07 Nov 2022 15:47:26
Giants Offseason:
Free Agents:
Sign SS Carlos Correa, 8/260M
Sign SP Kodai Senga, 4/44M
Sign RP Chris Martin, 1/4M
Sign C Christian Vazquez, 2/14M
Sign 1B Josh Bell, 3/36M
Trades:
Acquire OF Ramon Laureano & RHP James Kaprielian from Oakland for OF Grant McCray, RHP Ryan Murphy, OF Luis Gonzalez, RHP Sam Delaplane
Acquire 3B Mike Moustakas & 3B Sal Stewart from Cincinnati for 2B Tommy La Stella. (Immediately cut Moustakas)
Opening Day Lineup
RF- Yastrzemski
1B- Bell
LF- Laureano
3B- Correa
DH- Davis
2B- Estrada
CF- Slater
C- Bart
SS- Crawford
Bench:
C- Vazquez
2B- Flores
3B- Villar
OF- Wade Jr.
Rotation:
1- Webb
2- Senga
3- Cobb
4- DeSclafani
5- Wood
Bullpen
CP- Doval
SU- Martin
SU- Brebbia
RP- Rogers
RP- Young
RP- Kaprielian
RP- Alexander
RP- Junis
22 Nov 2022 04:15:14
I don't think Correa is signing to be a third baseman at 28 years old, especially when the shortstop is a 36 year old on a 1 year deal as an inferior defender.
The Giants should go hard for Judge and then quickly pivot to Nimmo if the Yankees don't let him leave.
22 Nov 2022 15:38:07
Based on Crawford's injury history the past few seasons, there's a good chance Correa (or any SS, should the Giants sign one) would get more reps at SS than any other position. But they'll ask any of their middle infield guys to take reps at 2B/ 3B (much like Trea Turner in '21 when he went to the Dodgers) until Crawford's deal is through. They may not even play Crawford very much against LHP, which will open up that spot for RHH.
Not to mention, noted Correa friend and former boss Pete Putila could probably convince Carlos to take 3B for one of the 8 years of his contract to help the team as it's currently assembled.
22 Nov 2022 15:39:53
"especially when the shortstop is a 36 year old on a 1 year deal as an inferior defender. "
Crawford's last 3 seasons' dWAR: 7.6, 17.1, 9.2
Correa's last 3: 5.6, 14.9, 2.0
Correa is an excellent defender, but even at Crawford's age, he's still the objectively better defender. Those damn, pesky statistics. Always ruining your silly takes!
22 Nov 2022 15:53:34
Clarification: that's not "dWAR", it's Fangraphs' defense rating.
22 Nov 2022 16:28:52
2022-
Crawford: -6 DRS
Correa: 3 DRS
Career-
Crawford: 69 DRS (12872.0 innings)
Correa: 70 DRS (7666.2 innings)
"Pesky statistics"
FanGraphs uses UZR for DEF, which doesn't take the shift in account, essentially making it a useless stat (it may now be semi-useful given the shift ban starting? ) .
Based on various studies, DRS is almost always the go-to for infielders, while OAA is the best for outfielders.
22 Nov 2022 17:36:00
"Various studies"
Are these from the same folks who predicted the Giants would have just one 110+ wRC+ hitter in 2022? Or that they'd win less than 80 games in 2021? Or that the White Sox would win 95 games in 2022? Let's be honest: your track record on this stuff isn't exactly stellar LMAO.
There's no argument from me that Correa is an elite defender. But the Giants have already pointed out, if you bothered to look ANYTHING up, that they will use Crawford at SS for 2023. This would mean any SS acquired would need to man 2B or 3B for the 2023 season, while getting reps at SS for the purposes of giving Crawford the rest.
This isn't me talking out of my you-know-where, it's directly from interviews that Farhan Zaidi has publicly made.
Regardless of how you feel Correa vs. Crawford defensively, it's better to go with the front office's own claims on the issue: they want Crawford at SS for 2023.
22 Nov 2022 17:42:57
"FanGraphs uses UZR for DEF, which doesn't take the shift in account, essentially making it a useless stat"
Interesting. Because Correa's UZR and DRS are higher than Crawford's, and yet, their Defensive Rating for Crawford was over 4 times higher.
Make of that what you want, but I don't think it's as simple as "DEF uses UZR, UZR is bad, therefore DEF is bad". Again, Correa's UZR is higher, despite his DEF being 22% of Crawford.
Also funny you'd dismiss OAA. Is that because Crawford was 93rd Percentile while Correa was 18th? Couldn't be due to the number not matching the reality you desire, could it?
Chi Sox would NEVER do that. (Narrator: Chis Sox ALWAYS does that)
22 Nov 2022 18:41:00
"There's no argument from me that Correa is an elite defender"
That should say "ISN'T". Correa is a stellar defender.
22 Nov 2022 18:58:32
You can google, right? Google how DEF is calculated. Read about how UZR completely eliminates shifted plays from their calcs and then consider how much teams have shifted their infielders over the last couple of seasons. Research a bit about the different pros and cons of certain defensive metrics. Justin Dunbar has a solid piece on this topic if you need a bit of direction.
"Make of that what you want, but I don't think it's as simple as "DEF uses UZR, UZR is bad, therefore DEF is bad". "
No, this is literally the case. No one uses UZR, and in turn, especially no one uses DEF because they are useless when shifted events are literally ignored. It's that simple, don't over-think it.
"Also funny you'd dismiss OAA. "
Nope, didn't do that. It's just that outfield OAA is 4x as predictive as infield OAA and DRS does a better job for infielders, but OAA is superior for outfielders, yet neither is perfect. Again, just Google this stuff.
But as you usually do, my original comment into something it's not. I ultimately don't care which defensive metrics you personally value to compare Crawford and Correa at short. They're pretty comparable plus defenders. My comment was that Correa's not signing to play third base. Trea Turner never signed with the Dodgers to play 2B, he was traded there and didn't have a choice, so not a comparable situation. You can argue Story, but Trevor Story doesn't have the same leverage as Carlos Correa, and it's no guarantee that Story is the Red Sox SS in '23.
Nico Hoerner is a better defender than Correa at short by every stat, but the Cubs aren't going after Correa to play 3B or 2B - Correa is signing to be an everyday SS in year 1, no matter who that's with, hence why the Giants should target Judge and Nimmo. Their current SS is still solid. You're acting like Correa wanting to sign as a SS when he has literally no reason not to is some kind of hot take.
22 Nov 2022 20:27:24
Obviously he wants to sign as a SS, and I literally explained that there's good reason Correa would be the SS in 2023 more than he is 3B or SS, based on Crawford's handedness and injury history. If Crawford rakes in 2023, it stands to reason Correa would be the 2B or SS for a season and then get the next 7 at his preferred position. You're acting like the Giants are signing Correa to be the 3B forever. They aren't. It's one season.
If the Giants offered the best contract, do you really think Correa is going to turn it down because he has to play 3B for a few months of a mega-deal? He won't.
As far as SS vs. Judge/ Nimmo, I'd prefer they sign a shortstop. The available SS will never be better, and the Giants will have an opening there after next season. Luciano isn't going to stay at SS (he'll get moved to 2B), and they don't have another SS ready to go. If they miss out on Judge (which I think Judge is going back to NY), they'll pivot and offer that money to a shortstop.
It'll likely be either Correa (his connection to Pete Putila) or Trea Turner (under Zaidi, the Giants have made many efforts to land NC State guys. They cited this when they signed Rodon last winter) .
22 Nov 2022 20:52:00
The OAA is better for Outfielder argument might work if this was 2019, as it was an outfielder-only stat prior to 2020. So most of your research is still going to factor in OAA with outfielders in mind, specifically, as that is what it was limited to.
In fact, OAA factors in shifting as well, making it fairly useful (and the lack of a shift won't change that reliability) .
Again, this isn't dismissing Correa's defensive abilities, but there are MANY writers, many of whom you would respect, that agree with this assessment. Take Ben Clemens from Fangraphs:
"If you’re looking for a reason to doubt Correa, you’d have to look at his defense. But he’s a good defender, even if his Statcast numbers took a dip this year. Defensive metrics are noisy, and if you didn’t believe he was one of the best defenders in baseball last year (I didn’t), you probably shouldn’t believe he’s below average this year. "
Or take Keith Law's opinion:
"I think it’s also fair to question whether he’s a long-term shortstop at this point, given his age and size, although he was an above-average defender until 2022, when his metrics took a huge hit. "
Law not only points out that Correa's defense took a hit, but that he may not even stay at SS long-term.
Gee, Chi Sox, it's almost like you could Google this information and read it for yourself. But you won't do that, because it doesn't confirm what you've chosen to believe.
I admire your consistency to ignore what's literally been said by experts and by front offices on all this stuff.
23 Nov 2022 03:49:01
I point you to some research studying the objective year to year reliability of infield and outfield OAA & DRS, and your rebuttal that you believe is the best shot to salvage your argument is opinions of 2 baseball writers on Correa’s defense. And KEITH LAW IS ONE OF THEM. LMAO.
At least I was able to teach you a bit about DEF and UZR. I have a feeling you won’t be referencing those anymore. Blindly rolling with OAA is at least a better option for beginners with these kinds of metrics.
23 Nov 2022 12:55:49
Keith Law's opinion is:
1. Significantly more valuable than your or my opinions. Like him or not, he has more experience with this than anyone on this site. If you need a reminder: you were the one trying to convince everyone on this site that Craig Kimbrel was an elite reliever, when the Dodgers (the DODGERS) left him off their playoff roster. I seriously doubt you have any room to question an expert on their assessment of a player.
2. In line with other experts. No one believes Carlos Correa had an elite season defensively in 2022, except you. The overall stats don't prove you right, the consensus opinion doesn't look favorably to your take, nothing. All you did was take a few sampled numbers that looked good and ignored all the others and tried to convince us OAA is bad simply because it doesn't fit your theory.
23 Nov 2022 12:59:00
"I point you to some research studying the objective year to year reliability of infield and outfield OAA & DRS, and your rebuttal that you believe is the best shot to salvage your argument is opinions of 2 baseball writers on Correa’s defense. "
You never pointed me to any specific research. You said "Google it", which is the classic response of anti-vaxxers and pyramid scheme pushers.
Cite your research. Tell me who wrote it. It's quite interesting you didn't do that. Instead, we were just supposed to "Google it".
I'm beginning to think the "research" may not actually exist.
23 Nov 2022 15:32:35
"22 Nov 2022 18:58:32"
"Justin Dunbar has a solid piece on this topic if you need a bit of direction. "
I'll help ya out again here. It's in the comment in plain text. I said "Google it" because this stuff is not that hard to find. Maybe I'm underestimating the help you need?
"No one believes Carlos Correa had an elite season defensively in 2022, except you. "
Please show me where I said this.
"tried to convince us OAA is bad"
Please show me where I also said this.
You can just make things up, Nathan.
If we want to bring up totally unrelated previous discussions (man, are you grasping for straws or what? ), Kimbrel was no elite reliever in 2022, no, but he was in the top third of RPs with min. 20 IP by FIP. You're acting like a 3.23 FIP is atrocious because the best bullpen in baseball didn't have a spot for him in the postseason. You said he was "no longer good", which the stats tell us is incorrect, and really were more wrong than I was, which makes this kind of funny that you're bringing it up.
Should we maybe talk a bit more about how Darin Ruf is better than Jose Abreu? That's probably more up your alley. Surely Abreu's 9.4 fWAR against Ruf's 2.7 since the start of 2020 is some kind of fluke?
23 Nov 2022 19:15:54
The article Justin Dunbar wrote was from May 2020 LMAOOOO. Statcast had just started introducing infield OAA. DUNBAR EVEN SAYS THIS HIMSELF.
"It was only recently that Baseball Savant came up with infield OAA, so maybe the results will get better over time"
Statcast OAA for infielders is completely different since the article was written, and the findings of "4 times more predictive for OF than INF" don't stand true today because of how OAA is measured and the details we have.
This also fails to understand something: I never said it was "predictive". I pointed out that Correa & Crawford aren't "equal" nor is Crawford "inferior" as you suggested. By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa.
I can't wait for you to use information from 2003 to convince of something for today!
23 Nov 2022 19:41:47
"but he was in the top third of RPs with min. 20 IP by FIP. "
There are 321 relievers that meet the criteria of 20 IP in 2022. Kimbrel ranked 101st. Saying "top third" sounds a whole lot better than "101st"
Interesting you didn't acknowledge he was 180th in xFIP. Or that he was 121st in K-BB%, a stat of which you were so gung ho about last winter. I'm sure it's just purely oversight on your part LMAO.
And I'm sure the Dodgers picked Tommy Kahnle because he had a better FIP, which is the new "preeminent stat for evaluating pitchers according to Chi Sox". Oh wait, his FIP was a full 1.50 runs worse? Oh.
23 Nov 2022 19:50:49
As far as "hot takes" go, the Darin Ruf one doesn't even land, as you continue to fail to understand the scope of that argument. It was for 2021. It was always considering 2021. But you need it to seem like I said Darin Ruf is the better career 1B. I didn't say that. I'm really sorry, Tito.
If we want to consider hot takes, look no further than this BEAUTY of a trade idea from October 2021:
"White Sox Get:
Ketel Marte 2B/ OF
DBacks Get:
Justin Upton OF
Griffin Canning RHP
Andrew Vaughn 1B/ OF
Wes Kath 3B
Yolbert Sanchez SS
Micker Adolfo OF
Angels Get:
Nick Ahmed SS
David Peralta OF
Dallas Keuchel LHP"
Yes, the trade which the White Sox got to offload a ton of useless salary, the Diamondbacks got to clear salary, and the Angels took the brunt of it. But the White Sox landed the objectively better player, without taking on a dime of dead money.
This one still makes me laugh, because the Angels' return was so awful that it made me wonder if you were trolling.
It's even funnier that you defended the Andrew Vaughn inclusion, especially as Vaughn has -0.7 fWAR after his first 1000 PAs in the majors. I'm sure teams are just lining up to add him AND acquire Keuchel.
Crazy how, yet again, I was right on this stuff.
23 Nov 2022 19:57:31
Or one last one:
"Keuchel getting to 2.8 WAR in 2022 is much more likely than JBJ getting to 2.8 WAR"
2022 fWAR:
Jackie Bradley Jr: -0.1
Dallas Keuchel: -0.3
You were so adamant that the Brewers would be "all over Keuchel" and spoke glowingly of his "5th Starter upside" despite objections.
"Keuchel is the better player - saying he's as much of a sunk cost as Bradley just really isn't true. "
LMAO.
You take more Ls than a Rick Hahn White Sox team in the playoffs.
23 Nov 2022 23:35:42
"Mark my words: Craig Kimbrel will an ERA above 5.00, and a negative WAR in 2022.
Feel free to return to this in October 2022."
I have returned.
"I will also continue to hammer the point that teams aren't dropping $16M on a reliever who was good for exactly 4 months out of the past 3 seasons, and they certainly aren't giving up anything of value for him. "
"Also, your regular reminder that Craig Kimbrel is simply not a good pitcher anymore"
Oops! May not want to attempt a victory lap here, bub.
"he was 121st in K-BB%, a stat of which you were so gung ho about last winter. I'm sure it's just purely oversight on your part LMAO. "
"Some other "elite pitchers" from the 90th percentile of K-BB%: Hoby Milner, Scott Effross, Jason Adam. "
Hey Nate, do you have any update on these 3? Surely none of them were good RPs, right? Almost like K-BB% is a pretty good metric to use there buddy.
So, I said that Kimbrel was still a valuable commodity. Andrew Friedman agreed. You called him "a garbage baseball player" He finished in the 69th percentile of FIP (objectively better stat than xFIP - remember I already taught you about this? ) and 62nd peercentile of K-BB%, and you are literally trying to take a victory lab? That is funny dude.
The final thing we neeed to do is stop those racist pre-arb extentions, remember? Especially the Braves giving them to, er, Austin Riley and Spencer Strider too! How racist! Wait, hold on a second.
Your receipts are absolutely hilarious, especially when you feel like a Keuchel for JBJ swap in retrospect tells us anything. You've taken more L's than Farhan Zaidi and Gabe Kapler did against Rick Hahn and Tony freakin' La Russa in 2022. Do you ever reflect on that? The fact that a geriatric Tony La Russa strolled into San Fran, took the Giants lunch money, had Gabe helplessly deploying position players to pitch, and swept the Giants out of their own ballpark. And yet, here you are.
"Statcast OAA for infielders is completely different since the article was written, and the findings of "4 times more predictive for OF than INF" don't stand true today because of how OAA is measured and the details we have. "
Oh wow, interesting. Could you enlighten me on the updated YOY predictability? You must know because apparently my source "doesn't stand true today". I'm very interested to hear your response.
"By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa. "
So your take is that DRS for infielders is complete BS and we should disregard. Got it.
25 Nov 2022 15:24:24
"So your take is that DRS for infielders is complete BS and we should disregard. Got it. "
No, my take is that we don't use just one effing metric to value defenders.
"Oh wow, interesting. Could you enlighten me on the updated YOY predictability? You must know because apparently my source "doesn't stand true today". "
It doesn't stand true BECAUSE THE DATA IS OUTDATED. It was written before the writer had any current OAA numbers, which is a vastly different stat for infielders than it was in May 2020. Infield OAA pre-2020 was useless. There's been much written about the new OAA for infielders, most notably by Tom Tango.
Simply put, we've had OAA data for infielders since 2020, or 2.5 seasons. There's not going to be enough data to gauge YOY reliability, yet. But if you're still running with the "4x less valuable" argument, it's outdated, purely based on the data being old and absent of all the new updates to infielder OAA, which wasn't even measured until 2020.
Base your research on current data and not outdated data, and then we'll talk. Until then, the Justin Dunbar article is as relevant as polio research from the 1920s.
It's also curious that someone who tried to dismiss Keith Law & Ben Clemens, who ignored the research from guys like Tom Tango opted to use outdated research from an unknown fantasy baseball writer with 850 Twitter followers instead.
25 Nov 2022 15:28:23
Here's the funniest part of it all:
Justin Dunbar, who in May 2020 touted DRS over OAA for infielders (get ready for this) :
USES OAA TO CITE INFIELD DEFENSE IN 2022.
You seriously can't make this up.
25 Nov 2022 17:32:22
“By all accounts, statistics as well as the opinion of those in the baseball industry, Brandon Crawford was the objectively better defender, despite being 8 years older than Correa”
So if DRS likes Correa more, that would render this statement false. Why is this hard to understand? Again, you started out referencing DEF for defense, and are now trying to lecture me on defensive metrics, lol.
You have no response to your track record. Stop digging your holes deeper with stuff like this. Terrible look.
25 Nov 2022 18:43:51
So you're not going to admit you tried to pass off an obviously outdated and irrelevant article from a wannabe baseball writer (if you know poor old Justin, you might wanna tell him to work on his grammar if he aspires to be a serious writer), with information that was outdated just months after the article was written and tried to make it seem like you were the expert here?
For about the hundredth time on this here website you were caught making up stuff and you still act like you're intellectually superior to everyone around you.
And worse, when you're presented with the writings of RESPECTED baseball writers, you dismiss it. But yet, the work of Justin Dunbar (who I had to look up because I'd never heard of him) is superior.
Unless you're Justin Dunbar, it was a weird article to cite. But you held it up because it said what you wanted it to say and you clearly didn't bother looking into whether the data presented was still true to this day (hint: it wasn't) .
25 Nov 2022 18:52:45
"you started out referencing DEF for defense, and are now trying to lecture me on defensive metrics"
Isn't it crazy that in just a matter of a few minutes worth of research, I was able to figure out that you are full of it?
The irony of you telling me to "Google it" led to your entire stance re: OAA vs. DRS actually being proven false. Through Googling it, I learned a lot about OAA, and it seems, yet again, your opinion fails to meet up with that of the industry opinion.
Conveniently, you haven't addressed the fact that you used outdated research to try and prove your stance.
Word of advice: Don't BS a BSer. To quote Walter Sobchak: "You're out of your element, Donnie. "
25 Nov 2022 19:00:46
"The fact that a geriatric Tony La Russa strolled into San Fran, took the Giants lunch money, had Gabe helplessly deploying position players to pitch, and swept the Giants out of their own ballpark. And yet, here you are. "
The funny thing is: this is about the only thing the White Sox have on the Giants this year. Never mind they finished with the same record (LOL) and finished second in OBJECTIVELY the easiest division in baseball.
The Guardians clearly weren't even trying to win. The only MLB deal they signed last winter was a 3M deal with Bryan Shaw (LOL) . They won the division by 11 games, against the Los Angeles Dodgers of the American League (your terms) .
Congrats on sweeping the Giants! Your storming of the court proves you recognize their superiority over the White Sox.
25 Nov 2022 21:39:15
Lol - “yeah you may have kicked our ass, but that’s the ONLY thing you have on our baseball team! ” Alright buddy.
Big names aren’t the only ones presenting good research. Amount of Twitter followers are a poor barometer for success, if you were unaware. Dunbar presented objective data and pretty sound analysis, but you seem to care about pundits and their opinions as if that actually matters.
“Keith Law, a journalist, doesn’t like Correa at short, so i’m going to take that to the grave”.
Agree to disagree I guess, but OAA isn’t bad for infielders, it’s just not as good as DRS according to the latest research. If you’d like to provide a similar analysis with updated data, feel free. But without any tangible comparison or reasons why you are taking this stance, it doesn’t really hold any merit. Otherwise, i’d expect the same result with OAA now given it’s essentially just a range metric.
I just presented a long list of instances where you were terribly incorrect (and this was pretty much just the last 12 months), and you say i’m out of my element. That’s pretty funny, and you adding to that list is too.
27 Nov 2022 02:21:42
"If you’d like to provide a similar analysis with updated data, feel free. "
Again, since you ignored it (it's odd you continuously ignore the details that shut down your argument) : there's not enough data to determine "year over year" reliability. We've had just two full seasons of the new infield OAA on Statcast.
There's no possible way we can determine it's YOY reliability yet.
But the article you cited was written in MAY of the Year of our Lord TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY (May 2020). We didn't even have a single instance of the new infield OAA stat being measured yet. Not a single one.
If you want to use that information to prop up your argument, the burden is on you to get up-to-date information, not me. I'm not the one making your claims.
I simply pointed out, ACCURATELY, that the data you're citing is outdated now.
Not once have you even been willing to acknowledge the fact you cited outdated information. Either a) you're not educated enough to recognize it was outdated or b) you lack the proper respect for others to trust we'd see through this BS.
Also, you presented where I was *slightly* wrong about a mediocre reliever, who Andrew Friedman refused to give a spot on his playoff roster. You can write that off all you wish, but the Dodgers aren't just leaving "above average" or even good relievers
You intentionally misrepresented my Darin Ruf argument. Those aren't a "long list of instances". It's two cases, one of which isn't even a case (as I REPEATEDLY pointed out that the scope was limited to the 2021 season) .
Meanwhile, I've thrown in for consideration your Dallas Keuchel predictions (ROFL) . Your White Sox projections (LOL), calling them the "Dodgers of the AL" (LMAOOOOO) . You gave us easily one of the top 5 worst trades on this site. You cited the projections of the Giants and having 110 wRC+ hitters (they had 3 with 250+ PAs, not one) .
At the very least, my opinions were at least somewhat seen as in line with FO decisions. The Mets made a DRASTIC overpay for Darin Ruf, and gave up a guy who hit 142 wRC+ for the Giants in 2022, as well as other pieces. Other teams saw the huge value in Darin Ruf, especially at his cost.
Then, again, the Dodgers left Craig Kimbrel off their playoff roster. You can make the argument about the guys they picked over him, but you can't deny what's right before us: they left their $16M relief pitcher, who closed most of the season's games off the roster during the most important time of the baseball calendar. They did so because Craig Kimbrel is just not very good. (If he was as excellent as you prop him up to be, the Dodgers would have found him a spot. )
Your takes were nowhere near reality. The only team that gave Dallas Keuchel more than a few starts was the Chicago White Sox (LMAOOOOO), where he sported an impressive 7.88 ERA and had as many walks as he did strikeouts in 32 innings pitched. A few teams tried him out when he was essentially free, but even after a while, baseball gave up on him.
So your arrogant stance that David Stearns would absolutely want Dallas Keuchel as his 5th Starter is even more comical than it ever seemed.
You're this site's Leury Garcia: you look like you might be kind of brilliant, but when you're actually put to the test, you prove exactly what you are to everyone: a complete and total FRAUD.
27 Nov 2022 04:25:54
I associated the White Sox with the Dodgers back in like 2020, Nathan. That analysis is outdated, per your logic.
Also, I was proposing Keuchel be dealt for a guy coming off of a -1.6 fWAR season for Pete's sake. Production-wise, they did about the same in 2022. If that's a huge judgement mistake by me for you, then I think I'm in pretty good shape. That's such a nothing-burger proposal, man.
Then, the pitcher who I defended as not being "complete garbage" has a solid season in LA (not worth $16 million, but still as I showed, top third of RPs in the league for the stuff that, you know, matters), and your "gotcha" detail is that he was left off the playoff roster of the team with the best pitching staff in the major leagues. Like, ok? Another massive score for you. Congrats.
You now, ironically, project Perry Minasian to give that "garbage" a sizable AAV heading into 2023. Interesting.
Meanwhile, you're thrown shade at K-BB% (the whole Effross, Milner, Adam comment is one of the funniest posts in hindsight that this site has ever seen. Boy, did you fall flat on your face there) and FIP as evaluation tools for pitchers while using DEF as your preferred defensive metric.
"There's no possible way we can determine it's YOY reliability yet.
But the article you cited was written in MAY of the Year of our Lord TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY (May 2020). We didn't even have a single instance of the new infield OAA stat being measured yet. Not a single one. "
I'm sorry, but these statements are tangibly false.
Einstein - we have 7 seasons of infield OAA data. Log on to Baseball Savant and see for yourself. Since the stat is the same as it's been (for infielders and outfielders, respectively) since its debut in 2020 when Dunbar had 4 seasons of data at his disposal, we have no reason to believe that defenders have fundamentally changed over the last 2.5 seasons to warrant that analysis moot. If you have any shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm all ears. Infield OAA is still not outperforming DRS, I'm sorry, and Keith Law's opinions can't save you here.
The burden of proof is on you to disprove what I am citing. That's how it works. You have brought zero evidence to the table to suggest that the research is outdated - nothing. But to be honest, there's no reason to suggest major differences because 4 years of data is solid - we're talking about the Law of Large Numbers.
Read Tango's 2020 post on OAA once or twice - it's essentially a range metric, which works great for outfielders but isn't optimized for infielders. It makes sense.
Again, when this thread started, the metrics you chose to justify a defensive claim for Crawford v. Correa were DEF (the most useless stat on FanGraphs) and UZR. Then you learned about OAA in the process of arguing, jumped ship on DEF and are now feverously defending infield OAA - but yeah, I'm the fraud here.
You're a novice with these kinds of metrics - I'm not, and that's the evident circumstance.
27 Nov 2022 11:17:35
"Einstein - we have 7 seasons of infield OAA data"
Holy F*** my dude. The Infield OAA data isn't even relevant as the entire statistic has changed since the start of the 2020 season.
"The burden of proof is on you to disprove what I am citing. "
I did, by proving, on MULTIPLE accounts, the outdated statistic you are using. The point you used is based on outdated information, therefore, it does not stand. How is that so hard for you to comprehend?
"Read Tango's 2020 post on OAA once or twice"
LMAOOOOO. I was the one who even cited Tom Tango for you. Sorry you missed that as you were stroking your faux-intellectual eggplant emoji. And he spends tons of time discussing the range factors for infielders, did you even read it? LOL.
Anyway, I had a pretty good feeling you weren't going to actually address the fact that Dunbar's data was outdated. And you're actually defending the fact that you believed Dallas Keuchel would EASILY make the Brewers rotation in 2022.
There's an old adage: a hit dog will holler. And you've been doing a lot of hollering, Benji.
27 Nov 2022 11:43:02
Speaking of K-BB%, I did some looking into it's reliability, here's a fun fact for you:
From 2019-2022, only 2 (two) relievers show up in the Top 20 for MLB relievers (20 IP minimum) for K-BB% each year: Liam Hendriks and Edwin Diaz.
There are just seven (7) others who found their way onto that list more than twice. Out of 40 spots, there are 31 unique names, meaning over the last four seasons, you have just 22.5% of your top relievers according to K-BB% repeat at least once. You have FIVE PERCENT that find their way on the list every season.
You speak a lot of year-over-year reliability, and this shows it's everything but. The threshold to make the top 20 each year doesn't change. The lowest Top 20 K-BB% during that span was 24.7%, the highest was 26.1%.
Any team trying to build a case on a reliever because he had a good K-BB% in one season is asking for trouble. It's, frankly, a useless stat when trying to determine how a reliever might do the next season, as we have almost no cases of top relievers per K-BB% continuing to be the top. (And the only ones that do are making more than $18M in 2023).
It's a nothing-burger stat. You tried to toss it into the ring to prove to me that Craig Kimbrel was somehow an elite reliever.
Also fun fact: Craig Kimbrel's name appears just one time (2021).
You also claim, "the whole Effross, Milner, Adam comment is one of the funniest posts in hindsight that this site has ever seen. Boy, did you fall flat on your face there"
Those guys' K-BB% dropped by an average of 8% from 2021 to 2022. Not a single one of them had better rates the year after. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
It was a useless stat when you tried to make it look like some "gotcha" stat, it's a uselsss stat now.
27 Nov 2022 12:28:27
And if we want to talk about horrible takes, we could deep dive into the history books with your Avisail Garcia take (ROFL), but we don't need to go that far back.
We just need to address you pointing out that the Giants were 5-6 years away from contending and that the White Sox were such a superior organization at this point in time.
History has, yet again, not been kind to your outlandish White Sox homerism. I'll prove it:
Since 2020 (I'm literally ignoring the bad year for the White Sox, since, according to you, it somehow doesn't count), here is the record for the Chicago Dodgers, I mean Chicago White Sox:
209-175 (.544). That's pretty good if I'm being honest. There's no way the Giants, who are a half-decade or more away from contending would be better than that, right? Right? RIGGHHHTT?
Since 2020, the non-contending Giants are 217-167 (.565).
Oh.
Surely it must be a fluke! They must play in an easy division with the Dodgers and Padres. They certainly don't play in a division with the Guardians, who won the division, despite their only MLB free agent signing last offseason was Bryan Shaw.
"Okay, Nate. But 2023, that's the year it'll be proven! "
ZiPS recent early projections, since you're into that kind of thing:
Chicago White Sox: 76-86.
San Francisco Giants: 83-79.
Whatever "take" you think I said that was bad, this will eternally be worse. Sometimes I feel bad for bringing this up, because it was truly that embarrassing of a take for you, and every season that passes, it becomes more laughable.
This is easily 100x worse than any Craig Kimbrel take I've made.
So keep trying to "dunk" on me with what you perceived to be bad takes. This one will be eternally worse.
27 Nov 2022 21:11:16
OAA didn’t change man, they just added it for infielders in 2020. It previously didn’t exist. You’re confused here. The metadata exists back to 2016 (and thus can be used), there was never a fundamental change to the metric, it was simply newly released for infielders.
“Those guys' K-BB% dropped by an average of 8% from 2021 to 2022. Not a single one of them had better rates the year after. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
It was a useless stat when you tried to make it look like some "gotcha" stat, it's a uselsss stat now. ”
You’re telling me that the relationship between walks and strikeouts, 2 of the core components of FIP, do not matter for RPs? At this point, you might just be a bonafide idiot, or it’s just the overwhelming cognitive dissonance (or just trolling) . The stat absolutely matters, and will matter even more now with more BIPs turning into hits with the shift ban. I’m guessing you’re in the “exit velo doesn’t matter for hitters” camp too?
Who cares if their K-BB%s dropped? They all had great seasons overall. That was my point. It’s a good way to find hidden gems, and the three you sarcastically referenced last year turned out to be really good arms. I used it as justification that Kimbrel wasn’t washed, and 2022 showed that Kimbrel wasn’t in fact washed and that it proved useful for guys like Milner, Effross, and Adam too. How funny! Just take the L, there’s no way to can spin this one (though I admire the determination to try an spin even your worst losses) .
Thanks for taking the time to show that reliever performance is fickle. Groundbreaking discovery! But if you want to predict 2023 reliever performance, K-BB% is one of the best metrics you can use, especially because pitchers have almost zero control over BABIP. I guess you’d like to leverage ERA and xFIP more? My goodness.
You’re now referencing team ZiPS projections in November (lol), the same system that I referenced when my take was that the Giants were very unlikely to be anywhere close to 2021, and you called me out for that, as if it was my personal projection and not Dan Szymborski’s projection system.
Rosters are immensely incomplete, and fact that you think the current team projection means anything proves my previous point that you don’t really understand how these projection systems work. It’s now blatantly obvious.
I don’t want to keep rubbing this in, but The White Sox dog-walked the Giants in San Francisco last year. I really don’t care about the team record comparison since 2020. Your Giants had a chance to prove themselves and they got pummeled. It’s really cut and dry. The team comparisons should stop, especially when there’s no need from you to bring it up after what took place H2H. Head-to-head matchups are the best bragging rights, i’m afraid, especially when the teams literally finished with the same record.
I’ve already conceded that I was originally too harsh on the Giants contention window, predicting that it would start in the 2024-25 range. But if they’re unable to crack the postseason again in ‘23, it’ll look even more like 2021 was a complete fluke and I wasn’t in fact that far off.
28 Nov 2022 12:59:38
"OAA didn’t change man, they just added it for infielders in 2020. It previously didn’t exist. You’re confused here"
Wait, so in May 2020, Justin Dunbar wrote about the reliability of an infield stat that didn't even exist at the time? That's the context of his point? Thank you for further proving my point about the data you presented.
"You’re now referencing team ZiPS projections in November (lol), the same system that I referenced when my take was that the Giants were very unlikely to be anywhere close to 2021, and you called me out for that, as if it was my personal projection and not Dan Szymborski’s projection system. "
I'm referencing them because you care so deeply about them and think so mightily of them. Hence why I said, "since you're into that kind of thing"
Curious how ZiPS projections are gospel truth, until it makes the White Sox a lesser team than you hoped. Of course the rosters are incomplete. It's also far more likely that the projected-83 win Giants will add more significant pieces and spend more money in FA this winter than the White Sox, who just dropped 8M on a pitcher with a 4.98 FIP (5.04 as a starter) . That ranked him the 8th worst starter with minimum 100 IP in 2022. I'm sure that'll bring them to at least 77 wins LMAO.
If you believe the White Sox will bring in more impact players than the Giants, then great.
"fact that you think the current team projection means anything proves my previous point that you don’t really understand how these projection systems work. "
From Dan's article, "These standings represent the best estimates ZiPS can make at this point about where a team sits in the league’s pecking order, based solely on the players currently under contract with the team. It’s hard to get where you want to go if you don’t know where you’re starting. "
Again, you sang ZiPS' praises when it made the White Sox look like a 90+ win team and the Giants a 75-win team, but now that it's reversed, "it doesn't mean anything? "
Speaking of cognitive dissonance.
And again, if you need to feel that a 3-game series is enough to prove some kind of dominance, then I assume you're willing to acknowledge the Arizona Diamondbacks as much better, as they swept your White Sox on their home field?
Because, according to your standards, " Your [White Sox] had a chance to prove themselves and they got pummeled. It’s really cut and dry. The team comparisons should stop, especially when there’s no need from you to bring it up after what took place H2H. Head-to-head matchups are the best bragging rights, i’m afraid. "
So that settles it. H2H records is all that matters. The Diamondbacks are simply better than the White Sox. Cut and dry.
Oh what's that? ZiPS has Arizona as 7 games better than the White Sox as well?
This is awkward, Albert.
28 Nov 2022 13:03:05
Hi, I'm here to translate Chi Sox's posts so you can see what he really means:
"I’ve already conceded that I was originally too harsh on the Giants contention window, predicting that it would start in the 2024-25 range. But if they’re unable to crack the postseason again in ‘23, it’ll look even more like 2021 was a complete fluke and I wasn’t in fact that far off. "
Translation: "I know I was wrong but I refuse to admit I was wrong. In fact, I'm doubling down on my wrongness despite the history on my predictions being absolutely laughable on this website. "
28 Nov 2022 15:08:26
"Wait, so in May 2020, Justin Dunbar wrote about the reliability of an infield stat that didn't even exist at the time? That's the context of his point? Thank you for further proving my point about the data you presented. "
Alright, yep, bonafide idiot or troll. Make your selection, folks. Holy hell man, infield OAA was released in January 2020 covering the 2016-2019 seasons based on the articles that YOU also referenced. Dunbar obviously couldn't analyze a metric that didn't exist, hence why he wrote the article in May. Understand now? Good grief. Put your tail between your legs and walk home, little guy.
"And again, if you need to feel that a 3-game series is enough to prove some kind of dominance, then I assume you're willing to acknowledge the Arizona Diamondbacks as much better, as they swept your White Sox on their home field? "
Hey man, If I'd been going back and forth with a Dbacks fan like this, I'd certainly keep my mouth shut about that team - though they did finish 7 games worse, so not the same premise, but again, valiant recovery effort by you here.
I really like Arizona's future outlook too - probably the third best in that division to be honest. I'd be careful.
"Again, you sang ZiPS' praises"
Referencing a certain projection system is not "singing its praises. " If you want to put any stock in the ZiPS team-level projections in November, you're entitled to do so. Knock yourself out.
Nice to se you generate yet another account to agree with you, Nate. Maybe you, "Translator", and "DavidStearnsGM" can all grab a drink sometime.
28 Nov 2022 15:58:44
"Alright, yep, bonafide idiot or troll. Make your selection, folks. Holy hell man, infield OAA was released in January 2020 covering the 2016-2019 seasons based on the articles that YOU also referenced. Dunbar obviously couldn't analyze a metric that didn't exist, hence why he wrote the article in May. Understand now? Good grief. Put your tail between your legs and walk home, little guy. "
I'm not criticizing Justin Dunbar. He wrote his article with the information he had at the time.
I'm criticizing YOU for using it, because it's obviously outdated and the point of "OAA having 4x more predictive power for OF than it does for infield" was based on pre-2020 data.
So when you try to dismiss the OAA comparison because "it's not as predictive for infielders", you're basing your dismissal on information that doesn't account for the 2020-2022 data.
It's no surprise that almost every respected baseball writer cites OAA for infielders, including Carlos Correa as they discuss his poor defensive season. Few of them cite DRS directly. But I'm sure we should just ignore all the experts and go with Chi Sox's opinion on the matter. That's what Chi Sox prefers: ignore information that hurts his argument, even if it's by guys he loves to cite when it helps his argument.
Again, Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections are useless now, despite your consistent use of ZiPS to make your arguments on this site.
28 Nov 2022 16:30:23
"I'm criticizing YOU for using it, because it's obviously outdated and the point of "OAA having 4x more predictive power for OF than it does for infield" was based on pre-2020 data.
So when you try to dismiss the OAA comparison because "it's not as predictive for infielders", you're basing your dismissal on information that doesn't account for the 2020-2022 data. '
And my point like 8 replies ago, was that unless there's been a major fundamental change in how the stat has been calculated (there has not been), or a major fundamental change in how defenders defend (there has been none that I'm aware of, because OAA takes shifts in account), there's no reason to believe that the last 3 seasons of defensive data would show major holistic differences when compared to the previous 4. Again, if you'd like to bring some other evidence to the table that would suggest otherwise, be my guest. But studies can't just be labeled "old" (in any field, not just sports) after a couple years when there is no evidence of material changes.
And again, I don't care about what the Keith Law, Jim Bowden, Jon Heyman, and Bob Nightengales of the baseball industry reference when looking at defense. That's their opinions and their prerogative - I'm coming with objective data as to why using one is more effective. Still, OAA for infielders is not complete garbage like UZR (and therefore, DEF) for infielders, and I've said this numerous times too. OAA is a range metric, though, which makes it make perfect sense as to why it works a lot better for outfielders than infielders. There are a lot more variables on the infield.
So when you say "all credible stats say that Crawford is the better defender", all I'm saying is that statement is blatantly false, as data tells us that DRS is the best metric for infielders and it like Correa better. Still, you can do a lot worse than referencing infield OAA, like using DEF where you started. Just keep that in mind.
Glad we could (hopefully) put your confusions to bed.
"Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections are useless now"
Nope, don't twist my words. They're largely useless on November 28th - that's my stance.
When comparing our teams, I reference the most recent H2H matchups, and you reference November team-level ZiPS projections.
You tell me who's grasping here.
28 Nov 2022 16:37:12
And honestly, I'd put money on the fact that DRS is referenced more often than OAA in baseball blogs, regardless of position.
28 Nov 2022 17:14:52
"Nope, don't twist my words. They're largely useless on November 28th - that's my stance. "
LMAO. Again, anyone who has been on this site and read your nonsense knows exactly what your tune would be if the numbers were flipped.
"When comparing our teams, I reference the most recent H2H matchups, and you reference November team-level ZiPS projections. "
Ahhh yes. I totally forgot that a random 3-game sample means so effing much, more than, say, multiple years worth of information?
Ignore it all and look at just three games. That's it!
Also, I didn't just reference November ZiPS. I referenced their win-loss total over since 2020. I limited it to 2020, since we can't look at anything prior to that for Rick Hahn, as it doesn't count (yet, it counted that he traded Sale, Eaton, Quintana, and made other moves you bragged about) . I've referenced playoff wins. Interesting how the team that's a half-decade+ from contending has the same amount of playoff wins since 2020 as your White Sox.
Consider this, during the wide-open window of a "stacked White Sox" team, they lost more games than the Giants who were clearly rebuilding. How pathetic is that?
But ignore it all and look at a 3-game sample size.
Why should we do this? BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY THING CHI SOX HAS.