Jump to content

Give Sisco another Chance


Legend_Of_Joey

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm going to say making an out after you already reached base is worse than making an out before reaching base.

So, it's better to not get on base at all? Well, okay.... if you say so. Maybe you advanced a runner from first to third with your hit before being picked off. Provided there isn't two outs, better to strikeout instead, though? It's just so defeatist to me.. and boring to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Frobby said:

Seems to me it’s pretty much the same.   

 

Just now, Sessh said:

So, it's better to not get on base at all? Well, okay.... if you say so. Maybe you advanced a runner from first to third with your hit before being picked off. Provided there isn't two outs, better to strikeout instead, though? It's just so defeatist to me.. and boring to watch.

You average batter has an OBP of 323.  That means more than two out of three times they don't make it to first base.  That's the hard part of not making outs.  To give that up to me is the greater sin.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The break even point is closer to 70%.    It changes a little based on the offensive environment at the time.    High scoring era with lots of homers ==> break even point is higher.    Low scoring era with fewer homers ==> break even point is lower.    But it’s always been closer to 70% than 80%.

I believe it’s very much correlated with HR rate. I do think it’s still low 70s even today  

Back to Sisco, the 2019 Orioles are so bad at giving up homers that his personal break even # is probably one of the highest in history. Outs are even more precious when any batter might hit one out! Hopefully in a few years both (1) the O’s HR rate has gone way down, and (2) AR is getting the bulk of time behind the plate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You average batter has an OBP of 323.  That means more than two out of three times they don't make it to first base.  That's the hard part of not making outs.  To give that up to me is the greater sin.

Fair enough, that's a valid point. One could also use that as a reason to be more aggressive when you get chances even if that means it fails. A stolen base also, at least temporarily, removes the possibility of an easy double play. A DP ball to second after a steal likely leads to one out and a runner on third instead of two outs and the bases empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just grabbed my copy of The Book

Leadoff guy of an inning, so no one on base, no outs.

RE 0 outs, no one on base- .356

RE 1 out, no one on base- .182

ER 0 outs, runner on first- .704

So a strikeout to lead off an inning lowers run expectancy by .174 runs.  A lone baserunner getting picked off with no outs lowers run expectancy by .522 runs.

 

So yea, I'm going with it being worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Three guys I'd rather have than a good base stealer:

  1. The guy who gets 20 more extra base hits
  2. The guy who saves 10 more runs in the field
  3. The guy who isn't good at stealing bases but is an expert at going first to third

Being a base stealer alone won't get you anywhere. It's a supplementary skill that will likely make the rest of your game better since being a base stealer suggests a player that will have a quick first move which is especially useful for an outfielder. It would also guarantee the first-to-third thing on your list. I'm not sure why it has to be either/or, though. I'd rather have #1 or #2 that could steal bases as opposed to one that couldn't on the presupposition that this kind of speed improves other aspects of their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Being a base stealer alone won't get you anywhere. It's a supplementary skill that will likely make the rest of your game better since being a base stealer suggests a player that will have a quick first move which is especially useful for an outfielder. It would also guarantee the first-to-third thing on your list. I'm not sure why it has to be either/or, though. I'd rather have #1 or #2 that could steal bases as opposed to one that couldn't on the presupposition that this kind of speed improves other aspects of their game.

You can be a good basestealer and not be that fast.  Roberts wasn't that fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Just grabbed my copy of The Book

Leadoff guy of an inning, so no one on base, no outs.

RE 0 outs, no one on base- .356

RE 1 out, no one on base- .182

ER 0 outs, runner on first- .704

So a strikeout to lead off an inning lowers run expectancy by .174 runs.  A lone baserunner getting picked off with no outs lowers run expectancy by .522 runs.

 

So yea, I'm going with it being worse.

Considering that there are more strikeouts per month than there are hits (at least last year there were), that really adds up. It's a worse product. For better or worse, stuff happens when guys are on base. More guys need to get on base. Again, it's a "let's not try because we might fail" approach, but having more strikeouts than hits is okay. The game needs to be made more exciting if there's to be any hope of bringing in new fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You can be a good basestealer and not be that fast.  Roberts wasn't that fast.

Roberts mastered that jumping lead of his. I haven't seen anyone do it better than he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Considering that there are more strikeouts per month than there are hits (at least last year there were), that really adds up. It's a worse product. For better or worse, stuff happens when guys are on base. More guys need to get on base. Again, it's a "let's not try because we might fail" approach, but having more strikeouts than hits is okay. The game needs to be made more exciting if there's to be any hope of bringing in new fans.

I don't like guys getting picked off of first because it does more to lessen my team's chances of winning.  I find it a better product when they score runs.

If you find Villar getting picked off to be a better product than I am glad for you that he is on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't like guys getting picked off of first because it does more to lessen my team's chances of winning.  I find it a better product when they score runs.

If you find Villar getting picked off to be a better product than I am glad for you that he is on the team.

Well, obviously I would rather he not get picked off, but if I had to choose between Villar striking out and Villar getting on base and then getting picked off, I go with the latter. At least there's some entertainment value and at least he got on base and it's even better if there were guys on base ahead of him because maybe someone scores or advances a base or two before he gets picked off.

Of course, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if we were actually good, but I don't think we'd have any Villar's on the team if we were good and we wouldn't be making so many air-headed outs on the bases either. Anything is better than a strikeout especially when there's more of them than there are hits over the course of a season these days. Fortunately, there aren't many players who make as many mistakes on the bases as Villar does.

I find it a better product when they score runs, too. I also find it a better product when I see the team being aggressive and taking chances trying to create scoring opportunities (ie; manufacturing runs), but there should be a balance between patience and aggressiveness. Too much of either can be a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sessh said:

Well, obviously I would rather he not get picked off, but if I had to choose between Villar striking out and Villar getting on base and then getting picked off, I go with the latter. At least there's some entertainment value and at least he got on base and it's even better if there were guys on base ahead of him because maybe someone scores or advances a base or two before he gets picked off.

Of course, maybe I wouldn't feel that way if we were actually good, but I don't think we'd have any Villar's on the team if we were good and we wouldn't be making so many air-headed outs on the bases either. Anything is better than a strikeout especially when there's more of them than there are hits over the course of a season these days. Fortunately, there aren't many players who make as many mistakes on the bases as Villar does.

I find it a better product when they score runs, too. I also find it a better product when I see the team being aggressive and taking chances trying to create scoring opportunities (ie; manufacturing runs), but there should be a balance between patience and aggressiveness. Too much of either can be a bad thing.

I'll take a strikeout over a non-run scoring weak ground ball double play any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

I don't think Sisco is going to get any better at throwing out runners because his velocities on his throws are pretty low overall so it's not all footwork and release like we thought.

I prefer Severino overall and think he's got a nice chance to have a nice long career behind the plate, even if it will mostly be in a backup or platoon role. Sisco's bat has improved enough that I'd like to see if he's able to add to his versatility so they can find a way to get him in the lineup. 

I could be wrong, but I don't think Sisco will be a longterm major league catcher unless a team is willing to overlook the flaws in his defensive game. Good, contending teams tend to want good defensive catchers.

Ok that’s exactly my own thought. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...