That's amazing. Might have to start hanging out on that board.
2016 White Sox
That's amazing. Might have to start hanging out on that board.
In comparing 2016 Matt Latos and 2010 Matt Latos (arguably his best year), we may as well be talking about different pitchers entirely. In his prime, Latos had a fastball that sat pretty firmly in the mid 90s, and used a wipeout slider nearly 27% of the time.
2016 Latos has an average fastball a tic above 90, while reducing his slider % to roughly 13% - and for good reason - it's been getting crushed for a while. Here's a chart of his pitch values over the course of his career:
Long story short, he's getting by right now with two pitches that have been far below average for some time now. So how far back is the hypothetical mean? Pretty far. I'll also mention the disparity between his FIP and ERA, which suggests he's been incredibly lucky so far in 2016.
Albers - whom I freaking love - is on a hot streak. He's 33 years old and enjoying by far the best stretch of his career, albeit over the court of roughly 40 innings. Temper expectations with the fact that prior to last year, he never had a WAR above .8. This isn't a young kid with knockout stuff just now proving himself. One could possibly attribute the life left in his arm to the fact he hasn't had a serious season-long workload since 2013. (10 IP in 2014).
Then again, if you believe in the mythological powers of Don Cooper, you can throw all the advanced stats out the window. Maybe its #TWTW
My point is Latos is a proven winner who can get people out. He has been learning a new way to pitch and it was been working with no signs so far he's slowing down. I do believe in the powers of Don Cooper and I believe that a guy showing he can pitch in as many games as Albers has been doing maybe he figured something out in his latter years. All I know is this is starting to resemble 2005 and I'm loving it.
I think we all want the same thing, i'll just be over here in the corner with my data waiting for the house of cards to fall.
One things for sure - the AL is wide open.
Can your sabermetrics explain what happened in 2005? What's the difference between then and now?
Ha. This is a common refrain of those opposed to advanced stats. To be clear, theyre not my sabermetrics. They can be yours too, if you open your heart. Statistics are your friend if applied correctly.
To answer your question, off the top of my head, that team hit a lot more home runs. Stole a ton of bases too. More broadly, they had a better lineup, which is exactly what we need if we're going to compete. Thankfully, the clock hasn't run out on ways we can improve the offense.
If you sincerely want me to dig into walk rates, win probability etc, I'd be happy to tomorrow - provided my work day is as slow as it was today. It's also important to remember we're looking at an extremely small sample size for 2016.
I'm waiting for the house to fall too. But also keep in mind that Abreu and Frazier at the very least are likely to regress to a better mean. Now, is this a 118 win team (their current pace)? No, of course not. But, they may be better than a 80 win team. If they can win just a touch over 50% of their remaining games they'll be in the hunt until the end I think.
Regarding another hitter, yes, we need it. I think had LaRoche retired when there were still bats on the market we would have ended up with something better than Austin Jackson in CF. I could be wrong, but I think management was banking on a bounce back from him and thought that we did not really need another bat.
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
I think if we make it to say June 15 or so without a large losing period to drop us back into outside contention (ex. if we just played 500 ball the next 45 days), we'll get one of the good bats available. Keep in mind without LaRoche's contract we likely do have a little bit of money to soak up a higher priced player that may not be playing up to that contract (Jay Bruce comes to mind as that type of guy, I personally hope its not Jay Bruce).
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
What the hell is going on? Sox broke my heart one too many times since the dream season, so not following anymore.
Illiniwek06
- N of I-80
Haha, right? I'm in a bizzaro world where I log onto Loyalty and check football/White Sox threads and avoid hoops threads. :huh:
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
I don't know if I am waiting for the house of cards to come down on the team as a whole. But I agree that at some point hard hit balls are going to find grass instead of gloves for Latos.
I went back and tried to look at what the Rockies got for Tulo as a comp for what it might cost for CarGo. Not sure it is a great comp considering Tulo was locked up under team control till 2021 I think. And CarGo thought 2017. I think the Sox could go and get him, but it would most likely cost Tim Anderson and another prospect. I know he has injury history, but I would do it. Avoid some of the injury risk with him at DH.
Anybody but Anderson for me. We're so short on viable position prospects. I'd let Fulmer go first.
Before that season you would have told me that team would have hit the way they did and the pitching would have done what it did? If you can do that with sabermetrics then great I will believe everything you say from here on out. That was my point. Sabermetrics are great indicators of what is the most plausible scenario moving forward, however they do not tell the future. If that were true noone then the team is supposed to win will every time. This team had the capability to be ok but noone expected this. An example I will use is Latos, he has been pretty good in the past and now he does not pitch the same way. Why would I use the previous statistics to determine how he will fair when he is nowhere near the same pitcher. Would sabermetrics have told me that Arrieta would change the way he has since coming to the Cubs? All of these advanced statistics are great however they are still no where near perfect.
Welp, no use arguing metrics v gut, though I know on which side I'll stay.
Actually, I must...
I don't think it matters which Mat Latos you've dreamed up, ^THAT^ is not sustainable.
Bob Christiansen
- 4th & Chalmers, a few years ago...Now? Weeki Wach
I don't care how much money Danks is getting paid, can we please send him down any bring up ANYONE? I'm at the point where, when it's Danks turn up in the rotation, I just say automatic loss...which sucks.
Welp, no use arguing metrics v gut, though I know on which side I'll stay.
Actually, I must...
I don't think it matters which Mat Latos you've dreamed up, ^THAT^ is not sustainable.
I never he would sustain what he has been doing. I said he could stay a good pitcher. Your chart shows most of his career he fell in the good range.
I certainly hope so. He's got nothing. Whether you look at his numbers, or the junk he's throwing, there is no evidence for improved performance.
Of course they are not perfect. But, they do tell you the most probable scenario. And they're always getting better as we increase the data sets from which we can draw correlations. There will always be outliers. The Royals the last two years have greatly outperformed what the math predicts. Part of the reason, at least IMO, is that the models have difficulty dealing with the benefits of having so many lights out arms in the bullpen and how they can function together over a long season. This will get corrected as the data increases.
As for 2005 White Sox, several players had career years. Garland and Contreras come to mind. Buehrle was strong as was Garcia. We had Jenks come out of nowhere and Iguchi come from Japan. McCarthy had a big impact. The defensive metrics at that time were terrible (they still are but are improved) so it couldn't account for Crede, Dye and having 2 CFs patrol the OF. There were a lot of reasons the math didn't work for that specific team.
Lastly, Arrieta. He developed. It happens. But that does not disprove the math. He changed. But again, he's an outlier. For > 99% of players with a significant track record, they are who their numbers say they are. If you're a great scout you might be able to identify those guys who are going to outperform their history for a significant period of time. But if such a great scout existed, he'd be making a ton of money in the Bronx, Boston, LA, or the North Side right now.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
And like you said IO, bulpens are hard to predict. One year guys are great and the next they are terrible. Or vise versa. That 05 team had everyone in the bullpen have a career year. They also went through 3 closers. How many WS teams do that.
It still amazes me they won 90 games in 06 yet missed the playoffs.
It still amazes me they won 90 games in 06 yet missed the playoffs.
Every little thing that was brought just proves my point that these things could be happening with this team. If you are waiting for the bottom to completely drop out then you are just a pessimist and I would hate to live in your world as a fan. I know statistics and I'm aware that they are the most likely outcome (as I have previously stated and LIKELY is the key word) however things can happen that will skew the numbers and change the model. This COULD be one of those years. The right guys have career years at the same time and boom it all comes together. You say one guy can change and develop but another can't. You are saying one team can greatly outperform the numbers and another can't. You are contradicting your own statements by saying that. Most likely outcome yes but why couldn't this team be the one to beat the odds. It has happened numerous times before and it will happen again I just hope it is this team that does it. I'm aware this team probably isn't likely to continue but our pitching is some of the best in the game all around. Our hitting will get better in my opinion (mostly Abreu and Frazier then pick up a bat in the middle of the year) and if that happens then noone knows what could happen.
It could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. We're talking about a sample size of less than 20% of one season here. Randomness does happen. Statistics are meant to explain that randomness, not prove that it does not happen. They are not meant to predict what will happen, only how often different outcomes are likely to happen. You can call me a pessimist if you'd like. That's your right. But, if we were to predict 100 different outcomes based on math vs. gut/hopes/optimism, the math would win in a landslide. And with that perspective, hopefully you understand that I did not actually contradict myself.
When you say it happened the last two years and then say it won't happen again then that statement is a contradiction. When you tell me one pitcher did something (when that pitcher was worse to begin with) but another can't pull the same thing off that's a contradiction. I understand how math works I teach it for a living. Math will correct most of the time I agree but to come on here and say it WON'T happen is not how math or Fandom work. Math gives you odds and probabilities not full proof information. If we were talking about the same team year in and year out under the same exact circumstances over 10 years I would say for sure that what the math says is my belief. To say that because our #4 pitcher, who is having a career start to his year, can't change due to how he is used and the new circumstances he is under because the math of when he was in a completely different environment under different management, being used in differently, and with a different pitching Coach I would say the model needs to change. There so many variables that go into how a player (specifically putchers) will perform over a given season that I don't believe the math is fool proof. Over his career and into his whole stay with the Sox I agree. The more years you put into the model the better the model gets. There is no model for this Mat Latos that is pitching differently than he ever has on a new team, in a new city, under different management and coaching. In year 3, yes there is a model. If Latos finishes the year in the mid 3's for his ERA as our 4th pitcher he has had an amazing year and the White Sox will be in great shape. By no means do i expect him to pitch at CY Young level all year but you know what it is possible. I'm assuming Sale will be Sale and Quintana will be Quintana and that Redondo will only get better. We are looking at a team that will compete with anyone no matter what advanced stats say about who they are right now.
But you still don't get it. If you look at Arrieta, there were changes in the underlying numbers that suggested that his success was sustainable. His ground ball percentage increased from about 43% to 55%. His average pitch velocity increased. His FIP and xFIP, much better measures of how well a guy is pitching than ERA both decreased dramatically.
Now, Latos has had an increase in ground ball percentage 37% - 44% but that is much more modest. And his decreased velocity is well-documented. And his FIP and xFIP have increased by 0.6 and 1.3 respectively. Those numbers are highly suggestive that this is not sustainable.
I'll leave it here. The math strongly indicates that the Latos start has been a small sample size mirage. If you want to believe otherwise, I hope you are right because I'd love to see the Sox win the division. But, IMO, the Sox need another starter. Running Danks and Latos out there 2/5 of the time really puts pressure on the team to win when the other 3 guys start.
Illiniwek06
- N of I-80
A month in and the Sox have the most wins in MLB and the best record and best run differential in the AL.
