awannabegeek

Are wrong based on what? Again, a data scientist is a bit more equipped on controlling for biases than your average Joe.

I don't understand this as a rebuttal to defensive metrics? All you care about is if a guy catches a ball? What about the balls that drop in that another more capable outfielder would have caught due to better instincts and\or athleticism?

That's fair healthy skepticism. I can't argue with that. I think they're the best we (fans) have at the moment, they're not perfect but better than our eyes (for the most part). Most teams to my knowledge use their own proprietary metrics which are probably (definitely?) more accurate than UZR.

My post is not to say quantitative analysis is flawless, is that the counter argument to quantitative analysis' accuracy is not "well my eyes see something different so the stats are wrong", that is the point. Humans of all sorts are prone to cognitive biases but the data scientists which help build these stats know how to control for it and the error rate due to their cognitive bias is I'm going to bet a lot smaller than the average baseball fan.

It is even more foolishly stubborn to believe because statistic doesn't match your eye test it must be inaccurate....That seems to be the argument of most anti-stat guys.

It's not supposed to jibe with what you see. That is the entire point of statistical analysis. What we see is commonly shrouded in a number of different cognitive biases. Whether you think the numbers are valid or not is one thing but the problem with a lot people who question quantitative analysis is the belief that because it doesn't match your eyes it is invalid, it's the point.

Bag of Balls, Nada, and Nothing are pretty synonymous with worthless. Or am I missing something? Enlighten me.

Can someone who is upset about trading Andrew Cashner provide what you were expected to get in return? I'm not really a fan of just appealing to authority but...just because you Mr. random poster on Orioles Hangouts hasn't heard of a prospect doesn't mean they are worthless...they're lotto tickets that I'm pretty sure the Orioles just didn't randomly pick.

You draft the best player available and\or underslot college seniors (rounds 7-10) there's nothing more to it.

He's an Oriole because he is toolsy and they're the type of team that can afford to give him at-bats and see if he can put it together. He is not a Brewer or Met anymore because he doesn't make consistent contact, I wouldn't bet on that changing but he is so toolsy you give it shot.

Rickard is a below average defender by most metrics, not a great hit tool, middling power with maybe above average speed. Broxton is a dynamic defender, with legitimate power, plus-speed, a plus athlete with horrible contact skills. Broxton is the type of player a rebuilding team can give at-bats to and see what happens. Rickard is the type of player for some reason Baltimore fans seem to adore despite the fact there's nothing there that screams major league starter even if he put everything together.

I've been working since 7 this morning, so I don't know. Nonetheless, even if he gave up eight runs it doesn't change my position. MLB FOs don't evaluate pitchers using ERA. They try to evaluate as context neutral as possible.

I gave it a D. Not a fan of the return regardless of whether or not they get V2. I don't agree with the philosophy of going for quantity over quality and that's what this rebuild appears to be. This return is a horrible microcosm of that.

You take 1 year + and turn it into 3 years +..you win. I wouldn't want that trade unless the team was hoping to move Shaw but the Brewers would never do that anyway...

When you're rebuilding you get talent and sort it out later.

Why? You get the most talent possible.

Let's see the return first. I'm excited though

Just highlighting in light of all the middle school jokes in the last page and half

Not a real account.

No, it's missing the N

The three years of team control trump that. In the end, I'm countering your point that he's "terrible" he is not. He's a young cost-controlled high-leverage relief pitcher who results don't tell the true story of his performance this year.

They look at walk rates yes, they probably don't care too much about WHIP since it's not context-neutral. They're aware of splits and a more analytically inclined Manager\FO will better deploy Givens in situations that maximize his effectiveness.

No thanks on Castro. He doesn't get enough whiffs.

Brach's peripherals were actually worse so I can understand the skepticism. Givens peripherals remain strong, he has a LOB% due for some positive regression. Add to that the three years of control, anyone believing Givens doesn't have much value is not really in tune with modern baseball valuation. In short, I agree Givens will rebound.

Yup if you don't use context-neutral stats, sure. MLB FOs don't evaluate pitchers using ERA...