Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

iortiz

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,801

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by iortiz

  1. iortiz
    In the other thread you minimized their charts. Act like a man moon lol Average in terms of good and bad is in between. Thing is most of RPs are below average. FG has made it more sophisticated. They have made more pedigrees in order to rate players in their charts. Matt Barnes is at the Solid Level in their WAR chart in his best WAR year. Solid is not good niether very good. Solid is kind of average/mediocre if you use common sense. it has been the point all along. OTOH Matt Barnes is a career Role Level RP which is not even average in my book.
  2. iortiz
    Tough L. Robles has to go. He is garbage.
  3. iortiz
    Some called Barnes an awful RP. Some called Barnes an average RP. Some called Barnes good RP. and so on..... This is why I tried t translate those adjectives in their chart since they are not explicitly called that way, but still you can fairly try to make a translation. No big deal.
  4. iortiz
    So you like to use their stats but you don't believe in their charts where they rate players and which actually are created by experts in the matter?. Again, it doesn't make sense. Their charts are the fairest way to rate/call a player based on the metrics/stats they create. On average; If average players are scrub/role players, where would you put bad players in their chart? How would you call Solid players in their chart then? How would you call Good Players in there chart? and so on... Once again, it doesn't make sense moon. See?
  5. iortiz
    game over. Robles sucks badly.
  6. iortiz
    Robles sucks.
  7. iortiz
    Where would you put an average RP in their chart? I'll wait.
  8. iortiz
    At least JD moved the runner.
  9. iortiz
    Facts are uncomfortable at times lol
  10. iortiz
    I answered the question. I tried to translate average in their chart since the term doesn't explicitly appear, but could be translated as Solid. Good to MVP levels are not average in their chart so the Solid Level should be the level for average/mediocre RPs. Thing is not much are in that category. You just refuse to understand how it does actually work. Most relievers are replacement/rol/scrub players by definition. 1/3 of them are not average/mediocre/solid as you want to rate them in your 3-level chart.
  11. iortiz
    i.e. If you want to apply a rigid average definition here, it won't make sense because several role and maybe some scrub RPs will be in that category —which will not make sense because it is not how it works. The way I see it, FG does not care calling more than the half of the RPs per year, role/scrub RPs. If you suck you suck, it doesn't matter if a lot suck too. Maybe the later will help you to understand how it does actually work in order to give a RP a pedigree — which actually makes sense, because most of RPs are role/scrub/replacement players.
  12. iortiz
    Lets make an example. Let's take 2019. Best WAR year for Barnes. Based on FG's chart only 1 RP is a MVP. Only 1 is a Super Star. Only 1 is an All AllStar. 8 are Good RPs. 30 are Solid players (included Barnes), and the rest are something between Role and Scrub. This portions make sense to me based on one year. Other years will be kind of similar. Answering your question, and based on FG's chart, Role and Scrub are bad RPs and Solid Players could be translated as average/mediocre. Thing is that FG does make a 7-level chart and its thresholds are singular based on their large samples. You wanted to apply a 3-level chart and rate Barnes as a top tier RP. Again, it does not work that way because it doesn't make sense as well. What I've been trying to do is to translate the average/mediocre term in this chart. Since the Solid Level is below the Good Level, then is fair to say that average/mediocre is what FG calls you Solid which makes sense.
  13. iortiz
    Exactly, very few belong from Good to MVP level. Barnes does not belong there. Average/Mediocre is what FG calls you Solid, yes. It is between 1.75 and 1.1. Barnes only has 2 seasons before 2021 in that level. All-in-all and not cherry picking, Matt Barnes, averages something around 0.88 through five complete seasons (2015-2019). That number by definition locates you at the Role Player level based on FG's chart which is not good.
  14. iortiz
    I think you just forgot the debate we had in the other thread. You have to re-scale the chart otherwise it wouldn't be fair for relievers. I just did it for you. As I said in the other thread, Solid players could be translated as mediocre or average and considering that it is the fifth level of the chart. Matt Barnes' best WAR year does not even make what FG calls you Good Player, so if you are below good, then you are something between solid (average or mediocre) which is not a bad thing. OTOH MAtt Barnes has had 5 seasons below 1 and 2 of those 5 seasons below 0.5. In those years which is most of his career he's been nothing but role to scrub player. These charts are provided for the source who actually created the stat, so there's a large evidence and sample to believe that this rule-of-thumb shown in the chart is certain. 1.0 WAR/season relievers are Role Players based on FG's chart whether you like it or not.
  15. iortiz
    I'm not disputing this "Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one" Once again, PO is a different situation.
  16. iortiz
    You have to normalize them. 3.5+ WAR for relievers is a fair number for the MVP level. The chart for relievers would be like this: 3.5 or higher WAR MVP 3.5 to 3.3 WAR Super Stars 3.3 to 2.3 WAR All Star 2.3 to 1.75 WAR Good Player 1.75 to 1.1 WAR Solid Player 1.1 to 0.5 WAR Role Player Below 0.5 WAR Scrub https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/
  17. iortiz
    What other poor samples you are talking about?
  18. iortiz
    Seems like the video replay thing is not working lately.
  19. iortiz
    It was a Matzusaka act.
  20. iortiz
    BP should be ready. Pivetta is trash tonight.
  21. iortiz
    Very cheap inning.
  22. iortiz
    1.0 fWAR by a RPer is not average. If it was about half the RPers would have more and half less. That’s what average means. Sorry, but that’s just common sense. It could sound like common sense but it is not when you look at FG's chart —because it is not like it works moon. You refuse to look at the chart lol Players go 189 IP with wildly differing numbers. Just because one sample size is 189 innings does not prove the reason for being good or bad. Sorry, that has nothing to do with common sense. Kershaw, himself has large sample sizes of very different results, not just the playoff one. Sure and no one is disputing the later paragraph.
  23. iortiz
    Agreed!
  24. iortiz
    Did they name him as a the new closer moving forward?
  25. iortiz
    ...or Shwarber at LF and Arroyo at 1B. You would move Verdugo at CF and Kike at 2B. Both, Arroyo and Schwarber could get hurt playing at 1B, but who would you risk more of these two? my guess Schwarber has more chances to get hurt at 1B.
×
×
  • Create New...