A Few Questions About Some Former Orioles

[weams]

On 10/26/2018 at 11:10 AM, wildbillhiccup said:

For the love of god just let the kids play. No more replacement level type signings/players like Gentry, Valencia, and Alvarez. It's bad enough that we still have Trumbo and Davis on the roster. 

Kids? Which kids?

[weams]

5 minutes ago, jsbearr said:

Guys, you know, I am easily accessible. You can ask me these things.

Yes, we have approached in a more complicated manner and find that our model consistently performs better than others. However, the site is not a heavy statistical analysis site, so we try to not get more complicated than graphical comparisons and range comparisons because they are more easily understood.

Thank you. Appreciate your input.

[weams]

On 10/22/2018 at 4:12 PM, wildbillhiccup said:

You know sarcasm is usually more effective when it's a bit more subtle. And criticism is usually more effective when you actually present a valid argument for which you're arguing. The team is already stuck with several veterans on the roster next season (Davis, Trumbo, Villar, etc.). There's absolutely no reason they can't fill the other positions from within. If it doesn't work out and they feel the need to sign a  Danny Valencia type mid-season trust me, he'll still be available. 

I don't think they will sign anyone. But league minimum is still that. 

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, jsbearr said:

I do not really get why the model riles people up.

Last year, BSL folks got mad. Tracked it. Found out that it projects contracts fairly well when you look at the contracts the database largely relies on.

Craig Gentry would not be an ideal player to track. The model has difficulty with highly protected isolated players because it has trouble seeing why someone is not playing.

It shouldn’t rile anyone up.    It’s not like anyone on your site claimed the model was perfect.   But no reason folks can’t point out those projections that they think are off base.

[jsbearr]

Just now, Frobby said:

It shouldn’t rile anyone up.    It’s not like anyone on your site claimed the model was perfect.   But no reason folks can’t point out those projections that they think are off base.

That is not the issue I have. It is the yearly declaration that the model is inherently flawed (i.e., doubting its validation) and then not bothering to engage me to discuss it.  Or suggesting the model is flawed for this reason or that reason without bothering to ask me if that is really how the model works.  I do not wilt with criticism and the model, as I note, cannot handle many situations well.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, jsbearr said:

That is not the issue I have. It is the yearly declaration that the model is inherently flawed (i.e., doubting its validation) and then not bothering to engage me to discuss it.  Or suggesting the model is flawed for this reason or that reason without bothering to ask me if that is really how the model works.  I do not wilt with criticism and the model, as I note, cannot handle many situations well.

What does the model use as it's main determinant factors? 

[jsbearr]

Just now, weams said:

What does the model use as it's main determinant factors? 

So the position player model is a combination of several models.  Each model uses age and height to varying degrees.  Offensive performance modeling considers disparately the past three seasons with most of that weighting on doubles, home runs, walks, and strikeouts.  Baserunning modelling considers disparately the past three seasons with most weight on baserunning advancement.  Defensive modelling considers again the past three seasons disparately and varies quite a bit on the position.

I never found a good way to look at injuries without me putting my finger on the scale, so the models ignore that.

[weams]

1 minute ago, jsbearr said:

So the position player model is a combination of several models.  Each model uses age and height to varying degrees.  Offensive performance modeling considers disparately the past three seasons with most of that weighting on doubles, home runs, walks, and strikeouts.  Baserunning modelling considers disparately the past three seasons with most weight on baserunning advancement.  Defensive modelling considers again the past three seasons disparately and varies quite a bit on the position.

I never found a good way to look at injuries without me putting my finger on the scale, so the models ignore that.

Thanks. I believe that health is the sixth tool. And the seventh too.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

57 minutes ago, weams said:

Kids? Which kids?

You know, those guys in Norfolk and Bowie that get talked about in that "Minor League" Forum that is on this site.

Hays, Santander, Diaz, McKenna for the outfield. Mountcastle for...Ummm...

Akin, Tate, Kremer, Lowther (just to name a few) for pitching.

There are players in the minors that look good and might be able to contribute. But constantly signing aging, or one dimensional players in their spot instead of developing what you have, doesn't allow it.

[weams]

5 minutes ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

You know, those guys in Norfolk and Bowie that get talked about in that "Minor League" Forum that is on this site.

Hays, Santander, Diaz, McKenna for the outfield. Mountcastle for...Ummm...

Akin, Tate, Kremer, Lowther (just to name a few) for pitching.

There are players in the minors that look good and might be able to contribute. But constantly signing aging, or one dimensional players in their spot instead of developing what you have, doesn't allow it.

They all ready to get beaten by the Red Sox and Yankees? 

[weams]

7 minutes ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

You know, those guys in Norfolk and Bowie that get talked about in that "Minor League" Forum that is on this site.

Hays, Santander, Diaz, McKenna for the outfield. Mountcastle for...Ummm...

Akin, Tate, Kremer, Lowther (just to name a few) for pitching.

There are players in the minors that look good and might be able to contribute. But constantly signing aging, or one dimensional players in their spot instead of developing what you have, doesn't allow it.

How many "Young" players do we have ready for the major leagues?  There won't be any veterans signed this years to block anyone that is actually good. 

[Legend_Of_Joey]

37 minutes ago, weams said:

They all ready to get beaten by the Red Sox and Yankees? 

I swear, some of you all around here are ready to say this team will be 0-162.

34 minutes ago, weams said:

How many "Young" players do we have ready for the major leagues?  There won't be any veterans signed this years to block anyone that is actually good. 

For once, they might not sign the veterans.

Lucas Long, Luis Gonzalez, John Means. All possible pitchers. Akin and Tate could come up later in the season. Who knows what is going on with Harvey. Kline could be in the bullpen in 2019 for the whole season, or half. Austin Hays could show up in Baltimore, same with Diaz. McKenna could have potential, but probably won't be pushed up that quick. Mullins could have a good year after a bit of a rough month and a half. Stewart looked better than anticipated in his short time and could also be in the outfield to start the season.

We don't know what they are going to do with Trumbo and Davis.

[Ohfan67]

2 hours ago, jsbearr said:

Guys, you know, I am easily accessible. You can ask me these things.

Yes, we have approached in a more complicated manner and find that our model consistently performs better than others. However, the site is not a heavy statistical analysis site, so we try to not get more complicated than graphical comparisons and range comparisons because they are more easily understood.

Sorry my reply was a bit snarky. I strongly disagree with the idea of paying free agent prices for prospects, etc, but after re-reading my posts I see I was snarky and I apologize. 

[TommyPickles]

I’m perfectly happy with our Outfield picture for 2019:

 

Cedric Mullins - Give him a long look in CF. I don’t know if he’ll ever be an All Star, but he’s a young, affordable, home grown talent. He can steal bases. He’s got some pop. And I think he can become a league average center fielder defensively.

 

DJ Stewart- I’m hoping he can be the LF starter for years to come. I love his swing. Small sample size, but he put up a .890 OPS in his first 40 ABs in the bigs and looked comfortable doing it. He played both corner outfield positions, committed no errors, and earned a 0.0 dWAR. I don’t think he’ll hurt us too badly defensively.

 

Joey Rickard- I know the board doesn’t love this guy, but I think he’ll absolutely be part of the plan for 2019. He’ll be just 27 to start next season. He’s probably the best defensive outfielder on the 40-man. In 2018 he had an almost identical OPS as Trey Mancini (.713 to .715) while playing much better defense.  According to baseball reference, Rickard had a 0.4 WAR last year compared to Mancini’s -0.1 WAR. He can handle CF. He’s the perfect kind of player to have on this rebuilding team.

 

Trey Mancini- I hope they can figure a way to get him some more starts at 1B. I think he’s an important member of this team, and perhaps the heir-apprent to Jones’ former captaincy.  I don’t think he can really hang defensively in the outfield, but I don’t mind him starting 60-70 games in left. I think he’ll have a better 2019 than 2018.

 

Austin Hays- I think he starts in AAA, but as soon as he’s producing, bring him up! I hope he can still pan out. He’s got a lot of talent. Perhaps he can take over RF if he shows he’s ready.

 

Im actually pretty excited to watch all these guys next season. The infielders and the rotation... not so much.

 

[Ohfan67]

18 hours ago, jsbearr said:

That is not the issue I have. It is the yearly declaration that the model is inherently flawed (i.e., doubting its validation) and then not bothering to engage me to discuss it.  Or suggesting the model is flawed for this reason or that reason without bothering to ask me if that is really how the model works.  I do not wilt with criticism and the model, as I note, cannot handle many situations well.

Ahh, you are not totally innocent. Several of your comments in this thread were pretty condescending. When I initially challenged the details of the model I believe you basically suggested that I subscribe to ESPN. That stuff was jerky and dismissive. Maybe you were going for an internet mike drop moment? From my viewpoint, you were engaged and didn't really respond. Part of the grief you got was a direct result of that. And again, one of my responses was snarky and I apologized. I am interested in both your model and in a discussion of, in my opinion, the folly of trying to pay free agent prices or similar for prospects. Those may be two different arguments, but from your posts in the thread I think your model produces a very rough "value" that is basically that. I'm not trying to give you grief with this post, but explaining that I think you definitely contributed to the lack of real communication.