Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:04 am

    Roger claims 1 in 5 is a longshot

    http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18000758/mlb-latest-2017-world-series-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook

    If you believe this total bullshit, then you must believe every team in baseball except the Cubs is a longshot to win the World Series in 2017.

    I wonder which one of you will have the balls to tell Roger he's wrong.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7108
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:28 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Roger claims 1 in 5 is a longshot

    http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18000758/mlb-latest-2017-world-series-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook

    If you believe this total bullshit, then you must believe every team in baseball except the Cubs is a longshot to win the World Series in 2017.

    I wonder which one of you will have the balls to tell Roger he's wrong.

    30 teams in MLB. How many thousands are there in the minor league systems of those 30 MLB teams? You are attempting to compare apples to oranges.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:06 am

    WRONG AGAIN ROB JR


    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.


    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS


    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7108
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:37 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:WRONG AGAIN ROB JR


    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.


    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS


    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.




    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are. You claim to be Wile Coyote, Super Genius. I challenge you again, call Jerry Reinsdorf and offer your services. I'll be watching Channel 9 for news of your hiring.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:26 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Roger claims 1 in 5 is a longshot

    http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18000758/mlb-latest-2017-world-series-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook

    If you believe this total bullshit, then you must believe every team in baseball except the Cubs is a longshot to win the World Series in 2017.

    I wonder which one of you will have the balls to tell Roger he's wrong.

    "Longshot" isn't a one-size-fit-all set of odds that applies to every situation (i.e, "25-1 or greater = a longshot").  It is what the dictionary says it is - a GENERAL CONCEPT "slim chances", "unlikely to succeed" and that is relative to others attempting the same thing.

    If 8 horses were racing, the horse with 30-1 odds would be considered a "longshot" under any track guy's definition. With 30 teams starting a baseball season, 30-1 would be "average" odds of winning WS (as are the Cardinals, Tigers, etc who were basically near .500 last year).  The Sox whose odds are twice as worse than the average at 60-1 are true longshots. It's all about context.

    So in what context was I calling Garcia and other Sox guys "longshots" ?  In the context of being compared to guys who are starters or semi-starters  (i.e, hitters who get 250 PA's+) .Sox projected to give 250+ PA's to:  Liriano, Davidson, Tilson, Garcia, Narvaez, Saladino, Soto ..So what are their odds of being "decent" (2 WAR or more) ?   Answer: a lot lower than the normal position player being given that same opportunity. 
    In the majors last year,  307 hitters got 250+ PA's, and of those 127 (or 41%) were "decent" (had 2 WAR or more).   None of the Sox players above are projected to be "decent".  So saying a Sox player has only a 15-20% chance of decency compared to the normal 40% chance  means the Sox player's
    odds are at least twice as worse which is a "longshot".   Compared to playoff teams, 65% of whose players getting 250 + PA's are "decent", Sox players are true longshots.  

    You struggle with this concept of CONTEXT.  Which is why you went off endlessly about Soto v. Wieters as though the context of the teams that signed them is irrelevant.  Are you truly as smart as you claim to be or is your accountant brain so linear thinking that you can't grasp certain concepts ? 







    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:38 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:WRONG AGAIN ROB JR
    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.
    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS
    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.

    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are. You claim to be Wile Coyote, Super Genius. I challenge you again, call Jerry Reinsdorf and offer your services. I'll be watching Channel 9 for news of your hiring.

    Nobody is claiming that Liriano, Tilson, Garcia, Davidson, etc. are the "future".  Their odds of being the future aren't good.  But what else do the Sox have to put on the field right now ?  Or should they have gone out and hauled in a bunch of 30-40 year old vets with NO FUTURE under the pretense of making the cosmetics of 2017 look better ?  Great "plan". 
    The plan is simple:  play  the 24-27 year olds you got and if any of them turn into something for the future, then that's icing on the cake.  If they all suck wind, then you lose 95-100 games and get good draft slots for 2018.  Tough shit if you don't like it, that's what rebuilders are supposed to do, not pretend to be contenders or semi-contenders or semi-semi-contenders.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:08 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:WRONG AGAIN ROB JR


    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.


    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS


    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.




    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are. You claim to be Wile Coyote, Super Genius. I challenge you again, call Jerry Reinsdorf and offer your services. I'll be watching Channel 9 for news of your hiring.


    AGAIN, WHAT'S THE POINT OF MESSAGE BOARDS IF NOT TO OPINE ABOUT VARIOUS SUBJECTS?!?!!?!?

    EXCUSE ME IF I THINK I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEVIN BELL AND BUDDY BELL.  BUT YOU KEEP PRETENDING I WANT WANT ANOTHER ALBERT BELLE.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:21 pm

    You struggle with this concept of CONTEXT.  Which is why you went off endlessly about Soto v. Wieters as though the context of the teams that signed them is irrelevant.  Are you truly as smart as you claim to be or is your accountant brain so linear thinking that you can't grasp certain concepts ?  


    ******************************************


    WRONG


    YOU ARE INVENTING CONTEXT THAT AREN'T REAL.


    The reason Wieters went on forever is that you and that teacher just couldn't leave it as Boras would never sign so cheaply.


    Instead, you had to also insist should a signing would be detrimental to the 
    White Sox youth movement.  While that teacher added nothing of value other than to just proclaim I was wrong.



    the real problem is how you constantly invent outright bullshit.  From 1.8 to multicolinrearity can be adjusted for to the imaginary salaries for Adam Eaton to 1 in 4 make it to Garcia being 15-20% of Jose Guillen


    All made up by you.  All invented.  All total Bullshit.


    And just who are you to accuse anybody of linear thinking?!?!?!?


    If somebody doesn't agree with the first scenario that gets concocted in that thick skulls of yours, you spend forever pretending you are 100% correct, never once re-examing if you made a mistake


    Then you constantly post out of both sides of your keyboards.  Yes, Garcia is a longshot.  But 15% is far too generous.  To date you have yet to give any proof of 15%.


    Garcia sucks.  the faster he is off the team the better.  Its you and that teacher that can't accept this.  Not the other way around
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:36 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:WRONG AGAIN ROB JR
    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.
    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS
    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.

    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are. You claim to be Wile Coyote, Super Genius. I challenge you again, call Jerry Reinsdorf and offer your services. I'll be watching Channel 9 for news of your hiring.

    Nobody is claiming that Liriano, Tilson, Garcia, Davidson, etc. are the "future".  Their odds of being the future aren't good.  But what else do the Sox have to put on the field right now ?  Or should they have gone out and hauled in a bunch of 30-40 year old vets with NO FUTURE under the pretense of making the cosmetics of 2017 look better ?  Great "plan". 
    The plan is simple:  play  the 24-27 year olds you got and if any of them turn into something for the future, then that's icing on the cake.  If they all suck wind, then you lose 95-100 games and get good draft slots for 2018.  Tough shit if you don't like it, that's what rebuilders are supposed to do, not pretend to be contenders or semi-contenders or semi-semi-contenders.


    More false choices


    More oversimplistic analysis


    More linear thinking


    More total distortion of what I have posted


    Maximizing future value does not nessarily mean you minimize present value.  and it doesn't mean throwing out every clown that happens to be under 27.  
    and again, you prove yourself full of shit.


    when I suggested they platoon the crap they'll probably start the season with, you had a fit over that as well.  and Amazing how you have no problem with Geo Soto who is 34.  why would a rebuilding team do that?!?!?!?


    If anybody here is pretending to be wily coyote super genius, its you.  complete with your term papers that over explain the obvious.  In truth, you expose your own stupidity.  A projected OPS of 712 is not really better than one of 701.  A little something called margin of error.


    Apparently the idea to try to find talent on the cheap at positions that are glaring black holes (i.e catcher, i.e back of the rotation, i.e the outfield) is too complex for you and that teacher to comprehend.  So you engage in ad homien attacks against the KARK to make yourself feel smarter.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:43 pm

    Nobody is claiming that Liriano, Tilson, Garcia, Davidson, etc. are the "future".  Their odds of being the future aren't good.  But what else do the Sox have to put on the field right now ?  Or should they have gone out and hauled in a bunch of 30-40 year old vets with NO FUTURE under the pretense of making the cosmetics of 2017 look better ?  Great "plan".  


    *********************************************


    AGAIN, YOU OUTRIGHT DISTORT WHAT I SAY


    AGAIN, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE THE CALENDAR


    AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT BAD PLAYERS ARE BAD PLAYER REGARDLESS OF AGE


    AGAIN YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PLAY THE GAMES WHILE THE TOP PROSPECTS POLISH THEIR SKILLS IN THE MINORS.


    AND YES, MY PLAN IS GREAT.  IT IS ALSO BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I AM WRITING
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:45 pm

    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are.


    ****************************


    YOU'RE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT OF THE PLAN ROB JR.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7108
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:51 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:WRONG AGAIN ROB JR
    BUT HAVE FUN CHEERING THE 2017 EQUIVALENT OF THAD BOSLEY, LEO SUTHERLAND, AND KEVIN BELL AS YOU PRETEND THEY ARE THE FUTURE.
    KEEP BELIEVING ROGERS PHONY STATS
    A PLAN NEEDS DETAILS.  FIGURE IT OUT.

    I'm not part of the White Sox organization, so I don't know what the details of the plan are. You claim to be Wile Coyote, Super Genius. I challenge you again, call Jerry Reinsdorf and offer your services. I'll be watching Channel 9 for news of your hiring.

    Nobody is claiming that Liriano, Tilson, Garcia, Davidson, etc. are the "future".  Their odds of being the future aren't good.  But what else do the Sox have to put on the field right now ?  Or should they have gone out and hauled in a bunch of 30-40 year old vets with NO FUTURE under the pretense of making the cosmetics of 2017 look better ?  Great "plan". 
    The plan is simple:  play  the 24-27 year olds you got and if any of them turn into something for the future, then that's icing on the cake.  If they all suck wind, then you lose 95-100 games and get good draft slots for 2018.  Tough shit if you don't like it, that's what rebuilders are supposed to do, not pretend to be contenders or semi-contenders or semi-semi-contenders.


    More false choices


    More oversimplistic analysis


    More linear thinking


    More total distortion of what I have posted


    Maximizing future value does not nessarily mean you minimize present value.  and it doesn't mean throwing out every clown that happens to be under 27.  
    and again, you prove yourself full of shit.


    when I suggested they platoon the crap they'll probably start the season with, you had a fit over that as well.  and Amazing how you have no problem with Geo Soto who is 34.  why would a rebuilding team do that?!?!?!?


    If anybody here is pretending to be wily coyote super genius, its you.  complete with your term papers that over explain the obvious.  In truth, you expose your own stupidity.  A projected OPS of 712 is not really better than one of 701.  A little something called margin of error.


    Apparently the idea to try to find talent on the cheap at positions that are glaring black holes (i.e catcher, i.e back of the rotation, i.e the outfield) is too complex for you and that teacher to comprehend.  So you engage in ad homien attacks against the KARK to make yourself feel smarter.

    Same formulaic response.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:00 pm

    Same formulaic response.


    *************************


    I COULD GO BACK TO THE TONY MONTANA LANGUAGE


    BUT I'D HATE TO DISAPPOINT FRANK AND CREAM
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:08 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:You struggle with this concept of CONTEXT.  Which is why you went off endlessly about Soto v. Wieters as though the context of the teams that signed them is irrelevant.  Are you truly as smart as you claim to be or is your accountant brain so linear thinking that you can't grasp certain concepts ?  



    Then you constantly post out of both sides of your keyboards.  Yes, Garcia is a longshot.  But 15% is far too generous.  To date you have yet to give any proof of 15%.
    Garcia sucks.  the faster he is off the team the better.  Its you and that teacher that can't accept this.  Not the other way around


    I went back and looked at the numbers for guys like Garcia  who had 0 to .5 WAR their prior year and what the odds were of their having the following WAR the next year:

    4 or more (studs) -                             1 %
    3 or greater (good)                             5 %
    2 or greater (decent)                         11 %
    1.5 or greater (semi-decent)              17 %
    1 or greater (barely passable)            21 %

    This is guys of all ages.  Guys 27 and under have better odds of improving.  So I added some extra to the 11% probability for Garcia being "decent"  . If you want to say it should be at 11% like it is for all ages, so be it.  I really don't care anymore.

    All I can say is that I resent these accusations of falsifying or "phony" or anything of the sort.  Estimates are estimates and as such, they are never exact.  But I had some reasonable basis for making them as the numbers show.

    Of course the odds for Garcia are low.  But so what ?  If he sucks again, which there is clearly a 75-80% chance of him doing, this doesn't hurt the Sox's chances for winning a pennant.  If he beats the odds, that's just a bonus.

    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:52 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Maximizing future value does not nessarily mean you minimize present value. >>
    when I suggested they platoon the crap they'll probably start the season with, you had a fit over that as well.  and Amazing how you have no problem with Geo Soto who is 34.  why would a rebuilding team do that?!?!?!?>>>
    Apparently the idea to try to find talent on the cheap at positions that are glaring black holes (i.e catcher, i.e back of the rotation, i.e the outfield) is too complex for you and that teacher to comprehend.  So you engage in ad homien attacks against the KARK to make yourself feel smarter.

    Again, "present value" depends on context. For a non-contender, the only "present values" a short-term veteran has are 1- trade value 2 -mentoring/developing younger players or 3- filling a spot so that prospects don't have to be called up and run their service clocks prematurely.  4- being cheap.  Good performance by a veteran non-keeper has no value to the Sox except enhancing the guy's midseason trade value.
    With that in mind, Soto makes sense as he fits items 2,3 and 4 (mentoring/developing, filling a spot, cheap).  Sure he won't hit, but Sox don't need that in 2017.  Wieters would have fit item 3 (filler), maybe item 2 (mentoring) but his poor framing skills could also have frustrated young Sox pitchers. He would not have been cheap at $ 5-8 mil (even if he had signed for that low), and last but not least item 1 (trade value) would have been dubious at best. Only if he had hit 12 HR's+batted .275 by midseason would other clubs want to offer the Sox something of value in trade.  Clearly Soto has no trade value, but he fills 3 of the 4 purposes.   Wieters fills only one for sure and may or may not fill the other two.   So given the context of 2017 Soto had a PRESENT VALUE advantage over Wieters, which is why the Sox passed on him.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:03 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:You struggle with this concept of CONTEXT.  Which is why you went off endlessly about Soto v. Wieters as though the context of the teams that signed them is irrelevant.  Are you truly as smart as you claim to be or is your accountant brain so linear thinking that you can't grasp certain concepts ?  



    Then you constantly post out of both sides of your keyboards.  Yes, Garcia is a longshot.  But 15% is far too generous.  To date you have yet to give any proof of 15%.
    Garcia sucks.  the faster he is off the team the better.  Its you and that teacher that can't accept this.  Not the other way around


    I went back and looked at the numbers for guys like Garcia  who had 0 to .5 WAR their prior year and what the odds were of their having the following WAR the next year:

    4 or more (studs) -                             1 %
    3 or greater (good)                             5 %
    2 or greater (decent)                         11 %
    1.5 or greater (semi-decent)              17 %
    1 or greater (barely passable)            21 %

    This is guys of all ages.  Guys 27 and under have better odds of improving.  So I added some extra to the 11% probability for Garcia being "decent"  . If you want to say it should be at 11% like it is for all ages, so be it.  I really don't care anymore.

    All I can say is that I resent these accusations of falsifying or "phony" or anything of the sort.  Estimates are estimates and as such, they are never exact.  But I had some reasonable basis for making them as the numbers show.

    Of course the odds for Garcia are low.  But so what ?  If he sucks again, which there is clearly a 75-80% chance of him doing, this doesn't hurt the Sox's chances for winning a pennant.  If he beats the odds, that's just a bonus.



    SO WHO TURNED INTO THE STUD?!?!!?


    BTW, I RESENT HOW YOU SAMPLE THEN MISAPPLY THE RESULTS


    PS, THE ODDS ARE NOT 1% A GARCIA TURNS INTO A STUD.  1% OF YOUR SAMPLE HAD A STUD LIKE YEAR FOLLOWING A VERY BAD YEAR.  


    FOR ALL I KNOW, YOU SAMPLED 2005.  THEN LOOKED AT THE 2006 RESULTS.  THAT WOULD PUT FRANK THOMAS IN YOUR 5% CLASS.


    BTW, IS ANTHONY RENDON YOUR STUD?!?!?!


    FANGRAPHS HAS HIM GOING FROM 0.9 IN 2015 TO 4.7 IN 2016.  HOWEVER THIS IS A PISS POOR COMP.  DRAFT #6 OVERALL, A TOP RATED PROSPECT, 6.5 WAR IN 2014.  THAT IS NOT AN AVISAIL GARCIA TYPE.  


    ONE HAS TO WONDER HOW MANY MORE OF THESE KINDS A MISTAKES YOU MADE.


    AND I RESENT HAVING TO CONSTANTLY CORRECT YOUR POORLY DESIGNED STUDIES ALMOST AS MUCH AS I RESENT YOUR FEEBLE EXCUSES WHEN I EXPOSE YOUR SHAM STUDIES
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:07 pm

    ONE MORE THING

    DON'T THINK IN DIDN'T NOTICE HOW YOU CHANGES GARCIA'S ODDS FROM 15-20 TO 20-25

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I AM CONSTANTLY CLAIMING THAT YOU INVENT CRAP
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:17 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Maximizing future value does not nessarily mean you minimize present value. >>
    when I suggested they platoon the crap they'll probably start the season with, you had a fit over that as well.  and Amazing how you have no problem with Geo Soto who is 34.  why would a rebuilding team do that?!?!?!?>>>
    Apparently the idea to try to find talent on the cheap at positions that are glaring black holes (i.e catcher, i.e back of the rotation, i.e the outfield) is too complex for you and that teacher to comprehend.  So you engage in ad homien attacks against the KARK to make yourself feel smarter.

    Again, "present value" depends on context. For a non-contender, the only "present values" a short-term veteran has are 1- trade value 2 -mentoring/developing younger players or 3- filling a spot so that prospects don't have to be called up and run their service clocks prematurely.  4- being cheap.  Good performance by a veteran non-keeper has no value to the Sox except enhancing the guy's midseason trade value.
    With that in mind, Soto makes sense as he fits items 2,3 and 4 (mentoring/developing, filling a spot, cheap).  Sure he won't hit, but Sox don't need that in 2017.  Wieters would have fit item 3 (filler), maybe item 2 (mentoring) but his poor framing skills could also have frustrated young Sox pitchers. He would not have been cheap at $ 5-8 mil (even if he had signed for that low), and last but not least item 1 (trade value) would have been dubious at best. Only if he had hit 12 HR's+batted .275 by midseason would other clubs want to offer the Sox something of value in trade.  Clearly Soto has no trade value, but he fills 3 of the 4 purposes.   Wieters fills only one for sure and may or may not fill the other two.   So given the context of 2017 Soto had a PRESENT VALUE advantage over Wieters, which is why the Sox passed on him.


    WHAT A LOAD OF ABSOLUTE CRAP!!!!!


    PRESENT VALUE = HOW GOOD ARE YOU THIS YEAR


    FUTURE VALUE = HOW GOOD ARE YOU NEXT YEAR AND BEYOND


    GEO SOTO SUCKS OUT LOUD AND WILL MOST LIKELY BE DFA BY JULY, ASSUMING HE EVEN MAKES THE TEAM


    WIETERS WILL STILL BE STARTING IN 2020


    FILLS ONLY ONE PURPOSE, MY BLACK ASS
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:18 am

    You have exposed nothing but your poor reading comprehension.  You use Rendon as your "gotcha" yet failed to notice at the top that this covered guys who had .5 WAR or less so he wasn't part of this group as he had a .9 WAR .  There were 489 guys with WAR's of 0 to .5 over a five year period, and only 1.3 % ( or 6)  of them made huge jumps to 4+ WAR.   Of those six , half did it at age 26 - Devin Mesoroco, Josh Harrison, Jean Segura. The others were Matt Duffy, Jason Kipnis, and ex-Sox Juan Uribe.   Mesoroco and Kipnis were top prospects but Duffy (18th round pick), Harrison (6th round) and Segura were surprises.  Segura had two seasons of low 600's before busting out with an 867 last year.  
    Since I never speculated that Garcia could become a 4+ stud like these guys, don't bother saying he isn't like any of them.  He isn't.  Only takeaway from those 6 guys is that age 26 is often a big spike point and breakouts can occasionally come from guys who were busts up till then like Duffy and Harrison.
    I set Garcia's target at a the mere "decency" level of 2-3 WAR like Jose Guillen another bad defense guy. Guillen was no "stud" but he was useful.  His odds of even being Guillen are less than 20% and maybe even closer to 10%.  No contender, who wants their starters to have 50-60% odds of decency, would start Garcia.  But the Sox can afford that risk until they find someone YOUNG who can take his spot.  That shouldn't be hard to do, so maybe by March 31, someone will fill that bill.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:33 am

    You have exposed nothing but your poor reading comprehension.  You use Rendon as your "gotcha" yet failed to notice at the top that this covered guys who had .5 WAR or less so he wasn't part of this group as he had a .9 WAR 


    *******************


    YOU ALSO SAID GARCIA TYPES.  HIS WAR IN 2016 WAS 0.8 ACCORDING TO BASEBALL REFERENCE.


    SINCE YOU NEVER DESCRIBED THIS STUDY OF YOURS UNTIL JUST NOW, AND GARCIA'S 0.8 ALSO DIDN'T FIT YOUR DESCRIPTION, I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO ASSUME IT WAS ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR MISTAKES.


    AS TO MY READING COMPREHENSION, MAYBE YOU SHOULD LEARN HOW TO WRITE BETTER.  MAYBE 2 WEEKS AGO, YOU SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED YOU LOOKED AT THESE 5 YEARS AND 15% OF THEM TURNED INTO JOSE GUILLEN.  INSTEAD, YOU JUST PROCLAIM 15% AND NOBODY HAS A CLUE WHERE YOU GOT THAT FROM


    AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A MATH CLASS AND LEARN HOW TO SAMPLE.  MATT DUFFY IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.  IN 2014 HE WAS 23 AND HAD 60 AB.  THE NEXT YEAR HE PLAYED EVERYDAY.  NOT EXACTLY AN AVISAIL GARCIA WHO HAS BEEN SUCKING FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:50 am

    ANOTHER BAD COMP


    JEAN SEGURA!!!!!


    SEGURA WAS NOT ONLY TRADED FROM MILWAUKEE TO ARIZONA, BUT MOVED FROM SS TO 2B!!!!!


    SEGURA WAS ALSO AN ALL STAR HIS FIRST FULL SEASON
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:57 am

    JOSH HARRISON IS ALSO A BAD COMP.

    ANOTHER GUY WHO BARELY BATTED AT ALL THE YEAR B4 HIS BREAK OUT YEAR.

    WHICH IN HARRISON CASE IS LOOKING LIKE A FLUKE YEAR.  1.8 WAR EACH OF THE PAST TWO YEARS.

    WASN'T 2 ROGERS DECENCY CUT OFF?!?!?!?

    BTW, ROGER DID ADMIT HIS LITTLE STUDY DID NOT CONTROL FOR AGE.  APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T CONTROL FOR PLAYING TIME EITHER.  I WONDER WHAT OTHER FLAWS WERE IN HIS STUDY.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:54 am

    <
    ANOTHER GUY WHO BARELY BATTED AT ALL THE YEAR B4 HIS BREAK OUT YEAR.
    WHICH IN HARRISON CASE IS LOOKING LIKE A FLUKE YEAR.  1.8 WAR EACH OF THE PAST TWO YEARS.  WASN'T 2 ROGERS DECENCY CUT OFF?!?!?!?  >>


    I had just said

    "Since I never speculated that Garcia could become a 4+ stud like these guys, don't bother saying he isn't like any of them.  He isn't.  Only takeaway from those 6 guys is that age 26 is often a big spike point and breakouts can occasionally come from guys who were busts up till then like Duffy and Harrison."
    All that is relevant about Harrison is that he was a bust (3 partial seasons with Pirates of mid 200's BA) before his breakout.  Cubs had given up on him earlier too.  OK, he's only been semi-decent since his big year.  That could happen to Garcia, Liriano, Tilson too.  They have a good 2017, then the league catches on and they fall back. But that is what 2018 is about.  To see if the "improvers" can keep it up.
    A few examples of surprise breakouts  who kept it up  thereafter: Justin Turner, a career utility guy until age 29 - discarded by 3 different teams.  JD Martinez, whose career with Astros was crappy but broke out at age 27 with the Tigers. He actually made it to the stud level his first breakout year but wasn't in the  0 -.5 group because his prior year was a horrendous -1.2 WAR. 
    Finally, I am not predicting that WILL happen - in fact the odds are heavily that he will stay roughly the same or even fall back .  No contender would think his slim odds of becoming decent would be worth the risk.   BUT THE SOX HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY GIVING HIM ANOTHER WHIRL.  It's improbable but certainly not impossible.  Sox play "possibilities" in 2017 and don't have to worry about probabilities until 2019-2020.
    I fully expect you to nitpick Turner and JD Martinez to show why they were better than Garcia and are "bad examples".  That effort will be futile as both were considered busts by their teams. Houston in particular made the mistake of giving up Martinez even though they were still in rebuild mode and the very next year he went on to break loose with the Tigers.
    There is NO NEED for the rebuilding Sox to quit on someone under age 28 unless it's absolutely necessary and they have a clearly better alternative.
    In conclusion, I don't give a shit whether Garcia's odds are 12%, 15 % or 20%. They are low, but the chances of the Sox making the playoffs in 2017 are even lower.   Given that, there is NO EXCUSE for giving up on anybody prematurely.


    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1610
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:06 pm

    rmapasad wrote:<
    ANOTHER GUY WHO BARELY BATTED AT ALL THE YEAR B4 HIS BREAK OUT YEAR.
    WHICH IN HARRISON CASE IS LOOKING LIKE A FLUKE YEAR.  1.8 WAR EACH OF THE PAST TWO YEARS.  WASN'T 2 ROGERS DECENCY CUT OFF?!?!?!?  >>


    I had just said

    "Since I never speculated that Garcia could become a 4+ stud like these guys, don't bother saying he isn't like any of them.  He isn't.  Only takeaway from those 6 guys is that age 26 is often a big spike point and breakouts can occasionally come from guys who were busts up till then like Duffy and Harrison."

    WRONG.  THE POINT IS THAT SOME OF THESE GUYS NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAMPLED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED YOU DIDN'T CONTROL FOR AGE.

    I'VE SHOWN YOU ALSO DIDN'T CONTROL FOR PLAYING TIME.  OR CHANGING LEAGUES/TEAMS AND OR POSITIONS.

    I'VE ALSO SHOWN YOU DIDN'T CONTROL FOR ONE YEAR FLUKES

    BOTTOM LINE, YOU HAVE A BAD SAMPLE THAT RENDERS MUCH OF THESE CONCLUSIONS SUSPECT



    All that is relevant about Harrison is that he was a bust (3 partial seasons with Pirates of mid 200's BA) before his breakout.  YOU MEAN FLUKE  Cubs had given up on him earlier too.  OK, he's only been semi-decent since his big year.  That could happen to Garcia, Liriano, Tilson too.  AND I COULD WIN THE POWERBALL TONIGHT, WHICH ARE PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE TRUE ODDS OF A AVISAIL GARCIA MIRACLE

    They have a good 2017, then the league catches on and they fall back. But that is what 2018 is about.  To see if the "improvers" can keep it up.

    A few examples of surprise breakouts  who kept it up  thereafter: Justin Turner, a career utility guy until age 29 - discarded by 3 different teams.  JD Martinez, whose career with Astros was crappy but broke out at age 27 with the Tigers. He actually made it to the stud level his first breakout year but wasn't in the  0 -.5 group because his prior year was a horrendous -1.2 WAR. 

    AND JUST WHY IN THE BLUE HELL WOULD YOU EXCLUDE NEGATIVE WAR?!?!?!?!  BASEBALL REFERENCE HAS GARCIA IN THE NEGATIVE IN 2014 & 2015.  ISN'T THAT THE PIONT?!?!?  FIND THE GARCIA COMPS AND SEE ONES WHO MADE IT AS OPPOSED TO THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS THAT DIDN'T?!?!?!  AGAIN, YOUR SAMPLING IS FLAT OUT BAD

    Finally, I am not predicting that WILL happen

    BUT YOU CAN NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG REGARDLESS OF HOW OBVIOUS, NOR CAN YOU CONCEDE ANY POINT REGARDLESS OF WHO SMALL.  PLUS YOU'RE LIKE BJ HONEYCUTT FROM MASH, ALWAYS AS TO GET THE LAST WORD

    - in fact the odds are heavily that he will stay roughly the same or even fall back .  No contender would think his slim odds of becoming decent would be worth the risk.   BUT THE SOX HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BY GIVING HIM ANOTHER WHIRL.  It's improbable but certainly not impossible.  Sox play "possibilities" in 2017 and don't have to worry about probabilities until 2019-2020.

    AGAIN, YOUR LOGIC IS JUST FAULTY.  GARCIA NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TENDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  NOR SHOULD HE BE CONSIDERED FIRST IN LINE BECAUSE HIS PROJECTED BELOW AVERAGE OPS IS NOT QUITE AS BELOW AVERAGE AS SOME OTHERS.  EVERYBODY HAS SEEN ENOUGH OF THIS STIFF.  YOUR PLAN IS SYNONOMOUS WITH PLANNING FOR RETIREMENT WITH LOTTERY TICKETS

    I fully expect you to nitpick  MORE LIKE EXPOSING Turner and JD Martinez to show why they were better than Garcia and are "bad examples".  That effort will be futile LIKE TRYING TO TALK SENSE TO YOU as both were considered busts by their teams. Houston in particular made the mistake of giving up Martinez even though they were still in rebuild mode and the very next year he went on to break loose with the Tigers.
    There is NO NEED for the rebuilding Sox to quit on someone under age 28 unless it's absolutely necessary and they have a clearly better alternative.

    IN THE CASE OF GARCIA, YES IT IS AND YEST THERE ARE.  ESPECIALLY IF THE WHITE SOX GO WITH 13 PITCHER WHICH YOU CLAIM IS THE KEY TO WINNING IN THE MODERN ERA

    In conclusion, I don't give a shit whether Garcia's odds are 12%, 15 % or 20%.  BUT HERE YOU ARE DEFENDING IT TO THE BITTER END.  YOU AGREE HE SUCKS, BUT HE DOESN'T SUCK QUITE AS MUCH AS THE KARK SAYS HE SUCKS.  SO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO CORRECT ME.  THEN PEOPLE WONDER WHY I CLAIM PEOPLE HERE DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH ME.   They are low, but the chances of the Sox making the playoffs in 2017 are even lower.   Given that, there is NO EXCUSE for giving up on anybody prematurely.



    AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING

    THIS OUTRIGHT DISTORTION THAT THE KARK WANTS TO GET OFF ON A 76 WIN SEASON.

    IF I WANTED ANOTHER YEAR OF WIN NOW, I'D BE BASHING THE SALE AND EATON TRADE ALL WINTER LONG

    IF I WANTED ANOTHER YEAR OF WIN NOW, I WOULDN'T BE BEGGING FOR THE TRADE OF JOSE QUINTANA OR DAVID ROBERTSON

    IF I WANTED ANOTHER YEAR OF WIN NOW, I WOULDN'T HAVE POINTED OUT THAT NATE JONES PROBABLY DOESN'T HAVE THE FUTURE VALUE THE CASUAL FAN THINKS HE DOES, BECAUSE HE'S OLDER THAN MANY MAY REALIZE.

    I NEVER WANTED GUYS LIKE WIETERS UNTIL THE SOX WERE ON THE VERGE OF SPRING TRAINING AND I THOUGHT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET HIM ON THE CHEAP.  SO EXCUSE ME FOR UNDERESTIMATING THE NEGOTIATING SKILLS OF SCOTT BORAS.

    THAT SAID, DIDN'T THE YANKEES GET LAST YEARS NL HR CHAMP RATHER CHEAPLY?!?!?!?

    THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE WHITE SOX SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO A BIDDING WAR WITH THE YANKEES OVER CHRIS CARTER.  BUT IT DOES SAY WHEN TALENT LIKE THAT IS STILL AVAILABLE RIGHT B4 SPRING TRAINING, THAT TALENT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT.  NOT DISMISSED OUT OF HAND THEY WAY YOU ARE.

    YOU SEEM TO THING LOSING AS MANY GAMES AS POSSIBLE IN 2017 IS GOOD.  AND YES, ITS BETTER TO DRAFT HIGHER THAN LOWER.  BUT YOU CAN'T PLAY TO LOSE.  YOU SPENT THE LAST MONTH CLAIMING THE SOX SHOULD GAMBLE ON BREAK OUT GARCIA.  WELL WHAT DO YOU THINK A BREAK OUT YEAR DOES TO THE WON LOSS COLUMN

    RODON IS CONSIDERED A GOOD FANTASY GAMBLE FOR A BREAK OUT.  IS THAT GOOD OR BAD FOR YOUR 100 LOSS PIPEDREAM.

    WHAT ABOUT TIM ANDERSON?!?!?!?  WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HIGH PRICE VETS THAT DON'T GET TRADED?!?!?!  WHAT ABOUT THE BLUE CHIPPERS THAT REPLACE THEM WHEN THEY DO?!?!?

    YOU WANT THE PLAYERS TO PLAY WELL, BUT YOU WANT THE TEAM TO SUCK.  DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW SILLY THAT MAKES YOU SOUND?!?!?!?
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2376
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:30 pm

    YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED YOU DIDN'T CONTROL FOR AGE.
    I'VE SHOWN YOU ALSO DIDN'T CONTROL FOR PLAYING TIME.  OR CHANGING LEAGUES/TEAMS AND OR POSITIONS. I'VE ALSO SHOWN YOU DIDN'T CONTROL FOR ONE YEAR FLUKES  >

    I took the Excel sheet and screened for age 26, prior year plus .7 WAR (which is what BR had Garcia at) all the way down to -2.0 WAR.  That produced 127 results. Needless to say the inclusion of negative WAR guys reduced the percent of next year "decency" (2+ WAR) to 10 %.  Odds of "semi-decency" (1.5 WAR) were 17%.
    Of course I'm not controlling for one year flukes.  The object is to first see if Garcia or any of these guys( Tilson, Liriano) can have ONE season of decency, then we can talk about sustainability.  Surprises such as JD Martinez and Brian Dozier (altho he hit well in minors) have sustained.  Jury is out on Brock Holt who came out of nowhere last year.  Harrison has tailed off since his big year, but he's still at semi-decency levels.
    The "flukes" are for most part guys like Harrison who shoot up to stud levels one year but fall back to mediocrity (or slightly worse) afterward, not fall all the way back into the basement.

    All the Sox can expect from this menagerie is a guy who goes up to 2-3, then maybe is a 1.5 - 2.5 guy for the next few years.  That makes him "useful".  No team can fill their lineup with 100% studs.

    <RODON IS CONSIDERED A GOOD FANTASY GAMBLE FOR A BREAK OUT.  IS THAT GOOD OR BAD FOR YOUR 100 LOSS PIPEDREAM.
    WHAT ABOUT TIM ANDERSON?!?!?!?  WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HIGH PRICE VETS THAT DON'T GET TRADED?!?!?!  WHAT ABOUT THE BLUE CHIPPERS THAT REPLACE THEM WHEN THEY DO?!?!?
    YOU WANT THE PLAYERS TO PLAY WELL, BUT YOU WANT THE TEAM TO SUCK.  DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW SILLY THAT MAKES YOU SOUND?!?!?!?>>

    I would be happy if the team does well based on the young players doing well, but not if it's because they hold onto Quintana, Robertson, Frazier, Cabrera too long or add 30+ year old vets on short-term deals. Young players doing well would mean they are ready to compete sooner than expected.  But I am realistic.  Anderson will be more closely scouted this year and his plate discipline sucks.  Rodon is a work in progress.   So is Gioloto and Lopez, who got lit up in his first ST start.  This will be a tough year for the Sox, but it's just the start. Part of the excitement will be to see how fast the young players develop but also which of the Sox's lottery tickets might pay off.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Proving Roger Wrong yet again.

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:16 pm