Sizemore Sample Sizes Succently Stated

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
ScubaSteveAvery said:
 
I didn't realize you were Nate Silver. 
 
PECOTA has them as relatively similar players: Nava with better on-base skills and Sizemore with more power. 
 
Their PECOTa weighted mean is:
 
Nava: .262/.352/.391
Sizemore: .241/.318/.408
 
At the 50th Percentile:
 
Nava: .261/.351/.390
Sizemore: .236/.313/.401
 
70th Percentile
 
Nava: .275/.367/.411
Sizemore: .254/.334/.432
 
30th Percentile
 
Nava: .247/.334/.369
Sizemore: .219/.292/.371
 
BP's Upside metric created by Silver, defined as: 
 
 
has Sizemore at a projected 60.2% for 2014 and only 21.2% for Daniel Nava. 
 
So by using PECOTA, I'm curious how you arrive at your claim of: "I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up a 780 or higher OPS at less than 20 percent, and Nava exceeding that number at 67 percent. I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up an OPS below 720 at 50 percent, and the likelihood of Nava doing so at less than 10 percent."
 
​Looking at the ZIPS update:
 
Nava: .229/.318/.354
Sizemore: .218/.283/.372
 
Again, less on base skills for Sizemore, but more power. 
 
Looking at the Steamer Update:
 
Nava: .227/.313/.358
Sizemore: .236/.298/.392
 
Both players are projected at sub .700 OPS players.  Could you please explain why you project Nava so much higher in light of the other projection systems showing Nava as a slightly better player due to better on base skills?
 
So what you're trying to say is..... we need a new platoon partner for Gomes.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
PECOTA shows Nava with a 33 to 40 point OBP advantage at every point of the distribution that's freaking huge.

I'm not sure why we'd be looking at "updates" if we're not supposed to be making decisions based on one month of part time data. My projection for Nava is basically taking last years numbers and trimming his BABip to his career average. That to me is the most sensible thing to do for a 31 year old who has hit everywhere he's been healthy until 55 or so plate appearance this spring.

Not sure why PECOTA is so negative about his SLG or what Zips and Steamer started out with, but doing that for my Nava projection is perfectly in line with the more sophisticated Bill James projection.
 

ScubaSteveAvery

Master of the Senate
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2007
8,329
Everywhere
Plympton91 said:
PECOTA shows Nava with a 33 to 40 point OBP advantage at every point of the distribution that's freaking huge.

I'm not sure why we'd be looking at "updates" if we're not supposed to be making decisions based on one month of part time data. My projection for Nava is basically taking last years numbers and trimming his BABip to his career average. That to me is the most sensible thing to do for a 31 year old who has hit everywhere he's been healthy until 55 or so plate appearance this spring.

Not sure why PECOTA is so negative about his SLG or what Zips and Steamer started out with, but doing that for my Nava projection is perfectly in line with the more sophisticated Bill James projection.
 
The extra 20 points in SLG negates some of Nava's advantage in OBP.  But really, they are both sub-optimal players in the eyes of PECOTA, ZIPS, and Steamer. Nava has to play at above the 70th percentile to reach the .780 OPS that you say he has a 67% chance of beating.  At the 70th percentile the difference in OPS is 12 points.  Why does Sizemore have a less than 20% chance of reaching .780?  You refuse to answer how you came up with your percentages. 
 
I used the updates because you are hyper focused on the small sample size so far.  So why not use their numbers to date.  The ZIPS projections from the beginning of the season had Nava as a .728 player and Sizemore as a .673 player.  Steamer had Nava at .756 and didn't project Sizemore. If you want to be held to not making decisions based on one moth of part time data then please post to have your Bogaert's thread deleted.
 
Right now you are relying on one projection system with evidence from three others that shows that Nava is not much of an upgrade over Sizemore.  I ask again, what did you use to arrive at this conclusion:
 
"I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up a 780 or higher OPS at less than 20 percent, and Nava exceeding that number at 67 percent. I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up an OPS below 720 at 50 percent, and the likelihood of Nava doing so at less than 10 percent."
 
 
If you are going to throw out numbers like this you need to show your work.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Ok, let's try this, in 500 plate appearances last season, Nava had a 830 OPS. In his last 600 major league plate appearances, Grady Sizemore has a sub 700 OPS.

Capishe? Any projection of Sizemore as a capable major leaguer ignores 5 years of failure. Projecting Nava to be 5 percent worse than he was last season is way way way way less of a stretch.

Sizemore's nothing but a lottery ticket, but hey, when the jackpot goes ove a couple hundred million I play those too. The key is knowing when to stop playing.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,834
Plympton91 said:
Again, if you want to debate me on statistical analysis, please show your credentials.
 
Stop.  You arent the only say on this board and I'm sure someone here has much better credentials than you on this subject
 

ScubaSteveAvery

Master of the Senate
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2007
8,329
Everywhere
Plympton91 said:
Ok, let's try this, in 500 plate appearances last season, Nava had a 830 OPS. In his last 600 major league plate appearances, Grady Sizemore has a sub 700 OPS.

Capishe? Any projection of Sizemore as a capable major leaguer ignores 5 years of failure. Projecting Nava to be 5 percent worse than he was last season is way way way way less of a stretch.

Again, if you want to debate me on statistical analysis, please show your credentials.
So you won't actually post your work, but instead rely on your 'credentials.'  Numbers don't care about your credentials.  Seriously, if you would just show you work,  you wouldn't have to resort to a bullshit appeal of authority. 
 
You cite Nava's OPS from last year and then use ONE year to project future years. I bet you bought a ton of Brady Anderson baseball cards too, right? I mean, Nava's career OPS by year in the Majors are: .711, .742., .830.  Which one of these is not like the other?  Then you look at his BABIP of .352 in 2013, when before he had .333 and .295.  Ah, things start to make more sense now. That OPS is also really fueled by a much higher batting average than the previous two years.  We saw a 60 points jump in BA from last year. I'm willing to bet he is not a .300 hitter for the remainder of this career. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I, along with at least two others have shown our work on Nava several times in multiple threads. I've also offered three different frameworks in this thread tonight for Nava, and 5 for Sizemore. Clearly you haven't read them or can't process them. Time for you to do some background reading and get back to me. Or you can continue to wishcast Grady circa 2008. Your choice.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,834
Plympton91 said:
I, along with at least two others have shown our work on Nava several times in multiple threads. I've also offered three different frameworks in this thread tonight for Nava, and 5 for Sizemore. Clearly you haven't read them or can't process them. Time for you to do some background reading and get back to me. Or you can continue to wishcast Grady circa 2008. Your choice.
 
Please explain this to someone who doesnt have the paper credentials that you do.  SSA has shown his work and yours looks like cherry picking to me.  But again I'm not as paper credentialed as you are so I'm willing to let you explain it to my lesser mind
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
OK, I've got two frameworks for Sizemore--PECOTA and "his numbers this year are a lot like his numbers from a few years ago."
 
What am I missing?
 
I love Nava by the way and hope he comes back and rakes again. I know for a fact, though, that none of us have the data to sort the meaning of his BABIP from last season though.
 
Well, Alan Nathan might, but he doesn't come around that often.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Reverend said:
OK, I've got two frameworks for Sizemore--PECOTA and "his numbers this year are a lot like his numbers from a few years ago."
 
What am I missing?
 
I love Nava by the way and hope he comes back and rakes again. I know for a fact, though, that none of us have the data to sort the meaning of his BABIP from last season though.

Well, Alan Nathan might, but he doesn't come around that often.
For Sizemore I also posted zips and steamer preseason projections of less than 700 OPS.
The article I linked has it's iwn optimistic projection of a 110 ops+ Which is still not higher than 780.

For Nava I explicitly said I was adjusting for BABip, three times, but SSA still posted about it as if it undermined my entire point. It's obvious he's not actually reading the thread very closely.
 

ScubaSteveAvery

Master of the Senate
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2007
8,329
Everywhere
Plympton91 said:
I, along with at least two others have shown our work on Nava several times in multiple threads. I've also offered three different frameworks in this thread tonight for Nava, and 5 for Sizemore. Clearly you haven't read them or can't process them. Time for you to do some background reading and get back to me. Or you can continue to wishcast Grady circa 2008. Your choice.
 
Ah, so now without any numbers, you start to erect straw men. I'll start with your last claim, since that one is straightforward.  Please show me where I wishcasted Sizemore to return to his 2008 numbers?  All I've done is posted projects from three projection systems as a means of comparison between Nava and Sizemore. In no place have I said Sizemore is going to return to his 2008 self.  In fact, I've said twice that the projection systems project Nava to be a better player because of superior on base skills. 
 
I have questioned your projection that Nava has a 67% chance of hitting better than .780, with Sizemore only a 20% chance, despite three separate projection systems that disagree with your assertion and projection. Your response has been to take Nava's best season, fueled by an unsustainable and career best BABIP, and shave 5% off.  You then point to Bill James' projection as some kind of backup. When pressing you for further explanation, you decided to pull rank and say you had better credentials, therefore I couldn't debate stats with you because I don't have a PhD.  This mindset is antithetical to math.
 
Now, lets turn to your frameworks. I'm not really sure what you mean by framework, but we have PECOTA's projections which aren't that enlightening to furthering your point. We have the "Sizemore has played bad for 5 years so we can't expect him to play like 2008 again" framework. I actually agree with you.  We shouldn't expect him to hit 33 HRs, have a ~.370 OBP, and over .500 SLG. I'm not sure I ever agreed to that. Then there is what opened this thread: that since Sizemore's contract escalators are nearing, we should look to cut him loose because Nava is 5-15 in Pawtucket.  I kind of get this, but like many others have mentioned, Nava had options and Sizemore didn't. Given that the team needs depth in the corners, it would make sense to use the option that at least keeps the depth the same. 
 
You also mentioned that Sizemore is a lottery ticket. This I also agree with. Its why I mentioned the BP Upside numbers earlier.  But wouldn't you agree that 20 games is not enough of a sample to gauge whether the Sox have won the lottery?  If Sizemore is a scratch ticket with a $10,000 jackpot, the Sox are probably hoping to match 3 out 5 midgets and get $1,000.  If that means Nava needs to play 20 games in AAA then that might be worth it, especially since Nava looked completely lost at the plate when he was with the team. 
 
I've read your posts and understand them.  What I didn't understand I questioned.  You have so far run away from answering those questions.  
 
And to be clear, I like Daniel Nava.  If he is platooned effectively he is a valuable player.  I love his story and drive, but I won't ignore the evidence in front of me. 
 

ScubaSteveAvery

Master of the Senate
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2007
8,329
Everywhere
Plympton91 said:
For Sizemore I also posted zips and steamer preseason projections of less than 700 OPS.
The article I linked has it's iwn optimistic projection of a 110 ops+ Which is still not higher than 780.

For Nava I explicitly said I was adjusting for BABip, three times, but SSA still posted about it as if it undermined my entire point. It's obvious he's not actually reading the thread very closely.
 
Saying that you adjusted for BABIP ("Projecting Nava to be 5 percent worse than he was last season is way way way way less of a stretch.") =/= the explanation for "I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up a 780 or higher OPS at less than 20 percent, and Nava exceeding that number at 67 percent. I'd put the likelihood of Sizemore putting up an OPS below 720 at 50 percent, and the likelihood of Nava doing so at less than 10 percent."
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
The biggest gap between Nava and Sizemore right now has to be expected accuracy of projections.  I'm not going to rehash the specifics that have already been laid out, but Nava is pretty understandable.  He still has a range of possibility, but we should grasp his age, BABIP etc probably indicate any rational expectation should be below last year's performance, and his up and down in a reasonably narrow band.
 
What I don't fully get is the expectation that projecting Sizemore is as much of a science, and that the probability bell curve for him might have a peak lower than Nava, but it is considerably wider and hazier.
 
I don't think it is unreasonable or very unlikely that he would not be able to shake off the time off and really be healthy enough to be an above average major leaguer.  But it is really difficult to make a case for this based on statistical projections  of either his 80 PAs this year or his 435 PAs in the last four seasons with two injury plagued seasons followed by two completely inactive years.  I don't think there is a reasonable basis to trust a statistical analysis and model of why he will be bad.
 
I also don' think it is unreasonable or very unlikely that he might actually be all the way healthy, and shaking off the rust and timing to get back to what you would expect from the 31 year old season of the player he was from  22 to 26 before injuries derailed him.  I'm not throwing Roy Hobbs at him, but sometimes a career gets off track, and if health and age permit, there isn't a fundamental reason it can't get back on track.
 
So with two pretty substantially ranging realistic possibilities, I don't think Sizemore is accurately projectable without continuing to watch him play, and see if he is actually healthy or not (and how close he might be in health to the hypothetical 31 year old who didn't lose four seasons), and if he is able to overcome such a long time away.
 
With Sizemore having such a difficult to predict and wide range of possibilities, it is really difficult to gauge which side of Nava's likely performance he falls on without either waiting and seeing as statistics accumulate, or relying on the inexact old school eyeball scouting.  I happen to love Nava for the narrative, but think Grady has a greater than 50% chance of outperforming him at the plate in 2014, and even more significant chance of outperforming him in 2015.
 
If the pool of 2014 data continues to grow without Sizemore showing more hints of being an 800OPS player, the Red Sox might force their hand at some point and give his playing time back to Nava.  The upside of Grady being good Grady is significant enough to ride out a larger sample over a slumping and likely BABIP and age adjusting projectable Nava, which I think is exactly what is happening and should be expected to continue as long as he is showing signs of progress at the plate.
 
But there just aren't enough comparable career path's to really figure out what to expect from 2014 Sizemore based on 2005 to 2009, or 2010 to 2013 or 2005 to 2013.  Mysteries that statistical analysis can't pierce are pretty unpopular around here, and our track record of failed reclamation projects probably tempers the optimism further.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Actually, PECOTA projections are exactly inline with what I posted as probabilities for Sizemore, and with mean projections from zips and steamer of less than 700 that also justifies a less than 50 percent probability of 720 for him.


You refuse to investigate and consider the reasonable adjustments to Nava's career stats outlined by me and at least two others on multiple occasions over the past 3 months. Cool. Continue in your current state of knowledge there.

I'm impressed with your ability to copy and paste from fan graphs, even if you cleArly didn't understand that they completely backed up my Sizemore projections.
 

Hambone

will post for drinks
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,822
Some of us only have state school educations, so really hoping you could point me toward the other reasonable adjustments made by others the last few months, as maybe they'd show their work.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Hambone said:
Some of us only have state school educations, so really hoping you could point me toward the other reasonable adjustments made by others the last few months, as maybe they'd show their work.
 
Not sure where you guys have been in the past 2 months, but you could have checked out the "Projecting Sizemore" and "Who's the Opening Day CF" and "Spring Training 2014" threads that lingered near the top of the front page for weeks.  Maybe you just liked looking at the pictures.
 
Here's the long-form version of what I've been posting on Nava and why it's not "just one good season", reprinted a third time:
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/81697-spring-training-2014/page-3#entry5261021
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
As the three bit defense lawyer said to the jury I was on, "if this was an open and shut case, none of us would be here today." If the Red Sox felt that Nava or Sizemore was so significantly better than the other that it was worth losing the outfield depth they both afford, one of them would be off the 40 man roster. The fact that they sent Nava down conjures images of Ben puzzling over scouting reports and statistical projections. It's not unreasonable to start the clock on The Sizemore experiment. He doesn't appear to be as good as we thought. Barring injury, if he plays another month as bad as this one, they'll probably let him go. Right now that feels like the most likely scenario, but who knows if Victorino is going to need another vacation.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
Plympton91 said:
 
Not sure where you guys have been in the past 2 months, but you could have checked out the "Projecting Sizemore" and "Who's the Opening Day CF" and "Spring Training 2014" threads that lingered near the top of the front page for weeks.  Maybe you just liked looking at the pictures.
 
Here's the long-form version of what I've been posting on Nava and why it's not "just one good season", reprinted a third time:
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/81697-spring-training-2014/page-3#entry5261021
 
I thought you left SOSH when Iggy was traded.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Rasputin said:
 
I thought you left SOSH when Iggy was traded.
 
Ha!  Cute.  What's missing is the T-Test that shows those results only have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being random.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
koufax37 said:
 
If the pool of 2014 data continues to grow without Sizemore showing more hints of being an 800OPS player, the Red Sox might force their hand at some point and give his playing time back to Nava.  The upside of Grady being good Grady is significant enough to ride out a larger sample over a slumping and likely BABIP and age adjusting projectable Nava, which I think is exactly what is happening and should be expected to continue as long as he is showing signs of progress at the plate.
 
 
I think one thing to remember is that he's unlikley to be an 800 OPS player this year simply because of the seriously decreased offensive environment these days.  Sizemore's 796 was a 110 OPS+ in 2009. Bogaerts's 765 is a 110 now.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
joe dokes said:
 
I think one thing to remember is that he's unlikley to be an 800 OPS player this year simply because of the seriously decreased offensive environment these days.  Sizemore's 796 was a 110 OPS+ in 2009. Bogaerts's 765 is a 110 now.
This is an important point. It takes a while to adjust our expectations and when we see Sizemore's .636 OPS we cringe. Except while it's still poor, here are the lines for AL outfielders:
as LF: .249/.315/.397
as CF: .264/.338/.399
as RF: .258/.323/.399
 
It would probably take something like a 5-for-10 stretch for Sizemore to bring his season lines up to average OF level. Or one game like Victorino had yesterday. Etc.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,607
Row 14
The real problem is the existence of Gomes.  I understand the need for a RHH in the OF but our entire IF is RHH (except the catcher) and we have Victorino.  Gomes is a very limited player defensively who has better fielding replacements (Brentz and Hassan) in AAA.
 
Gomes/Nava Platoon makes sense but I think Gomes is the player the Red Sox have the least need for depth wise as well as on the bench.  He is a great mascot though.
 
Sizemore may be disappointing in the OF but he is much better fielder than Carp and Gomes.  He is also better than Nava.  Defensively I much prefer Sizemore - Bradley - Victorino to anything else the Red Sox have to offer.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Hey P91, tone down the obnoxiousness by about 100000% or take a break from the board. "Show your credentials"? Van doesn't post much on the main board any more, we don't need you to pick up his rhetorical style. Cut the shit.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Sizemore has horrible reads off the bat and literally can not move in the OF. He is better than Carp because that's a low hurdle to clear but there is no way Sizemore is better defensively than Nava and Gomes. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
rembrat said:
Sizemore has horrible reads off the bat and literally can not move in the OF. He is better than Carp because that's a low hurdle to clear but there is no way Sizemore is better defensively than Nava and Gomes. 
 
Some of the bad reads has to be due to Sizemore's inexperience in the corner outfield positions, no?  I have no idea on what the Sox fully expected regarding Sizemore's re-acclimation ot playing MLB after two years completely out of the game, but they must have expected some period of adjustment.  Assuming he's healthy and ready to go for each start, that has to be an accomplishment.  Did he look better in the field during the warm weather in Florida?  I can't say for sure since I wasn't watching as critically.  If Sizemore can stay healthy and show some improvement in the next month then if/when Nava returns it's at Carp's expense.  If they happen to DL Sizemore to make room for Nava, then we'll know the end is near for Grady.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
WenZink said:
 
Some of the bad reads has to be due to Sizemore's inexperience in the corner outfield positions, no?  I have no idea on what the Sox fully expected regarding Sizemore's re-acclimation ot playing MLB after two years completely out of the game, but they must have expected some period of adjustment.  Assuming he's healthy and ready to go for each start, that has to be an accomplishment.  Did he look better in the field during the warm weather in Florida?  I can't say for sure since I wasn't watching as critically.  If Sizemore can stay healthy and show some improvement in the next month then if/when Nava returns it's at Carp's expense.  If they happen to DL Sizemore to make room for Nava, then we'll know the end is near for Grady.
 
I've never seen a CF move to a corner spot and not be instantly awesomer. The days Sizemore as a competent OF are long gone. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
rembrat said:
 
I've never seen a CF move to a corner spot and not be instantly awesomer. The days Sizemore as a competent OF are long gone. 
 
I've never seen a CF move to a corner spot after not playing baseball for 2 years.  This is a unique exercise.  Maybe he's lost it forever, or maybe it takes a while for the comfort level to return.  Some of his tentativeness could be related to pressing.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
WenZink said:
 
I've never seen a CF move to a corner spot after not playing baseball for 2 years.  This is a unique exercise.  Maybe he's lost it forever, or maybe it takes a while for the comfort level to return.  Some of his tentativeness could be related to pressing.
 
Would you say it's more likely related to pressing or to his legs being shot?  We can't run 1,000 Excel simulations and figure out the distribution of probabilities.  You need to make a decision; soon.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
Plympton91 said:
 
Would you say it's more likely related to pressing or to his legs being shot?  We can't run 1,000 Excel simulations and figure out the distribution of probabilities.  You need to make a decision; soon.
Well that's why the Red Sox pay scouts, trainers, doctors and coaches, with plenty of the appropriate credentials.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Toe Nash said:
Well that's why the Red Sox pay scouts, trainers, doctors and coaches, with plenty of the appropriate credentials.
 
Yet they still do things like give Bobby Jenks a 2-year, $12 million contract. Sometimes it seems like they'd rather spend $6 million and get $0 value than spend $20 million and $16 million in value.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Going to go out on a limb and say that last part about value isn't true.
 
Sox are for sure not infallible, but they have enough credibility/track record that I'm OK with taking a 0.1 win expectation hit or w/e for this month in order to give Sizemore an extra month of at bats/buy a month of major injury insurance.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,958
The Paris of the 80s
Plympton91 said:
 
Yet they still do things like give Bobby Jenks a 2-year, $12 million contract. Sometimes it seems like they'd rather spend $6 million and get $0 value than spend $20 million and $16 million in value.
 
They? Several years ago under a different GM. C'mon.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Plympton91 said:
 
Yet they still do things like give Bobby Jenks a 2-year, $12 million contract. Sometimes it seems like they'd rather spend $6 million and get $0 value than spend $20 million and $16 million in value.
 
And....welcome back to the vortex. We knew it would be a short vacation.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
 
Yet they still do things like give Bobby Jenks a 2-year, $12 million contract. Sometimes it seems like they'd rather spend $6 million and get $0 value than spend $20 million and $16 million in value.
 
You're not being serious I hope. Jenks sucked here. He also had an FIP of 2.59, a K rate of 10.4, and a K/BB rate of 3.39 the year before the Sox signed him. The contract didn't work out, but let's not pretend that result was predestined.
 
A counter-example was the Beltre signing, coming off a succession of horribly sucky years in Seattle, and he turned out to be productive.
 
Your last sentence is simply untrue on every level and it amounts to posturing. Besides, they spent $12 million on Jenks and got nothing. Take that!
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
 
Would you say it's more likely related to pressing or to his legs being shot?  We can't run 1,000 Excel simulations and figure out the distribution of probabilities.  You need to make a decision; soon.
If Sizemore's legs were shot then when Victorino came back they would have put Grady on the DL.  Given that the Sox see him everyday they have a pretty good idea of his physical condition.  Of course, I agree about having to make a decision soon... hell the Sox are already 2.5 games behind the Yankees and the season is slipping away... ya think?
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
And....welcome back to the vortex. We knew it would be a short vacation.
 
We need a term for this inexorable force. I'm trying to come up with something riffing on the second law of thermodynamics but with "Ellsbury" instead of "entropy but I'm coming up blank.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Plympton91 said:
 
Yet they still do things like give Bobby Jenks a 2-year, $12 million contract. Sometimes it seems like they'd rather spend $6 million and get $0 value than spend $20 million and $16 million in value.
 
Well, yeah. That is what they prefer. Because with the soft cap, they can't spend $20 million each on 25 players. But, they can spread the risk of spending $20 million around to 3 1/3 players. That's a great way to reduce variance in expected value. Out of the three players, one will probably over-perform, one will under-perform, and one will meet expectations. Call it the Hanrahan-Bailey-Uehera phenomenon. Or the portfolio effect. They paid $15 million to three closers last year. Meanwhile, the Phillies paid $13 million to Papelbon. Now, granted, the Sox probably shelled out a little bit more than that because of the playoff shares. Would you have rather have had Papelbon, or Hanharan/Bailey/Uehara?
 
The problem is that the other limitation, as you've mentioned, is roster space. The downside to paying three guys instead of one is that sometimes the slightly better player might get sent down for a couple of weeks while the team figures out what they're paying for. That's how we ended up with that dude David Ortiz.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
Well, yeah. That is what they prefer. Because with the soft cap, they can't spend $20 million each on 25 players. But, they can spread the risk of spending $20 million around to 3 1/3 players. That's a great way to reduce variance in expected value. Out of the three players, one will probably over-perform, one will under-perform, and one will meet expectations. Call it the Hanrahan-Bailey-Uehera phenomenon. Or the portfolio effect. They paid $15 million to three closers last year. Meanwhile, the Phillies paid $13 million to Papelbon. Now, granted, the Sox probably shelled out a little bit more than that because of the playoff shares. Would you have rather have had Papelbon, or Hanharan/Bailey/Uehara?
 
The problem is that the other limitation, as you've mentioned, is roster space. The downside to paying three guys instead of one is that sometimes the slightly better player might get sent down for a couple of weeks while the team figures out what they're paying for. That's how we ended up with that dude David Ortiz.
 
:love:
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
Well, yeah. That is what they prefer. Because with the soft cap, they can't spend $20 million each on 25 players. But, they can spread the risk of spending $20 million around to 3 1/3 players. That's a great way to reduce variance in expected value. Out of the three players, one will probably over-perform, one will under-perform, and one will meet expectations. Call it the Hanrahan-Bailey-Uehera phenomenon. Or the portfolio effect. They paid $15 million to three closers last year. Meanwhile, the Phillies paid $13 million to Papelbon. Now, granted, the Sox probably shelled out a little bit more than that because of the playoff shares. Would you have rather have had Papelbon, or Hanharan/Bailey/Uehara?
S
The problem is that the other limitation, as you've mentioned, is roster space. The downside to paying three guys instead of one is that sometimes the slightly better player might get sent down for a couple of weeks while the team figures out what they're paying for. That's how we ended up with that dude David Ortiz.
 
I don't recall anyone being sent down for David Ortiz; they had Millar, Giambi, and Ortiz rotating through 1B and DH, with Giambi playing a little corner outfield.  But, we can continue to ignore the fact that they all had a pretty clearly defined role -- even though for one of them that role was "bat off the bench" on that 2003 team if it makes people feel better.  The odd man out was Shea Hillenbrand, who, if I'm not mistaken, everyone on SoSH thought was the most overrated player in baseball at that point in time and thought the Red Sox should be replacing.
 
The correct calculation regarding closers is that they paid $15 million plus Lowrie, Reddick, Raul Alcantara (21 yrs old in AA with a 2.29 ERA this month), Stolmy Pimental, Ivan De Jesus (who apparently is a suspected serial killer because he can't get a legitimate major league shot despite a .306 / .360 / 420 line in over 1000 AAA at bats), Sands, Head, and Weiland for Hanrahan, Bailey, Uehara, and Holt.   Plus, given that Bailey and Hanrahan alone made as much as Papelbon, Jenks' salary was also coming off the books, and Uehara was signed to be and always had been a middle reliever, I don't see why Uehara wouldn't have been signed even if Papelbon had been kept. 
 
And, I don't recall mentioning Ellsbury in this thread at all, so if people want to stop discussing him why do they keep bringing him up?  He's certainly not the only example of that phenomenon of overpaying for high risk players instead of stars --They chose to get nothing from an aging Mike Cameron at a discount, instead of paying for Holliday.  Get nothing from Jenks for 2 years, instead of paying non-fatsos Scott Downs/Jaquin Benoit for 4 years.  Sign the 37 year old declining Pierzynski for 1 year, instead of the 28 year old improving Saltalamacchia for 3 years.  And the continued mention of Adrian Beltre being some kind of high risk signing like Sizemore is comical.  He'd had a down year the year before he signed, but in the previous 3 years he'd averaged 150 games played and had consisent 790-800 OPS while playing in a severe pitchers park.  The only reason people thought the Seattle contract was horrible was because they paid for his career year and nobody could park adjust.  And, even if he didn't hit, he was still as good a guarantee as there is to play gold glove defense, which I'm told is valuable.  Further, they had no third baseman.  The contrast with the Sizemore situation couldn't be any greater.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
And the continued mention of Adrian Beltre being some kind of high risk signing like Sizemore is comical.  He'd had a down year the year before he signed, but in the previous 3 years he'd averaged 150 games played and had consisent 790-800 OPS while playing in a severe pitchers park.  The only reason people thought the Seattle contract was horrible was because they paid for his career year and nobody could park adjust.  And, even if he didn't hit, he was still as good a guarantee as there is to play gold glove defense, which I'm told is valuable.  Further, they had no third baseman.  The contrast with the Sizemore situation couldn't be any greater.
 
Please don't be thick. Beltre was coming off a 1) 111 game season, in which he hit at an 2) 83 OPS+ pace with a slugging percentage of 3) .379. He was absolutely high risk because there seemed to be a VERY good chance that he was toast at 31. His defense was still good, but as we've already seen with Iglesias, even great defense wasn't going to be enough to make up for his bat if he could no longer hit.
 
There's zero practical difference between giving him 1/10 to fill a need if possible (3B) and with giving Jenks 2/12 coming off a better year to fill another need (setup man). One of them worked out. The other didn't. The continued presentation of bad signings as proof of some sort of moral failure on the part of the Sox' FO is incredibly inaccurate and annoying.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
I get Plympies point, though.  Every "cheap" signing the Sox have made that has worked out was basically a "no-brainer" that even a broken-down, drunk of a GM would have made.  Every "cheap" signing that didn't succeed was an error that was 100% predictable.
 
The Sox picked Salty off the scrap-heap when he was still trying to figure out how to throw the ball back to the pitcher.  And for that they get no credit.  But when they refused to give him a multi-year deal and let him walk, they deserve nothing but scorn.
 
Beltre, and whatever was left of his damaged ball-sac, was available to 29 teams after the 2009 season, but the Sox get no credit for getting him at $9/1 yr.  If it was such a "no-brainer" where were the other 29 GMs?
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Plympton91 said:
 
I don't recall anyone being sent down for David Ortiz; they had Millar, Giambi, and Ortiz rotating through 1B and DH, with Giambi playing a little corner outfield.  But, we can continue to ignore the fact that they all had a pretty clearly defined role -- even though for one of them that role was "bat off the bench" on that 2003 team if it makes people feel better.  The odd man out was Shea Hillenbrand, who, if I'm not mistaken, everyone on SoSH thought was the most overrated player in baseball at that point in time and thought the Red Sox should be replacing.
 
The correct calculation regarding closers is that they paid $15 million plus Lowrie, Reddick, Raul Alcantara (21 yrs old in AA with a 2.29 ERA this month), Stolmy Pimental, Ivan De Jesus (who apparently is a suspected serial killer because he can't get a legitimate major league shot despite a .306 / .360 / 420 line in over 1000 AAA at bats), Sands, Head, and Weiland for Hanrahan, Bailey, Uehara, and Holt.   Plus, given that Bailey and Hanrahan alone made as much as Papelbon, Jenks' salary was also coming off the books, and Uehara was signed to be and always had been a middle reliever, I don't see why Uehara wouldn't have been signed even if Papelbon had been kept. 
 
 
You're smart, and this conversation would be a lot more interesting if you would argue in good faith. Stop nit-picking - no shit nobody got sent down during the Ortiz discovery in 2003. The strategy was equivalent. I'd like to hear you argue the bigger point that investing a large amount of money in a single asset is smarter than spreading the same amount of money over multiple investments.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,470
There's a lot to touch on, so this is a scattered post. Sorry.
 
Hindsight offers many points of criticism. We can easily see what did and did not work and nail it. I disagree with any premise that the Red Sox should eschew risk or only take certain paths. 
 
The real perplexing thing is that we are talking about isolated and often temporary problems. The Red Sox have experienced an extended length of success and are the reigning champs.
 
Why aren't we bringing up Gonzalez and Crawford? Or Lackey? How about acquiring Peavy who isn't cheap (was money in that deal? I don't remember any)? The Red Sox did not sign Papelbon, but he left and took a large contract. In his place they brought in multiple arms. While they certainly did not pan out for various reasons it strikes me as a reasonable approach and the players they identified were good players.
 
The Sox do not make mistakes because they are being cheap. They have clearly spent big money and are willing to keep doing so. There is a clear and stated philosophy change to spread the wealth a bit and focus on internal assets. 
 
What success rate would be acceptable? 
 
 
Edit - The notion that the Sox are adverse to spending is a non-starter for me.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Please don't be thick. Beltre was coming off a 1) 111 game season, in which he hit at an 2) 83 OPS+ pace with a slugging percentage of 3) .379. He was absolutely high risk because there seemed to be a VERY good chance that he was toast at 31. His defense was still good, but as we've already seen with Iglesias, even great defense wasn't,  going to be enough to make up for his bat if he could no longer hit.
 
There's zero practical difference between giving him 1/10 to fill a need if possible (3B) and with giving Jenks 2/12 coming off a better year to fill another need (setup man). One of them worked out. The other didn't. The continued presentation of bad signings as proof of some sort of moral failure on the part of the Sox' FO is incredibly inaccurate and annoying.
 
In 2013, Shane Victorino was coming off a season in which he had a career worst 704 OPS, including 667 in the final two months.  He got 3-$39.  But the Red Sox needed a RF, and they also needed a first baseman, so they took a shot with Napoli who was also coming off a season that suggested a decline was coming.  He also got 3 years until a physical showed that he had a chronicly bad hip.  Those are much better comparisons to the Beltre signing than Sizemore.   And for all the shit he gets when he's wrong, people should recognize that Eric Van got that one exactly right in real time, and that he was right again--without hindsight--when he said the Red Sox probably would have been better off keeping Beltre and Rizzo and passing on Gonzalez.
 
 
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
You're smart, and this conversation would be a lot more interesting if you would argue in good faith. Stop nit-picking - no shit nobody got sent down during the Ortiz discovery in 2003. The strategy was equivalent. I'd like to hear you argue the bigger point that investing a large amount of money in a single asset is smarter than spreading the same amount of money over multiple investments.
 
 
That would be a losing argument in the way you've framed it as an either/or proposition. Of course, the logical conclusion of that argument is to never sign any player for more than one year or more than 1/25th of the payroll.  It's also a bit my fault for not being clear that I wasn't necessarily talking about a 1 year $20 million contract vs. a 1 year, $6 million contract, or a 6-year $100 million contract vs. a 1 year-$6 million contract.   The AAV on Saltalamacchia and Pierzynski is about equal, one is 28 and improving, one is at an age where a lot of catchers suddenly crater in effectiveness.   They went with the guy who is much more likely to crater, but didn't require a long-term commitment.  The AAV on Benoit was the same as the AAV on Jenks, but Benoit and Downs, being moderately in shape,  got 4 years, which for some reason scared off the Red Sox more than the fact that Jenks weighed 300 pounds.
 
I would think that in a $190 million payroll there are segments devoted to diversification of risks and segments devoted to acquiring excellence, and that they are managed diffferently. 
 
Whatever, I can just be like everyone else and bask in last year's world championship and put full faith in the Red Sox management, too.  Given the anger being spewed, that seems to be what people around here want this board to be. IGoing forward, I'll try only post when I'm following the maxim of WTDS.    GO TEAM!  RAH! RAH!
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
 

 
... The AAV on Saltalamacchia and Pierzynski is about equal, one is 28 and improving, one is at an age where a lot of catchers suddenly crater in effectiveness.   They went with the guy who is much more likely to crater, but didn't require a long-term commitment.  The AAV on Benoit was the same as the AAV on Jenks, but Benoit and Downs, being moderately in shape,  got 4 years, which for some reason scared off the Red Sox more than the fact that Jenks weighed 300 pounds.
 
I would think that in a $190 million payroll there are segments devoted to diversification of risks and segments devoted to acquiring excellence, and that they are managed diffferently. 
 
....
It the Sox didn't have Vazquez and Butler at Pawtucket and Swihart at Portland, then they might have made a 3 year commitment to Salty.  Simple as that.  So they got a catcher that's disposable after one year.  You can't spend a fortune on scouting, drafting and development and then block prospects that rate at the top of your system.  Otherwise you're wasting your time and money.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Plympton91 said:
 
 
That would be a losing argument in the way you've framed it as an either/or proposition. Of course, the logical conclusion of that argument is to never sign any player for more than one year or more than 1/25th of the payroll.  It's also a bit my fault for not being clear that I wasn't necessarily talking about a 1 year $20 million contract vs. a 1 year, $6 million contract, or a 6-year $100 million contract vs. a 1 year-$6 million contract.   The AAV on Saltalamacchia and Pierzynski is about equal, one is 28 and improving, one is at an age where a lot of catchers suddenly crater in effectiveness.   They went with the guy who is much more likely to crater, but didn't require a long-term commitment.  The AAV on Benoit was the same as the AAV on Jenks, but Benoit and Downs, being moderately in shape,  got 4 years, which for some reason scared off the Red Sox more than the fact that Jenks weighed 300 pounds.
 
I would think that in a $190 million payroll there are segments devoted to diversification of risks and segments devoted to acquiring excellence, and that they are managed diffferently. 
 
Whatever, I can just be like everyone else and bask in last year's world championship and put full faith in the Red Sox management, too.  Given the anger being spewed, that seems to be what people around here want this board to be. IGoing forward, I'll try only post when I'm following the maxim of WTDS.    GO TEAM!  RAH! RAH!
 
I would think so, too. I would also think if you're willing to acknowledge that diversifying investments across a range of players is smart, it's not fair to then turn around and focus exclusively on the investments that didn't work. It's nice to have contrary opinions on the board if they're interesting. Bringing up signings like Jenks is the equivalent to moaning about not putting all your cash into Apple 15 years ago. It's not interesting, it's not adding anything, it's just a derail. You might as well start a thread identifying ever current major leaguer that the Red Sox passed up in the draft.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
 
so they took a shot with Napoli who was also coming off a season that suggested a decline was coming
 
 
Fewer games due to an injury, but Napoli's 2012 offense was about the same as his 2010. (2011 remains an outlier). The only thing that suggested a decline was coming was the fact that he was 30. Now, if he played CF of course, being 30 wouldn't matter and he'd have gotten a 7-year deal. .
 
but Benoit and Downs, being moderately in shape,  got 4 years, which for some reason scared off the Red Sox more than the fact that Jenks weighed 300 pounds.
 
 
Or, because in the history of the universe, signing relief pitchers not named Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffmann to 4-year contracts is incredibly stupid, given their volatility.
 
The AAV on Saltalamacchia and Pierzynski is about equal, one is 28 and improving,
 
 
Maybe the Sox think Saltalamacchia peaked on September 29 last year. Or that his inability to hit LHPs and inconsistent defense wasn't somethng they wanted to tie themselves to and signing him to 3 years means they'll be stuck with him, while having replacements on hand (or nearly so). 
 
Whatever, I can just be like everyone else and bask in last year's world championship and put full faith in the Red Sox management, too.  Given the anger being spewed, that seems to be what people around here want this board to be. IGoing forward, I'll try only post when I'm following the maxim of WTDS.    GO TEAM!  RAH! RAH!
 
 
There is something between "full faith" and whatever it is you put forth.  And I dont think very many here are angry with you. Amused, bewildered, unsuprised are three adjectives I'd use before angry.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
 
 
Whatever, I can just be like everyone else and bask in last year's world championship and put full faith in the Red Sox management, too.  Given the anger being spewed, that seems to be what people around here want this board to be. IGoing forward, I'll try only post when I'm following the maxim of WTDS.    GO TEAM!  RAH! RAH!
 
If it stops us from having to read facile strawman bullshit like this, I'm all for this proposed posting change of yours.
 
Whatever point you're trying to make, you've lost it long ago.