #s for Cordero and Marshall, consider that they both made significant changes prior to 2019 that the Sox will have for less than $2 million combined in 2020.
Will we see regression? Probably. Regression to where they are no longer effective relievers? Nothing to suggest it.
Agree3
Disagree2
10 Nov 2019 23:07:54
You can argue the BABIP might be affected by those changes, but the xFIP regression is almost "fix-proof". This is based on decades worth of data.
Regression to the mean is a real thing. I'm not saying they won't be effective relievers, but the White Sox bullpen was already mediocre, and having the TOP relievers negatively regress certainly won't help matters.
The Sox need to add probably 2-3 significant relief pitchers to even compete in that division. It was that bad.
Agree2
Disagree3
11 Nov 2019 14:01:38
Here's some evidence, just from 2018 to 2019 transitions. I took the top 30 relievers, per ERA, and looked at those whose xFIP was at least 1 full run higher than their ERA, and compared 2018 ERA to 2019 ERA. There were 16 candidates. Here they were:
Blake Treinen- 0.78 (2018 ERA) vs 4.91 (2019 ERA) . (4.13 difference)
Jose Leclerc- 1.56 vs 4.33. (2.77)
Jeremy Jeffress- 1.29 vs. 5.02. (3.73)
Jared Hughes- 1.94 vs. 4.04. (2.10)
Collin McHugh- 1.99 vs. 4.70. (2.71)
T. J. McFarland- 2.00 vs. 4.82. (2.82)
Steve Cishek- 2.18 vs. 2.95 (0.77)
Dylan Floro- 2.25 vs. 4.24 (1.99)
Pedro Strop- 2.26 vs. 4.97 (2.71)
Seth Lugo- 2.55 vs. 2.70 (0.15)
Raisel Iglesias- 2.38 vs. 4.16 (1.78)
Kyle Crick- 2.39 vs. 4.96 (2.57)
Yoshihisa Hirano- 2.44 vs. 4.75 (2.31)
Richard Rodriguez- 2.47 vs. 3.72 (1.25)
Reyes Moronta- 2.49 vs. 2.86 (0.37)
David Hernandez- 2.53 vs. 8.02 (5.49)
Carl Edwards, Jr. - 2.60 vs. 8.47 (5.87)
Every one of them regressed. Only three (Cishek, Lugo, Moronta) had minor regressions. Most of them had significantly worse seasons in 2019.
I would also promise you that EVERY one of those players made significant changes prior to their really good seasons. That's not exclusive to the White Sox relievers. Regression is real, it should be expected, and the White Sox will likely face it pretty severely if they rely on the same 3-4 guys in that bullpen in 2020.
Agree0
Disagree3
11 Nov 2019 15:02:57
"The Sox need to add probably 2-3 significant relief pitchers to even compete in that division. It was that bad. "
Just really not true at all. This would be idiotic given everything else they need to add. They're in a pretty weak division with 2 teams in a thick of a rebuild, Cleveland cutting payroll and Minnesota pressed to hit 300 HRs again. and a big reason why their numbers look so bad was because of the garbage they threw out there when the guys I'm talking about were taxed. Compounding matters was the dumpster fire of a starting rotation, minus Giolito, that forced the Hector Santiagos and Ross Detwilers of the world into the game before the 5th.
You're telling me that relief pitching is volatile YOY, which is correct, but are also telling me that they then need to go out and spend more on it? It's much smarter to get it at the deadline to eliminate a lot of that uncertainty. This pen is good enough to get by, unless of course the White Sox are simply screwed because of regression that only they will see in their bullpen.
Agree3
Disagree0
11 Nov 2019 17:31:56
The White Sox bullpen, playing at top-percentage levels, still had a negative WPA. At their BEST, they were losing baseball games.
And as for spending money on bullpen because of volatility, yes, I'm saying they'll have to add NEW players, because relying on guys who are sure-fire regression candidates is a pretty stupid idea. Then again, we're talking about the White Sox FO here.
They should go out and get guys who either underperformed or pitched at their xFIP. Think Will Smith, Chris Martin, a trade for Mychal Givens. Those are guys that could probably be reasonable positive regression candidates, or just solid, consistent bullpen adds.
Agree0
Disagree2
11 Nov 2019 19:58:56
The great think about my proposal is I don't have them using more than half of the relivers they used in 2019. You keep addressing the 2019 pen as a whole and i'm not employing them. Smith is the best reliver on the market and they'll already likely need to outbid for Grandal and Wheeler while trading assets for Pederson. I'd love any one of those arms but I don't see them going much over the money I have them spending.
I'm not sure why you're so intent on tying to prove that the White Sox are going to get killed by negative regression so much more than everyone else. It looks like most of the top relivers outperformed their xFIPs across the league. I could use your logic to say that Houston ad St. Louis need to add "2-3 significant relivers to win their division" because of guys like Osuna, Harris, Smith, McHugh, Rondon and Gallegos, Brebbia, Martinez, Gant, Webb, Helsly all outperforming their xFIPs.
Agree1
Disagree3
11 Nov 2019 20:05:06
And when you compare the ERA (off all stats) of 16 pitchers from 2018-2019, you may want to consider the run environment differences between the two seasons. You can't smear xFIP regression on every pitcher. Don't get me wrong, it's a good stat and a good tool, but you also have to consider sometimes why pitchers over/ underperform their xFIPs in a given season.
Agree1
Disagree1
12 Nov 2019 13:39:04
I'm pointing out the White Sox, in particular, because
a) they are the team relevant here
b) they were already a negative win-probability added bullpen. So, again, at their best production, they weren't helping win ballgames.
The difference between them and, say, Houston, is that Houston's bullpen provided to help win games. For example, the Giants had the best WPA of any bullpen (and it wasn't close), and will no doubt see negative regression, but I'm not sure that'll make them a useless bullpen.
And Houston doesn't need to add significant players in order to win their division. They should will be seen as the run away favorites unless something tragic occurs.
Agree0
Disagree2
12 Nov 2019 13:47:51
As for xFIP regression, it's nice of you to quote Fangraphs (maybe cite them next them next time), but even the guys at Fangraphs would likely agree that the trends for regression for guys who outperform xFIP is pretty clear.
Yes, there are always outliers. It's why I limited my scope to guys who outperformed their xFIP by a full run. And yes, even there, we sometimes see anomalies, but the large majority of guys have regressed heavily the next season.
As for year to year run environment, that's a pretty bad argument, honestly. Even in bad run environments, there are players who don't negatively regress. And yet, all of those guys did. They also had several other common denominators. I'm just not sure you can throw out those factors simply because the "run environment" was different.
xFIP regression is a remarkably clear trend. It's not a sure thing by any means, but most clubs would still factor in the difference and proceed with caution when acquiring guys who look like they could regress.
Agree0
Disagree2
12 Nov 2019 15:07:41
What do you mean quoting FanGraphs?
I'm not really talking about general YOY run environments. I'm addressing the fact that from 2018-2019 we saw the greatest run spike in more than 40 years. ERAs were much higher than normal. The expected stats weren't adjusted for the juiced ball.
How many relievers actually underperformed their xFIPs vs overperformed? Without looking, I bet it isn't close.
If the overall argument is that they need to add 1 more "reliable arm" and spend more, then that's fine. Again, I would just be unwilling to sacrifice any of my other moves, and I see no chance the payrolls goes much higher than where I have it.
Agree0
Disagree1
12 Nov 2019 15:38:37
The thing you cited about xFIP regression is almost verbatim from Fangraphs. Cite them next time.
Most players over-perform compared their xFIP. Hence why I used those who over-performed by an entire run as my example. I've pointed that fact out twice (well, three times now), I would've thought you'd get that by now.
And you're wrong about expected stats not being adjusted for the juiced ball. It is. The FIP constant takes into consideration home runs per year, so in a year where there were 1100 more home runs, the FIP constant will reflect that change and adjust the number accordingly.
The ball, or the run environment, is the constant. Therefore, everyone is effected equally by it. So using it as a means to suggest that regression isn't going to happen isn't a great argument. Regression will just manifest itself in different numbers, but it'll be comparable to the numbers of the other pitchers.
Agree1
Disagree1
13 Nov 2019 06:27:56
I haven't directly quoted a single thing from Fangraphs. Not sure what you're talking about. However, maybe I've just retained some knowledge on the subject considering FanGraphs is where I (and probably you too) likely first learned about xFIP? Imagine that.
I'll go on a case by case basis of my proposed White Sox pen just for you! When you end up digging in like I already suggested, you end up finding some telling stuff.
FIP underrates groundball pitchers (whoops, let me cite FanGraphs for you) and wouldn't ya know the pitchers the Sox would have here.
Marshall has a career HR/ FB% of 12.4% and was at 11.9 in 2019 - 51.4% GB.
Cordero actually had a high HR/ FB% - 21.1 and still had a respectable xFIP. Looks to have had some BABIP luck but xBA tells me it's not crazy. He's at 60% GB
Bummer, again, literally had a 72.1% GB% - that's top 10 over the last 10 years for a reliever. When you look at that leaderboard, you see a lot of the same names pop up multiple times. GB% doesn't tend to be spurious.
Cishek has a career HR/ FB% of 8%, so how is it acceptable to regress his to a 15% league average?
Hamilton has thrown 8 ML innings but generated above avg. GBs in the minors. 3.29 AAA xFIP.
Fry is expected to see positve regression, but his problem was walks and just based on the fact that's we've seen him be able to manage them before (i. e. 2018), I'm fairly confident he'll bounce back.
Herrera might be the worst of the bunch and I really disliked the signing last offeason when it happened.
Colome is a legitimate concern, but I've recognized that and it wouldn't be insane to see him non-tendered.
But keep telling me about the 2019 pen as a whole when I'm not retaining more than half of them.
Thus, I don't agree with your take that this team still needs 2-3 legit relievers (any more than any other team does) to win the 2020 AL Central.
Agree0
Disagree2
13 Nov 2019 13:00:52
When you're wrong, just ignore decades worth of statistical trends and pretend that you're team has no flaws.
Wait, am I talking to Rick Hahn? This has to be Rick Hahn.
Agree2
Disagree1
13 Nov 2019 15:09:32
It's really just lazy analysis on your part. I'm providing you evidence of a more player-specific, sticky rate statistic that's a clear caveat to xFIP, but somehow I'm ignoring statistical trends?
Me adding more than $80 million to the payroll is a pretty clear signal that I recognize the abundance of flaws that this team has.
You hoping the White Sox bullpen stumbles in 2020 is such a funny and weird hill to die on, but enjoy.
Agree0
Disagree2
13 Nov 2019 17:28:21
Slight kidding aside, you can go case by case basis all you want. Seriously, I won't even waste a minute of energy reading any of the things you wrote, you know why?
Because it's the case for every reliever who has ever regressed. You can look and think, "gee, every one of these guys has such a case for not regressing" and then, guess what? THEY DO!
I can direct you to over 1,000 points of data, simply dating back to 2005 that suggest that regression, especially among relievers is extremely common. Among those data points, we have extreme ground ball pitchers, extreme fly ball pitchers, lefty specialists, ace relievers, and long-bullpen guys. It literally doesn't matter.
Ignore it all you want, I don't really care, but don't be shocked when the White Sox bullpen takes a huge step back next season. Consider this my gloating. I'll gloat now, knowing that decades worth of data is not going to be thwarted just because some internet guy did a deep dive on his favorite team's relievers.
Agree0
Disagree1
13 Nov 2019 20:05:36
If I told you that 90 percent of every person who jumps off a cliff dies, you're not going to be like, "hey, you know, I'm different. Look at my skills. I can do this! " And then jump.
GMs build their teams around a lot of statistical trends, and they are keenly aware of regression candidates. It's why Avisail Garcia never got traded a few seasons back, no one wanted to give up anything for him—they knew he'd regress (and he did) .
These GMs, or at least decent ones (jury is out on the White Sox GM) are going to pay attention to regression in their bullpen, among other areas, but bullpen volatility is such because regression is more common there.
I'll go out and make my projection now: Bummer, Fry, and Cordero COMBINED, will account for LESS than 0.5 WAR next season. Mark my word.
Agree1
Disagree1
13 Nov 2019 22:32:16
Dude, decades worth of data are supporting my claim more than yours. You can't just pick out the outliers and use that as your support. The groundball pitchers tend more often to not regress to a HR/ FB mean which is vital to xFIP - the stat you started off so adamant about. Don't try to lump them in with the other "specialists" because it's not remotely the same in regards to xFIP. You're looking at the wrong "decades worth of data".
Can you say that xFIP regression for GROUNDBALL pitchers is extremely common? No.
The more you generalize your analysis, the harder it is to prove in specific instances like, for instance, a specific set of 8 pitchers.
It might be good on occasion to put your pride aside and read what others have to offer. You're almost getting to state of cognitive dissonance at this point.
Agree0
Disagree0
13 Nov 2019 23:19:35
To put it in terms that maybe you can understand, it would be like Aaron Bummer having a parachute when he jumps off the cliff.
You've totally abandoned your xFIP argument and are just talking about regression in general now. Screw the evidence, it's just going to happen!
You can predict whatever you want - I just don't know what's telling you that those 3 guys are going to regress so much. GMs are absolutely aware of regression candidates, those 3 just aren't as much as you think. If they end up with bad results, like you're predicting, it's good to look at if they had a flawed process. Throwing those 3 out there for less than $2 million combined versus giving someone like Will Smith $40 million and therefore sacrificing someone like Grandal or Wheeler seems like the flawed process to me. What happens to his 20% HR/ FB rate when he's no longer pitching in San Fransisco and put in Chicago instead? xFIP has no idea.
To double down on your projection: I bet, barring injury to either, that Bummer has a higher WAR/ $ than Will Smith in 2020.
Agree1
Disagree0
14 Nov 2019 04:14:14
"What happens to [Smith's] 20% HR/ FB rate when he's no longer pitching in San Fransisco and put in Chicago instead? xFIP has no idea. "
Except, we do. It's called xFIP- (xFIP minus) . Smith's was 61. Even with the park adjustment, of which he would be disadvantaged by playing in a pitcher's park, he's 39% better than the average pitcher. Bummer's xFIP- was 76.
Even with the benefit of a huge ballpark, Smith was the objectively better pitcher. And he didn't benefit from certain things like a .226 BABIP (speaking of numbers worthy of regression) .
As far as "doubling down", I wouldn't make any bets when you don't even know what stats exist or how to use them in making predictions. Unless you know something about Will Smith's medical charts, you'd be a darned fool to make that bet.
I'd save that money to buy yourself a burrito or something.
Agree0
Disagree0
14 Nov 2019 15:14:20
Cite FanGraphs, dude.
Bummer at like 600K or Will Smith at $12-15 Million? Give me Bummer 1000000% - He'll easily be the more cost-efficient pitcher. Steamer and Depth Charts have them essentially the same. Not a single GM would take Smith over Bummer given how much you have to pay them. Not one.
You just brought up a new stat when there are hundreds to go off of. You were adamant about the basic xFIP regression as all you needed when I've been trying to get more specific the whole time. You're all for it when you perceive that it supports your arguement, but I was just the guy who was doing a deep dive on his team's pen. Wild.
Smith didn't benefit from certain things? Not getting punished with a 20% HR/ FB rate is surely a benefit. Again, this is literally what xFIP corrects for.
I don't know the stats? You're still struggling to wrap your head around how a groundball pitcher affects their xFIP, or still in this case, xFIP-. And also clearly don't know how BABIP works either. You're exhausting to teach.
The guy giving up close to the least amount of barrels in the league will usually have a low BABIP, especially when they are pounded into the ground. His BABIP is more or less expected given his batted ball profile. It's really not rocket science. Not saying he'll keep it that low, but regression to the mean is HIGHLY unlikely.
Agree0
Disagree0
14 Nov 2019 18:33:20
1. Quit acting like you knew a damn thing about xFIP-. You even said that we have no way of adjusting xFIP for ballparks. There was. It's there. So don't act like you're suddenly the stat expert around here.
2. As I've said, over and over again—if you'd actually read rather than just trying to justify your own nonsensical opinions—the trends don't care about any of the "statcast" metrics. Blake Treinen was among one of the tops in every statcast metric in 2018. He might not even be tendered a contract. He regressed hard.
3. I promise you, WIll Smith will have 15-20 teams hot on his trail, including the White Sox, who will use him in higher leverage situations than any of the schmucks they have in that thing they call a bullpen. Okay, actually, I'm probably giving them too much credit. They'll probably trade Luis Robert for Tyler Cloyd or something like that.
Agree0
Disagree1
14 Nov 2019 18:44:41
Let me close with another regression trend that you'll completely ignore:
I explored every reliever dating back to 2015 (I stopped at 2015 because I got bored, honestly) with a .228 BABIP or lower (which would match Aaron Bummer's 2019 BABIP) . I then sought what their BABIP was the next season. Here's what I found:
-Out of 30 players, only two (2) pitchers followed their low-BABIP season with a BABIP within 25 points of their previous: Josh Hader (2018) and Josh Fields (2017).
-EVERY player had a worse BABIP the following year. They all negatively regressed, at some capacity.
-The average regression was 83 points.
-Every player also outperformed their xFIP except for one: Josh Hader.
-The pitcher profiles and types are all across the maps, although lefties are far more favored on this list.
So, here's what we can likely extrapolate from that:
It's not out of line to predict a pretty high level of regression for Aaron Bummer, which could include a BABIP north of .300 next season. Every projection on Fangraphs reasonably projects that.
EVERY statistic available for Aaron Bummer screams regression candidate, and a potential bad regression at that.
Believe it or not, I know Aaron Bummer. I had several associations with him while he pitched at the University of Nebraska, and he's a great guy all around. So don't think I'm hating on him. I know him more than just his numbers on the stat sheet. But I would imagine any GM worth their salt knows he's going to regress and that 2019 was more likely an anomaly than it was what we can expect going forward.
Agree0
Disagree1
15 Nov 2019 04:11:11
You continue to respond to points that you wish I made. You make some valid points, but you're repsonding as If I had made points that contradicted yours. That's what 90% of this has been.
1. I never said there was no way to adjust for park and league factors for xFIP. But it's a different stat. We were discussing xFIP Regression, not xFIP-. However, it's beside the point. You haven't been able to concede that Bummer is less of a regression candidate, for xFIP or xFIP-, than those who don't pitch at elite groundball levels. Bummer, in his first 121 ML innings, hasn't just been a good groundball pitcher, he's the 6th best all-time for relievers since 2002. But please realize that I am not contending that Bummer will not regress at all.
2. The trends that you conveniently pick for your argument's sake may not care about Statcast metrics, but anyone with an intelligent baseball opinion should - like front offices. In the instance of Blake Treinen - yes, I agree that he is a good example of reliever volatility. But this is where statcast and supporting information can help you understand why he fell off a cliff. Pitching with an injury most of the year likely contributed to some control issues and when you lose 2 mph on your sinker, it's going to get hit harder.
Zack Britton is the best comparable for Bummer, IMO, given their abundance of similarities and if you look at the last 6 seasons of his as a reliever, he's never really regressed to his xFIP because his success is based on things that xFIP doesn't account for.
I'm not sure why when we have more information to go off of, you're suggesting we limit the scope of analysis. I would rather use all the info available to tell the full story of a player's season rather than just pointing to a data point on a graph that a generalized (but yes, still useful) model is telling me should average out in the future. The former is how it's done in the industry. There aren't enough players for teams to only sign non-xFIP regression candidates either, so you find value by going the extra mile. That's why I bring up lazy analysis. I don't care about an average of 30 pitchers - I care about why they regressed. If we can attribute shortcomings to more than just luck and base our predictions on more than just that luck running out, then we absolutely should.
3. Here you go again. I never said that Smith wasn't good or wouldn't be sought after. The 15-20 teams that could've been on him likely priced the White Sox out given their other areas of need, as I've said here for maybe the 4th time. My argument has been that Bummer is more cost-efficient, which is important. Bummer at 600K is way better than Smith at $13M (what the Braves are giving him) . If Bummer is worth just 0.5 fWAR in 2020 at 600K, then Smith would have to be worth 10.8 fWAR for the Braves to get the same ROI. The Sox get crazy surplus value.
When you say something like "EVERY statistic available for Aaron Bummer screams regression candidate, and a potential bad regression at that, " it's just not true. It's factually incorrect. FanGraphs literally addressses groundball pitchers on the xFIP page. You've just described Alex Colome.
I also love the subtle digs at the White Sox FO. Very original. You Giants fans, on the other hand, have the luxury of watching the exciting core of Posey, Belt, Crawford, Longoria, Cueto, and Samardzija while paying them almost $95 million. Woof. A true success model, maybe they'll collectively produce 10 WAR! All while being managed by GABE KAPLER. National League, beware.
Agree1
Disagree1
16 Nov 2019 01:17:10
1. xFIP- is simply xFIP but park adjusted. That's the only difference. If you want to keep the discussion to the exact specific stat, fine, but don't bring up "park factors. "
Also, when you give me this quote, "Can you say that xFIP regression for GROUNDBALL pitchers is extremely common? No. " You can't suggest that "you're not contending that Bummer will not regress at all. " I don't know how that would be implied any other way.
2. As I've said, SEVERAL TIMES now, the trends catch guys of every ability. They catch guys who are "statcast darlings" and "one-year wonders". There's been literally two guys—TWO—who didn't significantly regress the next season, in 4 years of data. I'd bet you my entire life savings that if you looked into each player individually, you'd find all sorts of metrics. Many of those extremely favorable.
It turns out that even good statcast metrics can regress. What a concept!
3. Surplus value is the biggest farce in baseball. It's one of the most comical examples of equivocation and it's not used as much as the bored writers who waste their time investing to it think. Let's avoid it, capeesh?
4. The Giants literally FIRED the GM who did all that damage. Meanwhile, the White Sox kept the guy who literally traded FERNANDO TATIS, JR FOR JAMES SHIELDS. They literally gave those two extensions after that one. The Giants fired guys for making bad moves, the White Sox extended them.
Maybe, I don't know, take an inventory of your own laughably awful team before dunking on a team that won more titles in this decade than any team in baseball.
But hey, at least White Sox fans are punching up. I'd recommend you punch down, but I'm not sure there's anyone there to punch.
Agree0
Disagree0
16 Nov 2019 01:20:38
Your inability to inventory your own team doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in your ability to know stats.
Not that I'm surprised. But that dig at the Giants was comical coming from a White Sux fan.
Agree0
Disagree1
16 Nov 2019 18:37:31
I couldn't disagree more on surplus value. Money saved on elite young talent is why you can overspend in other areas, especially for smaller market teams. It's literally how teams negotiate trades and build powerhouses. Players are valued based on marginal revenue product.
We'll see who's better here in the next couple of years. It'll be tough for Zaidi to explain a beta hire like Kapler if it doesn't work out (which is more likely than not) . He was also dumb enough to allow himself to think that they were in it last year while getting nothing more than a couple of comp picks for Smith and Bumgarner. Not off to a hot start. You say Tatis, I say Bryan Reynolds, but i'm not going to be the hindsight analyst here - those guys are the worst.
Hahn has made good, franchise-altering moves as well - Giolito, Moncada, Kopech, Robert, Jimenez, Cease. He's been largely held back by ownership for most of his tenure. They aren't going to fire their GM without letting their plan develop first and are in MUCH better position than SF moving forward. Zaidi's goal will be to put the Giants into the position the White Sox are in now when their window maybe opens in 2023. He has as much work to do as any GM in MLB with not a single good, young player on their current MLB roster that has showed anything. Literally not one. Maybe Yaz?
In 2020, I am easily punching down on San Francisco.
Agree1
Disagree0
16 Nov 2019 20:52:54
"You say Tatis, I say Bryan Reynolds, but i'm not going to be the hindsight analyst here - those guys are the worst. "
Are you seriously dense? I think you might be. Zaidi didn't trade Reynolds. He didn't sign any of the guys you mentioned. The guys who made those trades were fired, not extended.
Agree0
Disagree1
16 Nov 2019 21:11:41
Let's also talk about Zaidi for a second, and then the reason the Giants are here.
Zaidi, in 12 months has taken the Giants from the 27th ranked farm system to the 15th (per Fangraphs) . In only 12 months. No one graduated out of the system. No one got traded away from it. He's only added.
He added by getting rid of ALL of Mark Melancon's contract (and got a solid young prospect) . He got rid of a pitcher with a 5.68 ERA and got Mauricio Dubon. He literally acquired his best 2 players last year by not giving up anything. Not one player traded for Pillar has been good (one of them was quickly DFA'd) . And he got Yastrzemski for literally nothing.
He walked into a nightmare scenario in San Francisco, where the previous GM wasted money and prospect capital and he began a rebuild without making a significant trade. Not one of the issues he's facing has been his fault, and yet, he's cleaning it up. I expect him to do the same over the next 12 months.
And let's be honest, the Giants are in this spot because they've been spoiled rotten. When you win 3 world championships in a decade, you're going to have some ugly years following. It's inevitable. The Tigers, Orioles and Phillies all went through it, and two of them don't even have a championship to show for it. The Royals are going through it. The Cubs are a few seasons away, as are the Red Sox. The last two are nearing the scenario where they have an aging roster that's owed a ton of money.
The Giants will be fine. Meanwhile, the White Sox still have to show that they can win a WS with the laughingstock of a front office they have. I'm guessing you'll be waiting an awfully long time. All this stuff they are doing will mean nothing if they can't win even one.
Let's close this conversation with this: the Giants have won three world series this decade. There are kids who can legally drive who weren't even alive to see a White Sox championship. And I'd bet they'll have kids old enough to drive before we see another one.
Agree0
Disagree2
16 Nov 2019 22:36:12
So Zaidi gets credit for the prospects he inherited, but no blame for the contracts. He didn't "take the farm system" anywhere. Meanwhile, Hahn actually took the Sox from bottom 5 farm to consistent top 5 and is somehow part of "a laughingstock of a front office". Pick an angle dude.
Hahn hit big-time trading the organization's 3-best players. Moncada, Giolito and Jimenez are all studs.
My point is the Giants will be lucky if in 2-3 years they are in as good of a position as the White Sox are in now. The Dodgers, Cardinals, Astros (asterisk) have all been fine after winning a title or getting to the WS. With the spending capabilities that the Giants have, there is no reason to be this bad. They will be in the basement of the NL for the next 3-5 years with no notable prospects doing anything successful above A-ball - (Eh, Logan Webb is a nice pitcher) .
Save your digs at the White Sox and worry about beating out Colorado for 4th place, or something. Meanwhile, they better hit on all their important draft picks with absolutely nothing to trade now. I don't care what Zaidi inherited, not many new GMs inherit great situations. Hahn has been able to build this thing into something positive, Zaidi is going to be hard-pressed to do the same. Maybe he can call Hahn for advice. As a Sox fan, I can tell you it's going to be a rough couple of years - and a "couple" is a best-case scenario for SF.
Agree1
Disagree0
17 Nov 2019 12:50:11
"So Zaidi gets credit for the prospects he inherited, but no blame for the contracts. He didn't "take the farm system" anywhere. "
Okay, for the third time now, ZAIDI DIDN'T SIGN ANYONE TO THOSE CONTRACTS. My goodness, you truly are the densest, most obtuse person on this site.
Those contracts were given out by the previous GM, of whom the Giants fired. Why would anyone blame Zaidi for the things the last GM did?
And yes, he took the farm system from 27th to 15th in just a matter of months. Several of the minor league teams won or nearly won their respective leagues. Most of their prospects actually rose in FV, particularly those around the 35+ to 40 FV range.
But this is clearly well above your pay-grade. I look forward to you not understanding a single thing that was written.
Go back, learn to read, and then return. Until then, toodiloo.
Agree0
Disagree0