|
R.D. Mangles posted:Cubs will be super fun and good this year, but they will never win a world series. I'm okay with this.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Intruder posted:Someone post that image of the wins Lester and Maddon provide 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
 Thank you
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
So I don't really understand UZR, but it would seem like you could just break down the field into little squares or hexes (say 1 sqft) and then just determine relative range by how many squares a player regularly covers? I'm sure someone has thought of this but I'm not sure why it wouldn't work. edit - this could be greatly simplified by players just wearing GPS devices
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:
It's entirely possible I'm just imagining the projection systems overrating them but it always seems like they do
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
bewbies posted:you could just break down the field into little squares or hexes I think this is the chart the analysts use for UZR 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
I like all the projection systems that tell me that prospects I like are going to pan out hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I don't really understand UZR, but it would seem like you could just break down the field into little squares or hexes (say 1 sqft) and then just determine relative range by how many squares a player regularly covers? I'm sure someone has thought of this but I'm not sure why it wouldn't work. Statcast can already provide measurements for player movement down to the inch, it's not necessarily that we don't have the data, it's that I don't think anybody knows what to do it. How do you account for a fielder moving over a few feet for a certain batter? How are you going to weight different catches or route efficiency vs. raw speed? EDIT: With nothing concrete to back that up I actually think route efficiency may end up being a pretty good quick and dirty way to judge outfielders. Inspector_666 fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
The unnecessary commas in "Cubs, Being, Cubs" is somehow not the dumbest thing about that image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Statcast can already provide measurements for player movement down to the inch, it's not necessarily that we don't have the data, it's that I don't think anybody knows what to do it. How do you account for a fielder moving over a few feet for a certain batter? How are you going to weight different catches or route efficiency vs. raw speed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Statcast can already provide measurements for player movement down to the inch, it's not necessarily that we don't have the data, it's that I don't think anybody knows what to do it. How do you account for a fielder moving over a few feet for a certain batter? How are you going to weight different catches or route efficiency vs. raw speed? Well, I *think* all of that pre-contact stuff would be covered by a simple binary: does (player) get to (ball), or does he not? It shouldn't matter whether the player gets to the ball through speed, anticipation, or smart positioning. I'd think that there are enough balls in play during a given year to say roughly that "all balls hit to all points average out in the end" such that you don't have to worry about the speed or trajectory of the ball, but perhaps this isn't true for very rarely hit points on the field. The thing you can't really control for is when teams move players around the field, but even then you should get fairly consistent results within a given alignment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
FairGame posted:The unnecessary commas in "Cubs, Being, Cubs" is somehow not the dumbest thing about that image. I still can't figure out where they got the Maddon wins from or how a manager is as valuable than the two best players combined
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Statcast can already provide measurements for player movement down to the inch, it's not necessarily that we don't have the data, it's that I don't think anybody knows what to do it. How do you account for a fielder moving over a few feet for a certain batter? How are you going to weight different catches or route efficiency vs. raw speed? NBA teams are already doing way more to evaluate much more complicated scenarios in terms of expected values of possessions and catching a fly ball has far, far fewer variables involved. If you ignore defensive positioning it should be relatively "simple" to create a baseline average outfielder in terms of which balls they get to in terms of the ball's speed and trajectory and evaluate players comparatively. I dunno, I'm not a statistician but if you can create models of expected points in a basketball possession that accounts for all the players on the floor and their positioning, modeling baseball defense should be way easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Well, I *think* all of that pre-contact stuff would be covered by a simple binary: does (player) get to (ball), or does he not? It shouldn't matter whether the player gets to the ball through speed, anticipation, or smart positioning. I'd think that there are enough balls in play during a given year to say roughly that "all balls hit to all points average out in the end" such that you don't have to worry about the speed or trajectory of the ball, but perhaps this isn't true for very rarely hit points on the field. You just invented zone rating which was the precursor to UZR. UZR's "subzones" are designed to get around the distribution problem but the whole system has fallen apart recently with more and more dramatic defensive shifts. The only way these systems can be accurate is if you assume players totally control where they initially position themselves, and the exact opposite is what goes on in the modern game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
if they took out the cubs, being, cubs clause they would have almost nailed it
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
CUBSINESS is too important a sabrmetric stat to ignore IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
"Even the Cubs can't gently caress this one up" -Words I have said several times in the past
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
i want to know what magic johnson's 'losing is everything' take was
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Good loving lord I say this every year but I cannot wait for meaningless, unwatchable baseball
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
DrPossum posted:Good loving lord I say this every year but I cannot wait for meaningless, unwatchable baseball I am actually pretty jazzed to see some of the Yankee NRIs play, especially with MLB-quality camerawork.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
debbie downer cubs fans please vacate or at least have the dignity to admit you lost the faith when they actually win one this decade
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:when they actually win one  ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Josh Hamilton's knee is acting up already and ST hasn't even started yet. The question is which of the Gallo/Mazara/Brinson trio will have permanently replaced him by May
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:debbie downer cubs fans please vacate or at least have the dignity to admit you lost the faith when they actually win one this decade Yeah, my dad's response to the ESPN projection putting the Cubs at 100-62 was: "Pfft, only +3 wins with what we've added? They're undervaluing us."  I uh... I don't have that much faith, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Josh Hamilton's knee is acting up already and ST hasn't even started yet. The question is which of the Gallo/Mazara/Brinson trio will have permanently replaced him by May At least the Rangers arent paying him this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Weren't the Cubs seriously over-performing at the end of last year? I recall someone posting an article about how they were all playing above their heads and due regression, but I might be confusing them with the Mets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Weren't the Cubs seriously over-performing at the end of last year? I recall someone posting an article about how they were all playing above their heads and due regression, but I might be confusing them with the Mets. They had a 47-40 first half and a 50-25 second half, they also went 46-30 in the Central. You can probably expect slight regressions from the rookies + Arrieta (and injuries can throw a wrench into any plans) but in the end this is a 97 win team that on paper is still the #1 or #2 most improved team in the NL and if they play like they did in the second half that would be a ~106-107 win team. They also play in a division where I think you could argue the other 4 teams are going to be worse on balance than last year. The Cubs went 38-19 against CIN/MIL/PIT last year and I think they can improve on that + get a winning record against STL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
N: The Red Sox signed Carlos Marmol to a MiLB deal with a ST invite. V: Marmol has already walked three and plunked two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:N: The Red Sox signed Carlos Marmol to a MiLB deal with a ST invite. what level of MILB I may see if I can Fisher Cats tickets so I can see him AA...or Spinners tickets a High A...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:They had a 47-40 first half and a 50-25 second half, they also went 46-30 in the Central. You can probably expect slight regressions from the rookies + Arrieta (and injuries can throw a wrench into any plans) but in the end this is a 97 win team that on paper is still the #1 or #2 most improved team in the NL and if they play like they did in the second half that would be a ~106-107 win team. lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Kevlar v2.0 posted:Last year, no one was expecting the Cubs to do well, so they were playing free and loose and benefited from it. This year, EVERYONE is expecting them to win the division. The stage is set for them to collapse under the weight of the city's massive expectations. Despite all my instincts, I'm excited as hell about his season, and I will be until they lose their first 8 games and then Arrieta, Bryant, Heyward, and Lester all are out for the year after a freak batting practice mishap or something. I've been hurt so, so many times by this team in my lifetime, but I just can't seem to quit them.  Also I find it strange that the Cubs won 97 games last year, improved the roster greatly, have every single key player back, and now everyone is saying they won't win 97 again this year. How does that work? I mean, other than Cubs being Cubs. BigBallChunkyTime fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:N: The Red Sox signed Carlos Marmol to a MiLB deal with a ST invite. Marmol is Back
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Despite all my instincts, I'm excited as hell about his season, and I will be until they lose their first 8 games and then Arrieta, Bryant, Heyward, and Lester all are out for the year after a freak batting practice mishap or something. Regression toward the mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Also I find it strange that the Cubs won 97 games last year, improved the roster greatly, have every single key player back, and now everyone is saying they won't win 97 again this year. How does that work? I mean, other than Cubs being Cubs. Arrieta regresses to a ~.500 pitcher, Lester stays a .500 pitcher (or David Ross dies in Lester's arms and he takes the rest of the year off for bereavement,) Lackey's 2015 was a fluke and he's a hothead clubhouse cancer #5 being paid like a #3, the rest of the staff performs to expectations. Heyward gets hurt playing 70% of the OF to cover for Schwarber and Soler being poor fielders, Bryant and Russell have sophomore slumps and the team sets a new MLB record for striking out by mid-August. I'll still pencil them in for 85 wins or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
let's not forget the cubs were extremely lucky with their health last year. if one of those inside fastballs hits rizzo right in the wrist and lester starts to show his or arrieta proves last year's load was too much this division is a toss up to this day i still don't know how a pitcher hasn't broken rizzo's wrist yet
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Yeah it's probably not wise to expect to have 4 SPs each making 30+ starts every year
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Injuries screwed the Cubs last year, they were 5-3 and in first place in the division when their Opening Day 3B had to go on the DL and the team had to scramble to get some untested rookie from AAA to fill the gap. They never made it back to first in the division after that. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Yeah it's probably not wise to expect to have 4 SPs each making 30+ starts every year I don't think they'll need to this year. Wood started some last year, Cahill signed specifically to be stretched out for long relief/spot starts, Warren is much the same and Richard is also available to spot start. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Also I find it strange that the Cubs won 97 games last year, improved the roster greatly, have every single key player back, and now everyone is saying they won't win 97 again this year. How does that work? I mean, other than Cubs being Cubs. I dunno, every pundit I've seen online says that the cubs are the team to beat  Also, seconding the amazement at Rizzo's wrist not being broken. Such a strange stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Also I find it strange that the Cubs won 97 games last year, improved the roster greatly, have every single key player back, and now everyone is saying they won't win 97 again this year. How does that work? I mean, other than Cubs being Cubs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
The cubs are Really, Really Good but just due to baseball being baseball I feel the most wins you can reasonably predict a team to get is like ~93, unless a team is like truly generational like the '98 yankees or whatever e: also going back to how people thought they were going to do last year I think "shoot for above-.500, maaayybe sneak into a wildcard" was the pretty universal sentiment Monicro fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 08:27
|
|
