Olerud363

You have serious issues. You are missing my point completely. My first inpression was that Halladay, Carpenter and Sanchez were similar... and they are. Tall, High School, 1st rounders, throw right, high ground ball rates, only average minor league careers, struggled as starters early as major leaguers, throw fairly hard. They are more similar to each other, then they are to say Sean Nolin, or Sean Marcum. What has been explained to me is that there are many more pitchers (than I think) that fit this profile... they are not all successful. If you mine the data further you may indeed find better comparables... but this won't really help make a projection because at this point you won't have enough data, you will just overfit.

OK. My recollection is that Halladay couldn't control his stuff... he just kept walking guys and leaving meet balls up in the zone. That's what I see when Sanchez starts. In his first 2 years as a starter Halladay had about a 1-1 k/bb, Carpenter was 2-1... Sanchez is about 1-1 as a starter So I see Sanchez' path to success being much more similar to Halladays -- an aha moment/mechanical adjustment that leads to control... Carpenter just recovered from injuries and took it to the next level... I don't recall a magic moment that changed everything. That's what we are talking about with Sanchez... it has to be-- his major league rates as a starter are awful, his minor league numbers are mediocre... so there has to be this moment where everything changes... it's happened for other guys so maybe it will happen for Sanchez.

Grant is insufferable because he doesn't understand the nature of knowledge. He's like a 22 year old Waterloo Math student who starts watching the Stock market in his senior year... then thinks he can beat it, cuz he's a top math whiz. Most people, as they age, realize the world is f***ing competitive.

Hi JimCanuck Months ago I was on the other side of this argument. I too was thinking Carpenter and Halladay were good comparables for Sanchez. However I think as Blue Jays fans we are influenced too much by Blue Jays past successes. The argument on the other side is that if you just pick the top comparables for Sanchez through age 23, most have not had great success. Carpenter is kind of similar, but probably not top-10 similar and we just pick him because we know him.

I acknowledge these systems aren't perfect. I'm not so sure people (or even you) understand why they are not perfect. When something isn't perfect you use Hypothesis testing to test why it is not perfect. 1. I am Grant. The machine is broken. Here is my hypothesis: Chris Young and Marco Estrado break the machine 2. Plug new information (perhaps %change ups) about Chris Young and Marco Estrado into the machine 3. Test if the machine is now better a) Machine better. Hypothesis is right Machine not better. Hypothesis is wrong.

Report card Spelling and Grammar: F Gets along with others: F Stays on topic: E Comments - Olerud363 is not trying hard enough. Needs to pay attention to spelling and grammar. Also needs to be more polite to others and stay on topic. While he occasionally shows creativity he goes overboard seeking attention. So I am not sure about "trying to hard", it says "not trying hard enough"... or maybe the part about "goes overboard seeking attention" is what you are referring to?? OK. I think I understand now. you have a point.

Scouting report - Young Sanchez His fastball has been clocked as high as 98 MPH, works consistently at 94-95, and has vicious sinking action. He will mix in a curveball and changeup, Both secondary pitches are inconsistent, varying between plus and below average depending on what day you see him. Scouting report - Young League He created a stir this year by touching 102 mph during the Eastern League All-Star game. His fastball is more - often in the 94-96 mph range, sometimes a notch higher. The fastball drops sharply in the strike zone. His second pitch is an erratic slider. When it works, it is devastating in combination with the fastball, but he will go through phases where he can't control it properly. When used as a starter, League adds a straight changeup to his arsenal. Like the slider, this is an effective pitch when it is working. League's main flaws revolve around command and control, related to inconsistent mechanics. He had a few problems with confidence early in his career, but he took very well to the bullpen and performed well under pressure this year. -- So Sanchez/Jansenn not a good comparison because they're stuff is very different Sanchez/Leauge not a good comparision because Sanchez is way better

Not sure I understand trying to hard?? trying at the same level I always have -- a little bit looney, a bit mean to Grant, horrible spelling, horrible grammar, willing to admit I am wrong, a little unhinged

I voted for future ace -- my logic -- projection systems are OK, but the smarter people make their own projections, and I have read the posts by those people and am convinced.

Yes. But the point is this -> League (98mph ground ball machinist) was very good in 35 inning samples in 2006 and 2008 He was injured and bad in 2005, 2007 Is Sanchez WAY better than League because he is WAY better than League?? Or Sanchez and League are the same. They both can look awesome in 35 inning samples, 60 innings samples even, as the years progress and the sample sizes grow they regress to the means (as the hive loves to say)

Grant - I wrote fangraphs about this -- here is their reply Dear Olerud363 Our projections are done using advanced machine learning techniques. We put a lot of work into it but it isn't really that good. In fact the smartest people just come up with their own projections. So if you are one of those smarter people we recommend coming up with your own projections. If you are not one of the smarter people... well we still don't recommend using our projections... ask one of the smarter people if you can look at theirs. Love fangraphs and other projection people

Grant -- I concede to your genius. I want to say it directly to you, even though I said it allready to some other guy. I will say it again Sanchez is not the next Casey Jansen. He will never be that good. You have convinced me. Sanchez is the next Brandon League - 2.5 WAR career. Thank you. Make baseball great again!

Fine I change my mind. You guys are right. Sanchez is not the next Casey Jansen... you have convinced me. He is the next Brandon League. He will never be as good as Jansen and will only get 2.5 WAR over many, many years.

The longest running debate had to of been Travis Snider -- Did Gaston ruin Olerud (not really, he recovered as a Met) -- Did Gaston ruin Green (no, prospered when Gaston left) Will Gaston ruin Snider ?? Answer - Snider will be ruined, impossible to prove Gaston ruined him... probably not actually -- Snider got chances under a lot of different managers.

Again bb (walks) and strikeouts are two stats, This is why you are so annoying.... they have two (very f***ing important) stats in common as relievers... walk rate, and k-rate -- Casey Jansen was very good for three or four years... are you saying Sanchez would outperform him?? He might Are saying Sanchez would be as good as Miller as a reliever?? As good as Dennis Eckersley?? I see Sanchez as a 2.5 true era reliever... you are disagreeing?? What is his true talent level as a reliever??

Hi Maahfaace -- my point is that even as a reliever Sanchez is statistically similar to Casey Jansen not say Dellin Betances... Sanchez' k-rate as a reliever is actually lower then Jansen's... so without a change in skill you are looking at sort of a Casey Jansen like reliever... second tier. I doubt Sanchez could maintain a 1.5 era with his current rates, it would be more like 2.5... and a Sanchez relief season would look a lot like a Casey Jansen relief season. So I will adjust my statement "Even as a reliever Sanchez PERFORMS like Casey Jansen"... he may be completely different, as a human being, as a ground ball machine, as a triple digit radar gun god... in those ways he may be completely different then Jansen... he still performs like him (so far)

I think we mostly agree here... Except for some classes of players the breakout rate is about 20% anyway... I say "certain classes" because the weird thing is I was just looking at my Baseball Prospectus 2016 -- and as I expected a lot of the younger pitchers, Sanchez included had 20% breakout rates. Except the position players mostly head real low breakout rates... - the number one breakout rate was Josh Thole at 7% ?? How the hell is that a breakout?? Maybe the f'd it up somehow. To me breakout should be the chance the player achieves some fairly fantastic goal -- like 3 WAR or something... Not like a relative percentage of past performance. Like Josh Thole breaking out would be hitting .260 with 4 homers

The interesting thing is this: If a well educated person projects 5 players to be mediocre, they will probably be right on 4, 80% correct -- but nobody will care. If Grant projects 5 players to be dynamite he'll be right on 1 -- 20% correct But we'll never hear the end of it. Grant will toot is own horn on getting the one guy right, and even people non-Grant will give Grant credit. You will hear "Grant is obnoxious... yes he is... but man he called so and so right"

Sanchez as reliever - 60 innings 60% ground ball rate 15 50 k/bb Jansen - 60 innings 48% ground ball rate 15 50 k/bb Of course you claim "they are nothing alike", you are Grant, enemy of logic, friend of Trump. Statistically they are somewhat alike, especially as relievers -- Let's look at the logical flaws in your post. 1. "pigenholing" 1 stat -- NO... k and bb are two stats. I did not even use k/bb ratio. I used k and bb - that is 2... 2 is not 1 2. Sanchez and Jansen are similar in that they both were tried as starters and were mediocre 3. Both have ground ball tendencies, Sanchez obviously more extreme (Janen - 48% or so, Sanchez 60%) The crazy thing is a few months ago, I was in your shoes, arguing with Nox about this... trying to argue that Sanchez is somehow unique. Nox's point was that I could not beat the machine. I thought about this, and realized he is correct (of course).. now believe it or not I have a background in data analysis, so I have some concept of what it would take to beat (improve) the "machine" I could not do it as a casual baseball statistics hobbyist, and could not do it alone. I would have to work full time as part of a team developing such a system. My advice to you (as I've said before) is this: If you truly believe you have unique insights that go beyond the projection systems, then please send your resume to front offices. Your unique knowledge is wasted on this board.

Hi Grant I am very confused. Sanchez has not exceeded anybody's expectations. As a reliever he pitches 60 innings and walks 15 and strikeout 45... if this trend continues he will be the next Casey Jansen As a starter he pitches 60 innings and walks 37 and strikes out 42, with these stats he could be the next Joey Hamilton He has done as the hive thought... he has never exceeded the hive's projections... Oh... wait.. do you mean to say that his artificially low ERA should be taken at face value?? In that case you will have to destroy all present statistical and logical theory's and replace them with the theory of Grant/Trump Grant/Trump - Reality is as we say, we are legion, we will rule the lower people... Yes Grant, you are Trump... Ironically you are probably the type who acts all superior and makes fun of Trump, but in reality you and Trump are one and the same.... you both ignore the normal laws of logic and define your own.

Anyway I think this is the way it is: 10 innings -> you are an idiot if you make conclusions off this -- you deserve the wrath of the hive. Short, rude, condescending replies. 100 innings -> at this point the discussion because interesting -- is it real?? or not?? you do not deserve to be blasted into oblivion for thinking 100 innings is a real change, the hive may disagree but they have to explain politely and in detail. The hive can longer give their one sentence snappy answers. 500 innings -> Of course it's real

There are rigorous statistical methods that can be used to determine when your views should be adjusted. I'll let someone else give details. Any long time baseball fan, should understand the following, even if they have zero background in statistics. 10 innings -> meaningless 500 innings -> very meaningful There exists an in between point where the numbers start to become become meaningful... I would guess it is around 70-100 innings. June 1st - Sanchez has 70 innings under his belt as a starter -- at that point I think we can all consider adjusting our views based on evidence. If someone wants to disagree, at that point they would have to pull out the p-values or whatever.

I am not sure how this wlll put the debate to rest. You will get a probability histogram of potential outcomes. Perhaps this will lead to polite exchanges JimCanuck - He will be an ace The hive - Mr. Canuck, your recent poll indicated that Mr. Sanchez only has a 12% chance of becoming an ace, at least according to the people. The efficient market theory states that our collective wisdom will converge on the true probability distribution of potential outcomes. The only caveat would be if you have access to deep learning models that the general public does not. - Thank you for your continued contributions.

whhutttt??? I've been to Washington several times in the last 10 years... it's pretty damn nice. Went there last fall, had a hotel within walking distance of the capitol... Wife did the marine corps marathon... I am a runner as well so I did a couple of runs from our hotel. It was great. Could do a nice running route that around the capitol, and the mall, and pop by the white house as well... felt safe the entire time. Walked from Arlington to the capitol one day, felt safe the entire way. Also gone for conventions... stayed near convention center and it was fine... Maybe there are bad areas I haven't been to, however my experiences in Washington have been very positive.

Kevin Pillar -> Hitting lead off = more patient = .310 .370 .450, because of his defense and because he gets more plate appearances than anyone else he leads major league baseball in WAR Osuna struggles in the bullpen, gets sent down in late May, re-made into starter, back up July 14th, goes 10-3 2.90ish, a la Juan Guzman Style. Justin Smoak age 29 -- in 2020 they say "we need to find the next Bautista/EE/Smoak all three blossomed at the magic age 29"