ESPN - Hot Stove Stock Watch

[Jenkins5]

Good, I prefer underdog roll vs expected excellence. At end of season you are far happier with a team that overachieves vs underachieves

[coolhandluke121]

Everyone wants to be known as an analytics guy until the the numbers don't agree with their Rose colored glasses of the team.

 

The team was forecast as a bottom tier team all year long according to Fangraphs and even Stearns agreed since he really didn't do much to help the team down the stretch other than some older non controllable players to fill some gaps.

 

We will know what Stearns thinks of the team by what he does with the starting rotation. If he spends it means he loves this team. If he doesn't it means he is expecting regression and there is no point in bringing in difference makers.

 

Your analysis is completely off base.

 

Your point about the acquiring talent makes no sense at all but thanks for putting in the old school baseball logic of if a GM really believes in the team non sense. This statement is just completely off base as you are ignoring the weighting of future production versus present. The value the Brewers would have given up was just not something Stearns was willing to pay. Stearns was trying to improve the team but not so it would be detrimental to the teams future. This has nothing to do with how Stearns sees the team today but more along the lines of how he sees the team in 3-5 years from now. If a player comes by and they help or improve the team now and 3-5 years from now I don't see Stearns passing that trade up or signing a player.

 

I guess it depends on what you think of Stearns. I agree that this would normally be giving a gm a little too much credit, but I think he's earned it. It would be a sign of low confidence in the team's ability to duplicate their success if he doesn't trade any contracts or spend $30-40m in free agency. I don't think that's even controversial. That doesn't mean he has high confidence if they do make win-now moves (the converse of a true statement need not be true), but it's at least consistent with that interpretation. Meddling from Mark A is always a potential explanatory variable as well, but I think Mark A honestly knows Stearns is much better than him and will give him the last word.

 

Of course it's fine to disagree with Boomer's analysis, but you have to admit that the part about "everyone wanting to be known as an analytics guy until they have to take off the rose-colored glasses" was spot on.

[JohnBriggs12]

Good, I prefer underdog roll vs expected excellence. At end of season you are far happier with a team that overachieves vs underachieves

 

True, but I don't think expectations will be low based on this one flawed premature projection. Plenty of guys underachieved last year. Besides the obvious, Villar, I contend Braun underachieved considerably. So did Broxton. Let's not forget the first 6 weeks of Feliz as the closer. Marginal underachievers were Perez, Thames (other than one exceptional month), and even Davies. How do we know Shaw and Santana overachieved as both are just now reaching their primes? And it's ridiculous to think a guy like Arcia who had been a consensus top 10 prospect overachieved. In my opinion, he's the most talented player on the roster and the arrow is still clearly pointing up. I would not be surprised to see him in the All Star game this season.

[Montezuma]

I stopped reading and watching ESPN news years ago because it was very east coast friendly and they reported their "pet teams"... So this report/article, like so many others, is not of value.

[pacopete4]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

[DHonks]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

 

A century ago that would have been true, but the population center has shifted considerably.

[pacopete4]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

 

A century ago that would have been true, but the population center has shifted considerably.

 

A quick google search showed me this:

 

Eastern Standard Time Zone: 150.2 million (47.1%)

 

Central Standard Time Zone: 92.3 million (29.0%)

 

Mountain Standard Time Zone: 21.3 million (6.7%)

 

Pacific Standard Time Zone: 53.0 million (16.6%)

[jerichoholicninja]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

 

I doubt very few "don't get it", they just find it incredibly annoying.

[pacopete4]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

 

I doubt very few "don't get it", they just find it incredibly annoying.

 

I don’t disagree with the annoyance.

[monty57]

Everyone wants to be known as an analytics guy until the the numbers don't agree with their Rose colored glasses of the team.

 

All I said was that I doubted you could bet on an "over" of 68, or get 50:1 odds of the Brewers making the playoffs. I don't think that's "rosy."

 

I also questioned how a team can have a 97 win projection when at this point they only have three starting pitchers and no closer. It has to be assumed that the authors are making guesses as to what each team will do in the offseason and making "projections" off of their guesses, so saying "when the numbers don't agree" is assuming "the numbers" aren't flawed, which it seems these numbers are.

 

You were a big proponent of the "tank for a draft pick" strategy going into 2017, and if that happens this offseason then maybe these numbers are justified. However, since Counsell already strongly hinted that payroll is going up considerably next year, the odds of the Brewers punting on this season are pretty much zero, so I think this article is pretty meaningless and is not something anyone should use as "the numbers."

 

I could see the Brewers falling back some this year, and it's easily within reason to believe that they could be a sub-.500 team. I just think that putting the expected win total at 68 is borderline absurd. If you put a standard deviation curve on that, you'd say they have as good a chance of being a 60-win team as they do of winning 76. Really?

[valpocrewsader]

Like 50% of the population is east coast.

 

A century ago that would have been true, but the population center has shifted considerably.

 

Eastern Standard Time Zone: 150.2 million (47.1%)

 

So, east coast bias probably caters to more like 20% - 25% of the population after removing Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, most of PA, most of KY, etc.

[KeithStone53151]

Good, I prefer underdog roll vs expected excellence. At end of season you are far happier with a team that overachieves vs underachieves

 

True, but I don't think expectations will be low based on this one flawed premature projection. Plenty of guys underachieved last year. Besides the obvious, Villar, I contend Braun underachieved considerably. So did Broxton. Let's not forget the first 6 weeks of Feliz as the closer. Marginal underachievers were Perez, Thames (other than one exceptional month), and even Davies. How do we know Shaw and Santana overachieved as both are just now reaching their primes? And it's ridiculous to think a guy like Arcia who had been a consensus top 10 prospect overachieved. In my opinion, he's the most talented player on the roster and the arrow is still clearly pointing up. I would not be surprised to see him in the All Star game this season.

 

I tend to agree with a lot of this. It would be one thing if a lot went wrong next year and the Brewers won 68 games. It's another to project us to lose something like 20 more games than we did last year with all the young talent we have hitting the majors. Those projections would have to assume virtually every Brewer overachieved and is due for massive regression. And projecting at all at this point with virtually no offseason activity is meaningless...as has been noted.

 

And regarding east coast bias, there is a clear bias towards big market teams. It's not really up for debate. It's the reason you see so many Boston prospects rated so highly and then fail miserably at the highest level. They get overhyped because they are big market(Will Middlebrooks anyone). Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, etc...this type of ridiculous bias is how you get silly trade discussions like Ike Davis for Braun straight up or Samardja and Melancon for Heyward and his albatross contract...trades that make all the sense in the world for a big market and only a minuscule amount of sense for the small market.

[monty57]

And regarding east coast bias, there is a clear bias towards big market teams. It's not really up for debate. It's the reason you see so many Boston prospects rated so highly and then fail miserably at the highest level. They get overhyped because they are big market(Will Middlebrooks anyone). Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, etc...this type of ridiculous bias is how you get silly trade discussions like Ike Davis for Braun straight up or Samardja and Melancon for Heyward and his albatross contract...trades that make all the sense in the world for a big market and only a minuscule amount of sense for the small market.

 

So you're saying the Baez-for-Archer rumor won't happen? My Cub fan friends will be crushed :-)

[FVBrewerFan]

So, east coast bias probably caters to more like 20% - 25% of the population after removing Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, most of PA, most of KY, etc.

 

I imagine residents of about half those states you mentioned will be surprised to learn they don't live on the East Coast.

[KeithStone53151]

And regarding east coast bias, there is a clear bias towards big market teams. It's not really up for debate. It's the reason you see so many Boston prospects rated so highly and then fail miserably at the highest level. They get overhyped because they are big market(Will Middlebrooks anyone). Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, etc...this type of ridiculous bias is how you get silly trade discussions like Ike Davis for Braun straight up or Samardja and Melancon for Heyward and his albatross contract...trades that make all the sense in the world for a big market and only a minuscule amount of sense for the small market.

 

So you're saying the Baez-for-Archer rumor won't happen? My Cub fan friends will be crushed :-)

 

I hadn't seen that one, but yeah it's definitely right up there on the silliness scale. I don't think Schwarber + Baez is enough to get Archer(it's close), and regardless I don't think Tampa targets that sort of return. Maybe they can work a 3 team deal, but Tampa will want young/cheap players...not overvalued players entering arbitration for big $...not with their payroll limitations.

[DHonks]

Like 50% of the population is east coast. Man I wonder why they cater to that audience... always shocks me when people don’t get that.

 

A century ago that would have been true, but the population center has shifted considerably.

 

A quick google search showed me this:

 

Eastern Standard Time Zone: 150.2 million (47.1%)

 

Central Standard Time Zone: 92.3 million (29.0%)

 

Mountain Standard Time Zone: 21.3 million (6.7%)

 

Pacific Standard Time Zone: 53.0 million (16.6%)

 

That's like when I was a freshman in college in California, and someone asked me what the weather was like in the east this time of year. I said I had no idea, I was from the midwest.

 

You mentioned east coast bias, but then you backed it up by mentioning the Eastern time zone, which includes Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Arizona and Nevada aren't west coast

[jerichoholicninja]

So, east coast bias probably caters to more like 20% - 25% of the population after removing Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, most of PA, most of KY, etc.

 

I imagine residents of about half those states you mentioned will be surprised to learn they don't live on the East Coast.

 

In sports, East Coast refers to New York City and Boston.

[valpocrewsader]

So, east coast bias probably caters to more like 20% - 25% of the population after removing Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, most of PA, most of KY, etc.

 

I imagine residents of about half those states you mentioned will be surprised to learn they don't live on the East Coast.

 

East coast media bias is New York, New England, Washington DC, and vicinity. Florida, Georgia, and Carolinas have no relevance to discussing the bias of ESPN or other media. This is nothing new. In this context, the "east coast" colloquialism is pretty standard.

[bill hAll Star]

I'm still curious why you guys are bringing up east coast bias.

 

Anyone can rightfully bring up that the Fangraphs WAR projections have issues, but this is like saying that your thermometer has a hot temperature bias in Arizona. They are literally taking a computerized system and spitting out the results.

 

That system happens to like how some of the bigger market teams are built due to the player projections. I guess the only argument that can be made is that the projections of the players, which may have some human elements to them, are being juiced up for the big market/east coast teams.

[nate82]

I'm still curious why you guys are bringing up east coast bias.

 

Anyone can rightfully bring up that the Fangraphs WAR projections have issues, but this is like saying that your thermometer has a hot temperature bias in Arizona. They are literally taking a computerized system and spitting out the results.

 

That system happens to like how some of the bigger market teams are built due to the player projections. I guess the only argument that can be made is that the projections of the players, which may have some human elements to them, are being juiced up for the big market/east coast teams.

 

The Yankees are definitely being juiced up in this one. I just don't see a 90+ win team for the Yankees next year and they definitely over achieved like the Brewers did this year. I am not sure why the Yankees are getting the benefit of the doubt that this is their true talent. I don't see Judge repeating what he did this year and there will be some regression coming from him. The Yankees do have some young talent coming through and they are basically unknowns on what they will do. Other than Tanaka and Severino the Yankees rotation looks to be about average next year. The bullpen for the Yankees looks rather good but with the Yankees not looking to spend all that much this off season to stay under the luxury tax why are they being put as a 90+ win team?

 

The Yankees as they are currently put together look to be a 80 win team. The Yankees had a rather large home and road split in winning games I don't expect the Yankees to win 51-games at home again next year. They may add some more wins on the road but they are definitely not making up that much ground. The Yankees were 51-30 at home and only 40-41 on the road. I just don't see the Yankees repeating that again I think something more realistic is 45-35 at home and 43-39 on the road giving the Yankees 88 wins which I am more comfortable giving that projection for the Yankees than the 93.5 wins that they are giving them. I just don't see how the Yankees currently pre hot stove are a 93.5 win team they are just not at that level.

 

Case in point the D-backs had a similar year to the Yankees yet they are knocked down to an 84.3 win team? What? These teams are nearly identical and both are due some major regressions next year. This article is just horrible and feels like they tweaked the numbers to get them to say what they wanted them to say.