Nomadsfest Sox Fans

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


    Jose Abreau

    Share

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:35 am

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:And how the hell does this little bit of speculation show he's better than Adam Engel?!?!?!?

    Leury has a 599 lifetime OPS!!!!!  His OPS in the 2nd half of 2017 was 640!!!!  Aren't you the guy that loves to show bad 2nd halves are harbingers of doom?!?!?!?  Leury was hot for two months, got hurt, then reverted back to his old useless self.  You even admit he's a sub 700OPS guy.  And for that you want to throw away a guy that provides gold glove caliber defense in CF?!?!?!?  and that's real gold glove defense we all can see.  Not some bullshit stat who's flaws are widely known.  Not to mention the small sample size in Leury's case which can clearly distort the accuracy.

    Baseball Reference projects Engel at a 618 OPS in 2018.  How much higher does Leury have to be to overcome the very clear advantage Engel has in speed and defense?!?!?!  A hell of a lot higher than 640, that's for sure.  Given the weak nature of the overall team defense, I would say a lot higher than your 690 projection.  I makes little sense to play a guy with an average glove over a gold glove caliber defender when both are below average offensively.  And this goes double when you are rebuilding.  Leury adds nothing to the team.  Engel and least give you gold glove caliber defense which would actually help the pitching staff.
    If you actually understood sabermetrics and the nature of fielding stats you'd understand that fielding is not linear.  You'd understand that you can field 8 spots of players that are just adequate defensively.  8 guys that are just adequate add up to a below average defense.  In other words, when you skimp on defense, the whole will be less than the sum of its parts.  BTW the White Sox appear to be falling into this trap.  Especially if Davidson beats out Sanchez at 3B.

    I'm not really sure about this assertion that "whole is less than sum of the parts".  A good CFer can cover ground that's missed by a weaker LF or RFer.  I suppose that the corollary is true.  A bad CFer can probably make a bad RFer or LFer even worse as a result.  Like to see some proof before any conclusion.

    Want proof, then draw a baseball diamond and start drawing circles around each player.  If done correctly, you will see that that a good fielder not only increases the range of his position, but also the range of the positions around him.  Conversely, a bad fielder shrinks not only his range but the range of those around him.

    As to Garcia's offense, you keep saying "bad second half" but it was really one bad month (August) along with basically two full good months.   And he hit .319 and .298 in Charlotte in 2016/2015 so the idea that he could hit .260-.270 is not outlandish.   Then again, I don't like his plate discipline and distrust that his 153 ISO last year is real.  Steamer has him projected at 257/302/383 which is about right. Engel, on the other hand, hasn't hit shit at any level and is projected at 608 this year.  His defense is better than Leury's but it has to be a whole helluva lot better to compensate for that spaghetti stick he carries to the plate.  
    Bottom line is that they both should be given some chance to play and let the better one (or probably more accurately lesser of two evils) win.  

    Using the basic runs created formula, in 400 AB Leury is about 10 runs better with the bat if we assume 620 v 690.  Engel improve the defense by roughly that amount.  Common sense would dictate going with the better fielder given that the White Sox defense is weaker than its offense.  Look up utitily curves if you need a further explanation.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:53 am

    Bottom line is that they both should be given some chance to play and let the better one (or probably more accurately lesser of two evils) win.  


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


    Actually, neither should be given a chance at a full time job




    BTW, Garcia is considered a year older than Engel and will be 27 in 2018.  Looking at his minor league record, only once did he exceed a 750 OPS with 100 or more plate appearances.  This translates to a below 700 OPS in the majors, which is exactly where he is projected.  Despite the weak bat, Engel helps the White Sox more




    Why on earth would you want to play Garcia in a rebuilding year is beyond me?!?!?!  the extra win or two you'd get from cashing in on his peak mediocrity doesn't get you into the playoffs and costs you draft picks.  Plus his average defense hurts the pitching staff.


    I'd rather see Garcia nontendered b4 handed the CF job again
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2818
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:51 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:BASIC MATH SAYS A SINGLE COUNTS IN BOTH OBP AND SLG AND BASIC LOGIC SAYS A SINGLE CAN'T BE WORTH 1.8 TIMES ITSELF!!!!!!>.

    LMAO!!!!  the above article is nothing but mathematical masterbation.  Please tell me the page where Pankin suggests any practical application of this all important research
    The "practical value" of all this research was to show that in the OPS formula (OBP+Slug), OBP is underweighted. Here is the classic question:  who is more valuable ?

    A who hits .280/.400/.500    or   B who hits  .300/.330/.570   Each has a 900 OPS.

    While B has produced more RBI's through both a better BA and more HR's, he has also consumed more outs than A.   In essence, the 1.8 adjustment to OBP is supposed to rectify the undervaluing of out avoidance relative to the overvaluing of EB's gained.  Simple example 

    0 outs, 0 on -run expectancy (RE) is .52 runs 
    A is prone to walk and increase RE to .89 (an increase of .37 runs)
    B is prone to strikeout and decrease RE to .28 
    Those PA's amount to A creating .61 greater RE than B
    But what if B hits a HR instead ? 
    That means he has increased RE by 1.0 run (1.52 - .52) 
    But remember A's walk increased RE by .37 
    So B has increased RE by .63 runs greater than A's walk with the HR

    To put this simply then, OPS does not place enough value on the fact that A creates his .61 greater RE ( he walks, B K's) more often than B will create his .63 greater RE via the HR.  (ie. A's OBP is 70 pts higher, where B's BA is only 20 pts higher). By both having 900 OPS's they seem to create equal value. 
    To be sure, B may have some 3 run HR's that increase his RE value by multiples over A but that may also be counterbalanced by B striking out with bases loaded where the out costs .90 RE.

    BOTTOM LINE:   Player A could be Moncada and Player B could be Jiminez by 2020.  Needless to say, they both are keepers.  

    For shits and grins here are Run Expectancy and Frequency of those Situations based on actual events from the 2017 season.

     
    RUN EXPECTANCYFREQUENCY
    Runnrs On0 outs1 out2 outs0 outs1 out2 outs
    00.5230.28580.109424.6%17.8%14.2%
    10.89450.54070.23495.5%6.5%6.4%
    21.10950.68990.32981.7%2.8%3.6%
    31.36180.93250.3840.2%0.9%1.5%
    121.4810.94480.45531.4%2.4%3.0%
    131.73331.18740.50950.5%1.0%1.3%
    231.94831.33660.60440.4%0.8%1.0%
    1232.31981.59150.72990.4%0.9%1.1%







    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:17 pm

    Oh, lawdy.  Be prepared, Roger, to have that all called jibberish, and for Kark to declare himself once again to have proven you a liar and a dumb ass.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2818
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:36 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Bottom line is that they both should be given some chance to play and let the better one (or probably more accurately lesser of two evils) win.  
    **************************************
    Actually, neither should be given a chance at a full time job. BTW, Garcia is considered a year older than Engel and will be 27 in 2018.  Looking at his minor league record, only once did he exceed a 750 OPS with 100 or more plate appearances.  This translates to a below 700 OPS in the majors, which is exactly where he is projected.  Despite the weak bat, Engel helps the White Sox more
    Why on earth would you want to play Garcia in a rebuilding year is beyond me?!?!?!  the extra win or two you'd get from cashing in on his peak mediocrity doesn't get you into the playoffs and costs you draft picks.  Plus his average defense hurts the pitching staff.
    I'd rather see Garcia nontendered b4 handed the CF job again.

    Now you want to see another Garcia non-tendered  !!!  

    Leury showed a bit more power last year, has good speed and if can get his K rate down to 15-16% might on the top end be a 275/325/415 guy (DeAza lite).   But as long as he's striking out 21% +, he's basically a .245-.260 hitter with lousy BB rate and limited power.  But it is worth, IMO, seeing whether he can improve his power and K's (just as Avi did) provided keeping him won't bump someone with greater long-term potential off the roster.

    In theory Tilson has more long-term potential but can he ever get back on the field ?  As to Engel, he needs to come into ST loaded for bear and show he can hit more than his weight.  If he has an option year left, maybe send him back to AAA so he can play fulltime and work on his hitting.  

    All of this is a delaying action until the real deal (Luis Robert) arrives.  2018 will help determine what the Sox need to do as they can see how fast Robert progresses and whether Tilson has the ability to play or not.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2818
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:42 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:Oh, lawdy.  Be prepared, Roger, to have that all called jibberish, and for Kark to declare himself once again to have proven you a liar and a dumb ass.

    Simple question, Rob.   Was this last post clear enough in showing the rationale for those who think OBP is undervalued in the OPS formula ?   If so, then it should provoke a thoughtful, substantive response.  Not that I'm holding my breath for one of those though.   Very Happy
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:27 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:Oh, lawdy.  Be prepared, Roger, to have that all called jibberish, and for Kark to declare himself once again to have proven you a liar and a dumb ass.

    Simple question, Rob.   Was this last post clear enough in showing the rationale for those who think OBP is undervalued in the OPS formula ?   If so, then it should provoke a thoughtful, substantive response.  Not that I'm holding my breath for one of those though.   Very Happy

    What you explained made fairly good layman's sense.  Granted, you only gave a couple of examples to compare and there are a million other ways to look at the comparisons, so maybe your arch-enemy will claim you purposely left out other examples the same way I'm accused of purposely lying about everything.  There's no way you can ever give enough evidence in a single posting without putting everyone to sleep.  In vague terms, I follow the point you're making, and I don't care enough about it to study it any more closely than vague terms.  Personally, I enjoy the actual playing of the game and its observing of its nuances than to pay much heed to the statistical side of the game.  I'm not meaning to devalue the statistical side....it's vastly important....it just doesn't interest me much beyond looking at comparisons of various players and seeing where they stack up.  Maybe Kark should write his own book if he's so sure he has the inside track.  I'd read it, out of curiosity's sake.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:13 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:Oh, lawdy.  Be prepared, Roger, to have that all called jibberish, and for Kark to declare himself once again to have proven you a liar and a dumb ass.

    HEY SHIT FOR BRAINS, UNLESS YOU CAN POINT OUT WHERE THIS PROVES 1.8, THEN FUCK OFF


    BETTER YET, GET AIDS AND DIE
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:30 pm

    And of course, the only place you can take the conversation is where you just took it. Scream and name call.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:34 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:BASIC MATH SAYS A SINGLE COUNTS IN BOTH OBP AND SLG AND BASIC LOGIC SAYS A SINGLE CAN'T BE WORTH 1.8 TIMES ITSELF!!!!!!>.

    LMAO!!!!  the above article is nothing but mathematical masterbation.  Please tell me the page where Pankin suggests any practical application of this all important research
    The "practical value" of all this research was to show that in the OPS formula (OBP+Slug), OBP is underweighted. Here is the classic question:  who is more valuable ?

    OBP has always been more valuable, but only slightly.  Definitely not 80% more valuable

    A who hits .280/.400/.500    or   B who hits  .300/.330/.570   Each has a 900 OPS.

    While B has produced more RBI's through both a better BA and more HR's, he has also consumed more outs than A.   In essence, the 1.8 adjustment to OBP is supposed to rectify the undervaluing of out avoidance relative to the overvaluing of EB's gained.

    First, WTF does RBI's have to do with any of this?!?!?  Second, nowhere in your statement you you show why you need an adjustment, much less one has high as 1.8.  Third, you completely ignore the runs created squaring problem that would be more prevelant in Player A than Player B


      Simple example 

    0 outs, 0 on -run expectancy (RE) is .52 runs 
    A is prone to walk and increase RE to .89 (an increase of .37 runs)
    B is prone to strikeout and decrease RE to .28 
    Those PA's amount to A creating .61 greater RE than B
    But what if B hits a HR instead ? 
    That means he has increased RE by 1.0 run (1.52 - .52) 
    But remember A's walk increased RE by .37 
    So B has increased RE by .63 runs greater than A's walk with the HR

    To put this simply then, OPS does not place enough value on the fact that A creates his .61 greater RE ( he walks, B K's) more often than B will create his .63 greater RE via the HR.  (ie. A's OBP is 70 pts higher, where B's BA is only 20 pts higher). By both having 900 OPS's they seem to create equal value. 
    To be sure, B may have some 3 run HR's that increase his RE value by multiples over A but that may also be counterbalanced by B striking out with bases loaded where the out costs .90 RE.

    Again, nowhere does your analysis show a direct path to 1.8.  and that is why I call it gibberish.  and you have been pulling this stunt for a decade.

    BOTTOM LINE:   Player A could be Moncada and Player B could be Jiminez by 2020.  Needless to say, they both are keepers.  

    WTF does your bottom line have to do with 1.8?!?!?

    For shits and grins here are Run Expectancy and Frequency of those Situations based on actual events from the 2017 season.

     
    RUN EXPECTANCYFREQUENCY
    Runnrs On0 outs1 out2 outs0 outs1 out2 outs
    00.5230.28580.109424.6%17.8%14.2%
    10.89450.54070.23495.5%6.5%6.4%
    21.10950.68990.32981.7%2.8%3.6%
    31.36180.93250.3840.2%0.9%1.5%
    121.4810.94480.45531.4%2.4%3.0%
    131.73331.18740.50950.5%1.0%1.3%
    231.94831.33660.60440.4%0.8%1.0%
    1232.31981.59150.72990.4%0.9%1.1%



    Again, nowhere does this chart show a direct path to 1.8




    For shits and giggles, I decided to plug this into the basic runs created formula.  Player A creates 110  Player B creates 103


    so I guess that proves another one of my points that its more accurate to multiply than to add OBP and SLG


    Which reminds me of another one of your lies when you completely fabricated that no serious researcher would do such a thing.  Well no serious mathematician would put OBP and SLG in the same linear regression.  And no serious analyst would claim a point of OBP is 1.8 more valuable than a point of SLG.


    Again, all this gibberish about 1.8 is basically useless to any general manager because both are measuring bases, but in different manners.  Since the bases are the same, it is absolutely silly to try and act like one is different from the other.  In other words, you really can't pick and choose whether or not you'd rather have an OBP or an SLG.


    The only practical application of this nonsense is to recognize that walks are far more valuable than we thought they were in the 70's and 80's.  But most of us already knew that.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:36 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:And of course, the only place you can take the conversation is where you just took it.  Scream and name call.  


    SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE NEXT POST YOU LYING SCHMUCK

    FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME IN A DECADE, THE KARK COMPLETELY DEBUNKS ROGERS BAD MATH
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:46 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:And of course, the only place you can take the conversation is where you just took it.  Scream and name call.  


    SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE NEXT POST YOU LYING SCHMUCK

    FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME IN A DECADE, THE KARK COMPLETELY DEBUNKS ROGERS BAD MATH

    You've debunked nothing.  You've convinced nobody.  You're a laughingstock.  Ya sound like our Orange Moron in Chief when he claims to have accomplished something that everyone knows is total bullshit.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:52 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    apparently you two forget sabermetircs was a hobby of mine for about 20 year.  Even attempted a stats major at U of I but courses like Math 364, a sadistic mix of statistics and calculus.  Fortunately, I took enough math to get an Econ degree focusing on Econometrics.  so spare me this crap that Tom Tango is some freaking genius.  1) he is not here spewing bullshit.  2) the man is not infallable anf this ain't rocket science 3) He'd probably be pissed if he saw how Roger was completely making a mess of his research.

    That's great and all, but I'm also a math and engineering major, and nothing you have said has ever served to debunk or embarrass Roger's points.  I'll not pretend I'm an expert on co linearity, and I stopped teaching AP high school math in 1998, but Roger's explanations are a hell of a lot easier to follow and understand than anything you've stated.

    Really?!?!?!?  Then since your the teacher, why don't you explain the path to 1.8, because Roger clearly did not

      Actually, you just mock him and call him names.  Rarely do you provide any kind of analysis that can be followed.

    Completely untrue.  I explain all the time.  Just not every time.  

      You tell him he's an idiot and laugh at him because you just figure there aren't any math geniuses here that can really argue with you or put you in your place. 

    LMAO!!  That is what Roger is doing to me.  BTW, arent you a math genius.  Again I challenge you to explain Roger's examples in human terms and how it proves 1.8.  But knowing you, you'd just insult me

    Roger's layout and analyses aren't that hard to follow, and I don't recall telling you I couldn't follow them. 

    I believew the phrase you used was that we were getting deep in the weeds and you were trying to follow most of it.

    I'll tell you this much, though....I'm not interested enough to WANT to follow it. 

    Just interested enough to deliberately disagree with me.  If Roger's examples are so spot on and easier to follow than it should be easy for you to show me the path to 1.8

    I occasionally read it in an effort see if it makes sense and, in Roger's case, it does.  It's tiring.  You're a big mouth and a bully, jumping around on the playground declaring yourself some kind of genius and winner of some kind of battle that exists inside of your head.  Trust me when I tell you this....nobody here believes that you've outsmarted him.  Nobody thinks you're getting the best of him.  Nobody thinks he's full of shit.  Nobody.  Nobody.  Nobody.  And deep down, you don't, either.  You just don't admit it.  You just declare victory and hope we're too dumb to know otherwise.  We may not all be math experts, but we're not as dumb as you think we are.

    Whatever, math is not a popularity contest.  And again, if Roger is making so much sense and was clearly explaining it, I'm sure somebody in the past decade would have defended him and pointed out my errors.  But nobody has.  Instead I get pseudo intellectual bullies like you that deliberately disagree with me because youe can't admit I'm right.


    And yes, I do think he's full of shit, just like I think your full of shit.  Your the lying asshole that invented fraudulent ice age theories just to deliberately disagree with me when a two minute google search showed quite the opposite.  It is you and Roger that can't admit this 1.8 crap is pure gibberish. I sure most of the board knows that regardless of how good or bad my explanations may be

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:54 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:And of course, the only place you can take the conversation is where you just took it.  Scream and name call.  


    SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE NEXT POST YOU LYING SCHMUCK

    FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME IN A DECADE, THE KARK COMPLETELY DEBUNKS ROGERS BAD MATH

    You've debunked nothing.  You've convinced nobody.  You're a laughingstock.  Ya sound like our Orange Moron in Chief when he claims to have accomplished something that everyone knows is total bullshit.


    More deliberate disagreement


    No

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:18 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:Oh, lawdy.  Be prepared, Roger, to have that all called jibberish, and for Kark to declare himself once again to have proven you a liar and a dumb ass.

    Simple question, Rob.   Was this last post clear enough in showing the rationale for those who think OBP is undervalued in the OPS formula ?   If so, then it should provoke a thoughtful, substantive response.  Not that I'm holding my breath for one of those though.   Very Happy


    No it doesn't.  It simply cherry picks.  And even if it did, it doesn't show an 80% undervalue.


    All you did was show that with nobody out, nobody, that the delta between a BB and an out is slightly less than the delta between an HR and a BB.  What you clearly did not show is show this leads to 1.8


    But since RobZ loves your logic so much, lets do the other extreme, 2 outs bases loaded.  Any kind of out is zero.  A walk is 1.73.  A Homerun is 4.11 which is a granny plus the 0.11 RE with the new situation of two outs, nobody on.  However, if its just a single, it can range anywhere from 1.73, same as a walk, up to 2.51, 2 outs runners on 1 & 3.  So what this suggests is that when there are more outs and more runners on base, slugging is actually more valuable than simply getting on base.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:33 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    Really?!?!?!?  Then since your the teacher, why don't you explain the path to 1.8, because Roger clearly did not

     I can't explain it, nor do I feel a need or have a desire to explain it.  Roger's occasional analyses have made sense and can usually be followed.  Roger hasn't claimed that his analysis proves 1.8x.  1.8x is more of a theory, anyway, so you won't get the proof you want, any more than you'll get proof that 1.8x is wrong.  

     BTW, arent you a math genius.  Again I challenge you to explain Roger's examples in human terms and how it proves 1.8.  But knowing you, you'd just insult me

    Am I a math genius?  Hmmm.  Maybe.  I don't know.  I don't really care.  I'm good at the facets of math that make me good at my job.  There are probably many math geniuses that couldn't prove your 1.8x, since it's not really provable.  If you're so damn smart, why don't you just realize that 1.8x is a theory and not really an iron clad figure?  Remember RC27 and how much you fucking loved it?  it wasn't proven fact.  It was theory.  It was fun.  1.8x is just another theory or useful constant that seems generally true (or not true in your world).  Roger has no more proven it than you've disproven it.  Are you not smart enough to just realize and understand this?  What's your IQ again?  This isn't rocket science.  It's baseball stats.  You aren't fooling anyone.  Do you think you are?  You're not.  

    I believew the phrase you used was that we were getting deep in the weeds and you were trying to follow most of it.

    Correct, but it's becoming cumbersome and boring.  A lot of math geeks have crunched numbers and come up with the 1.8x figure.  So fucking what if you don't like it.  Come up with your own number, then defend it, and move on.  Roger didn't invent it, but he accepts it because he acknowledges that some smarter guys all seem to agree on it.  

    Just interested enough to deliberately disagree with me.  If Roger's examples are so spot on and easier to follow than it should be easy for you to show me the path to 1.8

    I haven't any intention show you a path to 1.8x.  I'll show you the path the edge of a cliff if you'd like that.  I'm not prepared or in possession of the talent necessary to come up with something like this, nor am I interested in it. 


    And yes, I do think he's full of shit, just like I think your full of shit. 

    I'm sure that on certain topics I'm VERY full of shit.  And you're welcome to agree with me on this.  But you're not fooling anyone here with your fucked up bluster, dude.  If you think you are, you are a lost puppy.  You're embarrassing yourself.  Step back and chill for a moment and just realize this.  Baseball stats are supposed to be a fun way to compare players and you've made it into sandbox where we fling poop at each other.  Geezus effing Christ, go and get a god damned life why don't ya?

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:42 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:Bottom line is that they both should be given some chance to play and let the better one (or probably more accurately lesser of two evils) win.  
    **************************************
    Actually, neither should be given a chance at a full time job. BTW, Garcia is considered a year older than Engel and will be 27 in 2018.  Looking at his minor league record, only once did he exceed a 750 OPS with 100 or more plate appearances.  This translates to a below 700 OPS in the majors, which is exactly where he is projected.  Despite the weak bat, Engel helps the White Sox more
    Why on earth would you want to play Garcia in a rebuilding year is beyond me?!?!?!  the extra win or two you'd get from cashing in on his peak mediocrity doesn't get you into the playoffs and costs you draft picks.  Plus his average defense hurts the pitching staff.
    I'd rather see Garcia nontendered b4 handed the CF job again.

    Now you want to see another Garcia non-tendered  !!!  

    Your right.  Makes more sense to trade him

    Leury showed a bit more power last year, has good speed and if can get his K rate down to 15-16% might on the top end be a 275/325/415 guy (DeAza lite).

    Who was good for about a year in a half.  Meaning Leury will be set to fall apart in the magical 2020 year.

      But as long as he's striking out 21% +, he's basically a .245-.260 hitter with lousy BB rate and limited power.  But it is worth, IMO, seeing whether he can improve his power and K's (just as Avi did)

    Leury never had and never will have Avi's tools.  Plus Avisail did it the whole year.  Leury reverted back to form in the 2nd half. 

    provided keeping him won't bump someone with greater long-term potential off the roster.

    Probably the only justification to keep him.  But a very pathetic excuse not to look outside the org for a better solution, even a temp one

    In theory Tilson has more long-term potential but can he ever get back on the field ?

    With any luck, he could be the Yolmer of CF's.

      As to Engel, he needs to come into ST loaded for bear and show he can hit more than his weight.  If he has an option year left, maybe send him back to AAA so he can play fulltime and work on his hitting.

     Engel is the new age Rusty Kuntz.  BTW, whatever happened to winning doesn't matter?  Who gives a crap what Engel hits as long as he is providing gold glove caliber defense and protecting the young pitching staff.  In another post, I've already shown that when you add both hitting and fielding that Engel and Leury are basically even.  Therefore the logical thing would be to err on the side of fielding

    All of this is a delaying action until the real deal (Luis Robert) arrives.  2018 will help determine what the Sox need to do as they can see how fast Robert progresses and whether Tilson has the ability to play or not.

    Robert is 20 and is just 75 PA at rookie ball.  Some scouts think he may be better off in RF instead of CF.  While he looks like a can't miss, its damn near impossible now to see where he projects.  I assume he starts in low A.  And even if he flies thru, the White Sox might dick him around and keep him in AAA for an extra month or three for service time reasons.  Like the Cubs did with Bryant
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:47 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    But since RobZ loves your logic so much, lets do the other extreme, 2 outs bases loaded.  Any kind of out is zero.  A walk is 1.73.  A Homerun is 4.11 which is a granny plus the 0.11 RE with the new situation of two outs, nobody on.  However, if its just a single, it can range anywhere from 1.73, same as a walk, up to 2.51, 2 outs runners on 1 & 3.  So what this suggests is that when there are more outs and more runners on base, slugging is actually more valuable than simply getting on base.

    Wow.  That proves it.  Kark says HRs are better than walks.  I never really considered that, but now that I think about it, you're right.  HRs seem more valuable than walks.  That's fucking earth shattering.  Thanks for that.  I'm going to sleep better tonight after reading that.  Sorry for criticizing you earlier.  it's now clear that you're a god damned genius.  Raise that IQ to something like maybe 165.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:10 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    Really?!?!?!?  Then since your the teacher, why don't you explain the path to 1.8, because Roger clearly did not

     I can't explain it, nor do I feel a need or have a desire to explain it.  Roger's occasional analyses have made sense and can usually be followed.  Roger hasn't claimed that his analysis proves 1.8x.  1.8x is more of a theory, anyway, so you won't get the proof you want, any more than you'll get proof that 1.8x is wrong.  

    In other words, your just deliberately disagreeing with me again  No

     BTW, arent you a math genius.  Again I challenge you to explain Roger's examples in human terms and how it proves 1.8.  But knowing you, you'd just insult me

    Am I a math genius?  Hmmm.  Maybe.  I don't know.  I don't really care.  I'm good at the facets of math that make me good at my job.  There are probably many math geniuses that couldn't prove your 1.8x, since it's not really provable.  If you're so damn smart, why don't you just realize that 1.8x is a theory and not really an iron clad figure?  Remember RC27 and how much you fucking loved it?  it wasn't proven fact.  It was theory.  It was fun.  1.8x is just another theory or useful constant that seems generally true (or not true in your world).  Roger has no more proven it than you've disproven it.  Are you not smart enough to just realize and understand this?  What's your IQ again?  This isn't rocket science.  It's baseball stats.  You aren't fooling anyone.  Do you think you are?  You're not.  

    Wow, once again RobZ contradicts himself.  Earlier today, Roger showed the world 1.8 worked, now its a silly little unprovable theory.  PS, love your lie that RC27 was an unprovable theory.  Actually it was a runs estimator that worked quite well.  BTW, how did 1.8 work well?!?!?  Ooops, forgot, you don't explain, you just deliberately disagree

    I believew the phrase you used was that we were getting deep in the weeds and you were trying to follow most of it.

    Correct, but it's becoming cumbersome and boring.  A lot of math geeks have crunched numbers and come up with the 1.8x figure.

    Have you actually verified this, or just taking Roger's word for it.  Ever think they might be all making the same mistake?  The sabermetric community has often been accused of group think.

      So fucking what if you don't like it.  Come up with your own number, then defend it, and move on.  Roger didn't invent it, but he accepts it because he acknowledges that some smarter guys all seem to agree on it.  

    My number is something like 1.02, meaning they are roughly equal with OBP being slightly more important.  And there are plenty of math geeks that agree with that.  BTW, this smart guy also was able to recalculate 1.8 and showed why it was the result of multicolinearity.  Funny how you completely missed that clear cut, easy to follow explanation.

    Just interested enough to deliberately disagree with me.  If Roger's examples are so spot on and easier to follow than it should be easy for you to show me the path to 1.8

    I haven't any intention show you a path to 1.8x.  I'll show you the path the edge of a cliff if you'd like that.  I'm not prepared or in possession of the talent necessary to come up with something like this, nor am I interested in it. 

    In other words, your just deliberately disagreeing with me again  No 

    And yes, I do think he's full of shit, just like I think your full of shit. 

    I'm sure that on certain topics I'm VERY full of shit.  And you're welcome to agree with me on this.  But you're not fooling anyone here with your fucked up bluster, dude.

    Actually, several posters who have left, while not specifically agreeing with me, thought Roger and his stats were full of beans.

      If you think you are, you are a lost puppy.  You're embarrassing yourself.  Step back and chill for a moment and just realize this.  Baseball stats are supposed to be a fun way to compare players and you've made it into sandbox where we fling poop at each other. 

    Apparently you have missed a decade of Roger's posts where he feels compelled to correct anything analytical with a statistics laden term paper.  Something other have called him out on.  BTW, it appears you have also missed that the slightest snide remark about 1.8 sets him off

    Geezus effing Christ, go and get a god damned life why don't ya?

    Who are you to judge my life style choice

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:21 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    But since RobZ loves your logic so much, lets do the other extreme, 2 outs bases loaded.  Any kind of out is zero.  A walk is 1.73.  A Homerun is 4.11 which is a granny plus the 0.11 RE with the new situation of two outs, nobody on.  However, if its just a single, it can range anywhere from 1.73, same as a walk, up to 2.51, 2 outs runners on 1 & 3.  So what this suggests is that when there are more outs and more runners on base, slugging is actually more valuable than simply getting on base.

    Wow.  That proves it.  Kark says HRs are better than walks.  I never really considered that, but now that I think about it, you're right.  HRs seem more valuable than walks.  That's fucking earth shattering.  Thanks for that.  I'm going to sleep better tonight after reading that.  Sorry for criticizing you earlier.  it's now clear that you're a god damned genius.  Raise that IQ to something like maybe 165.



    I used the exact same method Roger did.  Used the same data Roger used.  So please explain how he proves 1.8 with his example, but mine is just blatantly pointing out the obvious.  I'd really like to understand why you feel the need to act so inconsistantly.  BTW, you do realize your sarcasm also debunks 1.8 since Rogers example had HR better than a walk as well.  So thank you for helping me prove my point.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Guest on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:23 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:And of course, the only place you can take the conversation is where you just took it.  Scream and name call.  


    SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE NEXT POST YOU LYING SCHMUCK

    FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME IN A DECADE, THE KARK COMPLETELY DEBUNKS ROGERS BAD MATH

    You've debunked nothing.  You've convinced nobody.  You're a laughingstock.  Ya sound like our Orange Moron in Chief when he claims to have accomplished something that everyone knows is total bullshit.



    DOW 24,000!!!!!!
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:05 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    You've debunked nothing.  You've convinced nobody.  You're a laughingstock.  Ya sound like our Orange Moron in Chief when he claims to have accomplished something that everyone knows is total bullshit.

    DOW 24,000!!!!!!

    That's great for the folks invested in the markets.  If you're going to credit the orange moron for this, be prepared to blame the orange moron when it falls back.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:12 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:

    I used the exact same method Roger did.  Used the same data Roger used.  So please explain how he proves 1.8 with his example, but mine is just blatantly pointing out the obvious.  I'd really like to understand why you feel the need to act so inconsistantly.  BTW, you do realize your sarcasm also debunks 1.8 since Rogers example had HR better than a walk as well.  So thank you for helping me prove my point.

    Nobody's going to prove 1.8 because it's not a provable number.  It's a theory.  It's fluid.  It can change.  Of course a fucking HR is better than a walk.  Are you dense?  Can you please switch your massive, throbbing IQ back on?  Nobody, Roger included, has ever tried arguing that a BB is better than a HR.  However, your making of such an assertion just summarily glosses over the fact that a higher OBP guy makes quite a few less outs than the higher SLG guy.  So HRs are great, especially if you hit 30 or more of them, but not at the expense of making 60 or 75 more outs than a guy that hit 15-20 hrs.  Something tells me that 1.8 or whatever number you want to use is going to still give us a pretty good and solid idea of who the most valuable hitters in the league are.  But hey, keep picking the fly shit out of pepper for the sake of pretending you're some kind of god damned genius.  Nobody here is falling for it.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7955
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Soxillinirob on Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:18 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Actually, several posters who have left, while not specifically agreeing with me, thought Roger and his stats were full of beans.

    Great.  So what.  Maybe he's full of beans.  On many occasions, his stats have bored the shit out of me.  On many other occasions, my politics have bored the shit out of probably him and many others.  That said, Roger is never an asshole to anyone, and if he's boring or full of beans it's easy to just scroll and keep reading.  You, on the other hand, take joy and pride in shitting on people and declaring yourself the winner of some kind of personal war you're fighting.  Nobody gives a shit about whatever the fuck you think you're the winner and champion of.  You're a big mouth with a computer that appears to be seeking some kind of personal affirmation by flinging shit at someone in the sandbox.  No wonder nobody is here anymore.  Nobody is going to prove or disprove 1.8 or any other number.  It's not provable or disprovable.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7568
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by alohafri on Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:31 am

    I am. Don't you know that a HR is a rally killer?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Jose Abreau

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:07 pm