A Realistic View at 2021: Part II

[Bellhorn04]

Fagnraphs touched on that earlir this year.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/matt-barnes-one-simple-trick/

 

But a lot of fans see a player improve or have a career year, and the assumption is cheating. A lot of times, the difference between a career year and a normal year just isn't as big as many think...

 

And that's not on the fans, sadly.

 

The mantra "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" has never seemed more appropriate in baseball.

[notin]

Dalbec is a project for the 2021 season. I expect he'll see it through unless the bottom really falls out.

 

Most likely.

 

And really, he is the #9 hitter. By #9 hitter standards, he’s pretty dangerous…

[notin]

And that's not on the fans, sadly.

 

The mantra "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" has never seemed more appropriate in baseball.

 

Sometimes these spikes players have are just lucky breaks. There’s not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .280 hitter (3 hits in 50 at bats) but if a career .220 hitter starts hitting .280, then questions arise about what’s different. Is he cheating? Did he re-tool his swing?

 

Maybe he is just getting lucky 6% more often?

[Nick]

Jackie Bradley Jr.

 

The 31-year-old Bradley is in the midst of his worst offensive season. He is batting .152 with a .231 on-base percentage, .268 slugging percentage, .498 OPS, five homers, four doubles, two triples, 16 RBIs and 18 runs in 61 games for the Brewers. Baseball-Reference has him at -0.3 in WAR.

 

He signed a two-year, $24-million contract with Milwaukee in early March.

 

Some wanted him to sign with the Sox. We dodged a bullet.

[notin]

Jackie Bradley Jr.

 

The 31-year-old Bradley is in the midst of his worst offensive season. He is batting .152 with a .231 on-base percentage, .268 slugging percentage, .498 OPS, five homers, four doubles, two triples, 16 RBIs and 18 runs in 61 games for the Brewers. Baseball-Reference has him at -0.3 in WAR.

 

He signed a two-year, $24-million contract with Milwaukee in early March.

 

Some wanted him to sign with the Sox. We dodged a bullet.

 

I remember Mike Lowell talking about how tough it was to switch leagues. The better pitchers you usually had an inkling about, but the problems came from all these guys that you never heard of before…

[Bellhorn04]

Jackie Bradley Jr.

 

The 31-year-old Bradley is in the midst of his worst offensive season. He is batting .152 with a .231 on-base percentage, .268 slugging percentage, .498 OPS, five homers, four doubles, two triples, 16 RBIs and 18 runs in 61 games for the Brewers. Baseball-Reference has him at -0.3 in WAR.

 

He signed a two-year, $24-million contract with Milwaukee in early March.

 

Some wanted him to sign with the Sox. We dodged a bullet.

 

And he hit so well last year.

 

It's a crazy freaking game.

[Bellhorn04]

Sometimes these spikes players have are just lucky breaks. There’s not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .280 hitter (3 hits in 50 at bats) but if a career .220 hitter starts hitting .280, then questions arise about what’s different. Is he cheating? Did he re-tool his swing?

 

Maybe he is just getting lucky 6% more often?

 

.280 is actually 27.3% better than .220. It's all about the denominator...

[moonslav59]

Jackie Bradley Jr.

 

The 31-year-old Bradley is in the midst of his worst offensive season. He is batting .152 with a .231 on-base percentage, .268 slugging percentage, .498 OPS, five homers, four doubles, two triples, 16 RBIs and 18 runs in 61 games for the Brewers. Baseball-Reference has him at -0.3 in WAR.

 

He signed a two-year, $24-million contract with Milwaukee in early March.

 

Some wanted him to sign with the Sox. We dodged a bullet.

 

Shows how the "Recency Theory" or "What you have done for me lately, is what you will do tomorrow and the day after" is not a very effective predictor of future productivity.

[moonslav59]

.280 is actually 27.3% better than .220. It's all about the denominator...

 

...and .220 is 21% less than .280.

 

There are lots of ways of looking at numbers.

 

If a .220 hitter gets 6 more hits out of each 100 ABs (or 6%), he'll be hitting .280.

[notin]

.280 is actually 27.3% better than .220. It's all about the denominator...

 

Stop.

 

I didn’t say “better”; I said “more often”.

 

A .280 hitter is credited with a hit in 28% of his at bats.

 

A .220 hitter is credited with a hit in 22% of his at bats.

 

Therefore the difference is 28% - 22%, which equals 6%.

 

And over the any number of at bats, the .280 hitter will be credited with hits 6% more frequently than the .220 hitter.

 

What you’re calculating is how many more bits the .280 will have when both have the same number of at bats, which is actually not real useful. (A batting average is already a ratio; why are you comparing ratios?)

[Bellhorn04]

Stop.

 

I didn’t say “better”; I said “more often”.

 

A .280 hitter is credited with a hit in 28% of his at bats.

 

A .220 hitter is credited with a hit in 22% of his at bats.

 

Therefore the difference is 28% - 22%, which equals 6%.

 

And over the any number of at bats, the .280 hitter will be credited with hits 6% more frequently than the .220 hitter.

 

What you’re calculating is how many more bits the .280 will have when both have the same number of at bats, which is actually not real useful. (A batting average is already a ratio; why are you comparing ratios?)

 

You stop.

 

28 is NOT 6% better than 22.

[moonslav59]

Last 14 Days OPS

1.181 Bogey

.856 Arroyo

.851 Verdugo

.840 Devers

.767 Dalbec

.761 Renfroe

.733 Plawecki

.670 JD

.667 Vaz

.662 Marwin

.586 Kike

.145 Santana

 

 

June OPS

1.026 Bogey

.908 Arroyo

.824 Devers

.815 Verdugo

.772 Renfroe

.659 Dalbec

.657 JD

.653 Vaz

.613 Marwin

.607 Plawecki

,521 Kike

.205 Santana

 

Last 28 Days

.960 Renfroe

.918 Devers

.888 Bogey

.862 Arroyo

.827 Verdugo

.707 JD

.619 Vaz

.571 Dalbec

.540 Marwin

.519 Plawecki

.460 Santana

.457 Kike

 

 

[mvp 78]

You stop.

 

28 is NOT 6% better than 22.

 

I think it depends on what the definition of better means.

 

I do agree that .280 isn't 6% more than .220 though. If a .220 hitter was 100% better than s/he currently was, they'd hit .440 and not 1.220.

Edited June 18, 2021 by mvp 78

[Bellhorn04]

I think it depends on what the definition of better means.

 

I do agree that .280 isn't 6% more than .220 though. If a .220 was 100% better than s/he currently was, they'd hit .440 and not 1.220.

 

Exactly. Those are the relevant comparisons.

[mvp 78]

I think it depends on what the definition of better means.

 

I do agree that .280 isn't 6% more than .220 though. If a .220 hitter was 100% better than s/he currently was, they'd hit .440 and not 1.220.

 

Now, if a .700 hitter was 100% better than he currently is, he'd still have a -tsPAR.

 

 

 

 

(TalkSoxPosterAboveReplacement)

[notin]

You stop.

 

28 is NOT 6% better than 22.

 

What’s the difference between 28% and 22%? Key word - difference.

 

I know what you’re saying but you’re misapplying it to the point.

 

A batting average is already a percentage. As in out of 100.

 

Looking at it from a perspective of at bats, not hits.

 

If a player has 100 at bats and gets 22 hits, he hits .220 (or 22%)

 

If he was successful 6 more times out of those same 100 at bats, he hits .280 (28%)

 

If the odds in a casino game go from 1 in 10 to 2 in 10, while the odds have increased by 100%, but the percentage of total players who win still only increases by 10%…

[notin]

I think it depends on what the definition of better means.

 

I do agree that .280 isn't 6% more than .220 though. If a .220 hitter was 100% better than s/he currently was, they'd hit .440 and not 1.220.

 

A .280 hitter is successful 28% of the time. A .220 hitter is successful 22% of the time. That’s NOT 6%?

 

If a .220 hitter was successful in 6% more of hit at bats, what would his average be?

Edited June 18, 2021 by notin

[moonslav59]

A .280 hitter is successful 28% of the time. A .220 hitter is successful 22% of the time. That’s NOT 6%?

 

If a .220 hitter was successful in 6% more of hit at bats, what would his average be?

 

People always assume you mean 6% of what your number is now. 6% of that number more.

[a700hitter]

Now, if a .700 hitter was 100% better than he currently is, he'd still have a -tsPAR.

 

 

 

 

(TalkSoxPosterAboveReplacement)

i am irreplaceable and cannot be traded or dropped.

[Kimmi]

Forget any factors about getting up with men on base or not, the #1 guy getting up to 150 more PAs than the #9 guy has to be significant.

 

If we batted our 4 best hitters 6-9 and our worst 4 hitters 1-2-3-4, we're talking about swinging over 500 PAs from our best (.800-1.000) to our worst (.480-.680).

 

 

Yes, there is a difference between throwing the absolute worst line up out there versus putting the optimal line up out there.

 

In terms of a typical type of line up that a manager uses versus the tweaks that we fans want the managers to make, there is very little difference.

 

If I recall correctly, if a manager batted the pitcher in the #4 spot all season long, which is one of the most extreme errors a manager could make, it would amount to about 14 runs over the entire season.

[Kimmi]

That was in jest. Please don't take me seriously. I'm here to entertain myself.

 

I hear you Nick. That said, I am going to take every opportunity that I can to plug Verdugo and his salary over Betts and his salary.

 

How anyone is not happy with that move is beyond me.

[Kimmi]

Jackie Bradley Jr.

 

The 31-year-old Bradley is in the midst of his worst offensive season. He is batting .152 with a .231 on-base percentage, .268 slugging percentage, .498 OPS, five homers, four doubles, two triples, 16 RBIs and 18 runs in 61 games for the Brewers. Baseball-Reference has him at -0.3 in WAR.

 

He signed a two-year, $24-million contract with Milwaukee in early March.

 

Some wanted him to sign with the Sox. We dodged a bullet.

 

I very much wanted JBJ re-signed, though not for quite that much money.

 

It does appear that we dodged a bullet in letting him go.

[moonslav59]

I hear you Nick. That said, I am going to take every opportunity that I can to plug Verdugo and his salary over Betts and his salary.

 

How anyone is not happy with that move is beyond me.

 

I was the biggest sign Betts to what it takes supporter, and even I know this was a great trade.

[Nick]

I hear you Nick. That said, I am going to take every opportunity that I can to plug Verdugo and his salary over Betts and his salary.

 

How anyone is not happy with that move is beyond me.

 

I'm in your camp on that issue.....I really trust Bloom to get the job done for us....

[Bellhorn04]

What’s the difference between 28% and 22%? Key word - difference.

 

I know what you’re saying but you’re misapplying it to the point.

 

A batting average is already a percentage. As in out of 100.

 

Looking at it from a perspective of at bats, not hits.

 

If a player has 100 at bats and gets 22 hits, he hits .220 (or 22%)

 

If he was successful 6 more times out of those same 100 at bats, he hits .280 (28%)

 

By your logic, there's not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .320 hitter. It's only 10%!

[Bellhorn04]

I was the biggest sign Betts to what it takes supporter, and even I know this was a great trade.

 

No, that would be Slasher. He said to give Mookie a blank contract and fill it in himself.

[moonslav59]

I very much wanted JBJ re-signed, though not for quite that much money.

 

It does appear that we dodged a bullet in letting him go.

 

I was a huge JBJ fan, but felt he wasn't worth half that contract.

[moonslav59]

By your logic, there's not much difference between a .220 hitter and a .320 hitter. It's only 10%!

 

The difference is 0.100 or 10%.

 

That's not the same as saying .320 is 10% "better than" .220.

[moonslav59]

No, that would be Slasher. He said to give Mookie a blank contract and fill it in himself.

 

True.

 

I guess I was second biggest. I even went to a 14 year deal.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

True.

 

I guess I was second biggest. I even went to a 14 year deal.

 

I was with you on offering the big money up front for ages 28-32. Of course, we all know these guys will always want the dough for more years.

 

Regarding JBJ, I haven't read this anywhere, but I think part of his issue is adjusting to a new league, new pitchers, new ballparks -- all factors that can make a mediocre to bad hitter have a brutal first season. He is actually the kind of guy the Sox can use going forward; not to start, but to add quality defense. Bradley would've been more valuable than Cordero this year, anyway.