Photo

FanGraphs: Occam's Razor and Jackson Holliday's Demotion


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#21 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,408 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 April 2024 - 10:22 PM

He posted a link to the code so I took a look; he's using a random number generation function that produces a normal distribution.  So the randomizer will give Holliday -1.5 or worse in 32% of cases, resulting in 1 WAR or less in those cases.

 

Alright. Thanks for that.

 

However, the other part of what I said in my last post is still relevant unless he is indeed including more than 5 players in this.



#22 hallas

hallas

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
  • LocationDaniel Larusso's hometown

Posted 04 April 2024 - 11:17 PM

Alright. Thanks for that.

 

However, the other part of what I said in my last post is still relevant unless he is indeed including more than 5 players in this.

 

He only ran simulations including Holliday and 4 competitors.  As far as I can tell there are 9 players on Fangraphs preseason top-100, but 1 is a reliever (unlikely to win) and 1 is injured, so there are really 7 likely candidates.  There are 2 more  rookie-eligible players in the majors outside the top-100.  The majority of them have worse projections than Holliday.  So while he included fewer players than there are eligible rookies, he also gave his simulated "competition" higher projections than any of his real-world ROY competition has.  You can make your decision as to whether that amount of fudging is reasonable, but at the very least it's plausible that they'lll cancel each other out.



#23 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,711 posts

Posted 04 April 2024 - 11:26 PM

Btw kinda stupid that you have to be a top 100 prospect to be rewarded with a draft pick. Plenty of players outside the top 100 are ready to break with their MLB team but will def be manipulated because there is no reward. For example, lets say Povich has a good year this year but never makes it to Baltimore because we have enough depth. At his age and history, he is likely not making it onto the top 100. There also would be no incentive for Baltimore to have him break camp in '25 unless it was an absolute need.

#24 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,408 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 04 April 2024 - 11:42 PM

He only ran simulations including Holliday and 4 competitors.  As far as I can tell there are 9 players on Fangraphs preseason top-100, but 1 is a reliever (unlikely to win) and 1 is injured, so there are really 7 likely candidates.  There are 2 more  rookie-eligible players in the majors outside the top-100.  The majority of them have worse projections than Holliday.  So while he included fewer players than there are eligible rookies, he also gave his simulated "competition" higher projections than any of his real-world ROY competition has.  You can make your decision as to whether that amount of fudging is reasonable, but at the very least it's plausible that they'lll cancel each other out.

 

I feel like the correlation to the top 5 ROY favorites to the top 2 finishers is probably not super strong, at least not to completely discount everyone else, but I haven't done the research.



#25 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 April 2024 - 12:33 AM

I'm trying not to be mean, so i won't say anything.



#26 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,223 posts

Posted 05 April 2024 - 07:06 AM

I'm trying not to be mean, so i won't say anything.

See, this is the stuff I'm talking about. You might as well say "all of you are wrong and its laughable how stupid you are, but I'll practice 'kindness' and not point out just how much higher my level of understanding is than all of yours. Keep playing Checkers while I play Chess - its cute that you like to talk about baseball."

The condescension is unreal.

The crazy thing is that you haven't yet figured out that, while you *do* actually have meaningful ideas to contribute, all that typing you do is wasted because nobody listens to someone that condescends down to them or talks to them like they're a child.
  • BobPhelan and weird-O like this

#27 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,673 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 05 April 2024 - 07:08 AM

See, this is the stuff I'm talking about. You might as well say "all of you are wrong and its laughable how stupid you are, but I'll practice 'kindness' and not point out just how much much higher my level of understanding is than all of you. Keep playing Checkers while I play Chess, its cute that you like to talk about baseball."

The condescension is unreal.

The crazy thing is that you haven't yet figured out that, while you *do* actually have meaningful ideas to contribute, all that typing you do is wasted because nobody listens to someone that condescends down to them or talks to them like they're a child.


I like baseball Slide.

#28 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 05 April 2024 - 09:39 AM

Baseball are fun to see play


  • Slidemaster likes this

Good news! I saw a dog today.


#29 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 April 2024 - 10:25 PM

See, this is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

fwiw, this stuff doesn't work.  

 

Do you think it's a well reasoned article?  There's a bunch of things wrong with this "analysis" (loosely used, but that seems par for the course with Ben Clemens for the things that get posted here).  Do you really want me to walk through it?  It's comical how so many seem to struggle to read words, but I skip it all and that gets criticized too?  Awesome.



#30 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,223 posts

Posted 05 April 2024 - 10:46 PM

fwiw, this stuff doesn't work.

Do you think it's a well reasoned article? There's a bunch of things wrong with this "analysis" (loosely used, but that seems par for the course with Ben Clemens for the things that get posted here). Do you really want me to walk through it? It's comical how so many seem to struggle to read words, but I skip it all and that gets criticized too? Awesome.

Maybe you don't mean to come off the way you come off. It's very possible your way of conversing through text just doesn't convey your tone or inflection adequately. But when you talk about topics in baseball, you speak in such a way that it reads (at least to me) like you're the final word on the matter.

Look, I know you're a nice guy and I'm not trying to be a jerk. You obviously devote a lot of thought to what you post and why you think what you think. I'm just telling you that it's hard to discuss a topic with you sometimes because it doesn't feel like you're that open to discussion. Either you post cryptic messages or implications, or you present your opinion like fact that there's no logical counterpoint for. I know we all voice our opinions strongly at times and they're not always popular (like me on the Ravens board, for example), but I wish you posted in a way that invited more thoughtful back-and-forth.

Don't take it personally. You frustrate me sometimes but it's not like I hate you or anything. If you believe the article has problems (and that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold) just post why you feel that way rather than implying that anyone who agrees with it is a dummy. Seems rational, no?
  • BobPhelan likes this

#31 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 April 2024 - 11:30 PM

If you believe the article has problems (and that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold) just post why you feel that way rather than implying that anyone who agrees with it is a dummy. Seems rational, no?

 

fwiw, I was actually talking about the article in the first comment.  If [anyone] thinks the article is merited, whatever, but that is terrible analysis by Ben Clemens. A number of his things have been posted here.  I just read them.  I don't seek out any of his stuff (or Fangraphs in general) but if they get posted here, I read them.



#32 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 April 2024 - 11:41 PM

.... or you present your opinion like fact that there's no logical counterpoint for. 

 

My opinions aren't random.  Some want to respond with the TLDR (and other) stuff....but the reason I'm posting more words is to develop the merits of the position.

 

Per the other Holliday discussion, if you don't think Scott Boras is the only thing that matters in that discussion, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I won't say that about any other agent.  Let's extend Mayo and Kjerstad to versions of the Colt Keith contract.  I've shared my thoughts on Adley.  Forget Holliday, Henderson, GRod in terms of reasonable extensions pre-FA.  Could we sign them as FAs? Sure, maybe we can now (ie, with new ownership), but you're waiting for that moment, you aren't getting an earlier one.  I'm not saying what I think they should do or will do, I'm sharing what the over-whelming evidence is of that specific known data point.

 

I'll even give some small chance that Holliday could sign a 7 year deal to get out of AAA today.  That was the point of my suggestion last August.....but once you put him on the ML roster, you get nothing, it's now Boras' timeline and his timeline only.

 

The notion that Ben Clemens wants to act like there some other option for Holliday as a reason to promote him now is beyond absurd.  You can't divorce the 3+sigma result from the fact of who is agent is.



#33 hallas

hallas

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
  • LocationDaniel Larusso's hometown

Posted 06 April 2024 - 12:35 AM

My opinions aren't random. Some want to respond with the TLDR (and other) stuff....but the reason I'm posting more words is to develop the merits of the position.

Per the other Holliday discussion, if you don't think Scott Boras is the only thing that matters in that discussion, I'm not sure what to tell you. I won't say that about any other agent. Let's extend Mayo and Kjerstad to versions of the Colt Keith contract. I've shared my thoughts on Adley. Forget Holliday, Henderson, GRod in terms of reasonable extensions pre-FA. Could we sign them as FAs? Sure, maybe we can now (ie, with new ownership), but you're waiting for that moment, you aren't getting an earlier one. I'm not saying what I think they should do or will do, I'm sharing what the over-whelming evidence is of that specific known data point.

I'll even give some small chance that Holliday could sign a 7 year deal to get out of AAA today. That was the point of my suggestion last August.....but once you put him on the ML roster, you get nothing, it's now Boras' timeline and his timeline only.

The notion that Ben Clemens wants to act like there some other option for Holliday as a reason to promote him now is beyond absurd. You can't divorce the 3+sigma result from the fact of who is agent is.

So you think the financial argument for sending him down is sound? Because I don't. The outcomes that are beneficial to the Orioles by sending him down to play service time games are extremely narrow, especially when you factor in that it wouldn't take much for the O's to send him down for more seasoning if he faltered even the slightest bit.

#34 TwentyThirtyFive

TwentyThirtyFive

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,711 posts

Posted 06 April 2024 - 12:55 AM


So you think the financial argument for sending him down is sound? Because I don't. The outcomes that are beneficial to the Orioles by sending him down to play service time games are extremely narrow, especially when you factor in that it wouldn't take much for the O's to send him down for more seasoning if he faltered even the slightest bit.

They dont want to have to send him down. Hes a plug and play it out. So yes, it would take a lot for them to send him back down. Its better to do it this way for the first 3 weeks or whatever it is and take your chances. They have to try to stagger some of these guys FA years. Potentially losing Adley, Henderson, and Holliday in 3 straight years is a tough pill. And 2 of those guys are locks to test FA. Adley probably a lock now as well.


And the benfits are huge not small. Hes unlikely to finish top 2 in the ROY and his performance or value over the time he misses wont impact the team that much. This isnt Aaron Judge or Juan Soto who is out of the lineup for 3 weeks. Its a 20 yr old rookie who yes, is our best option, but is unlikely to be extremely impactful.

#35 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 April 2024 - 01:29 AM

So you think the financial argument for sending him down is sound? Because I don't. The outcomes that are beneficial to the Orioles by sending him down to play service time games are extremely narrow,....

 

I want all of the better outcomes and I think the financial argument (article?) is irrelevant.

 

I don't accept the service time argument if you have any standards for your development timeline.

 

I don't understand why you are suggesting there isn't a benefit for the Orioles by waiting.

 

...especially when you factor in that it wouldn't take much for the O's to send him down for more seasoning if he faltered even the slightest bit.

 

...so nobody seems to want to pick a lane here.  If he has to be in the Majors RIGHT NOW because of his incredible performance, you lose the year anyway.  If he doesn't perform for even a week(?) then we send him down?  When does he come back up?  Are you betting that he's a hammer or not?

 

Personally, I would expect more modest performance for a 20 year old with one professional season under his belt, for all of the discussions of other players, NONE of them has been promoted (HSers) nearly as quickly as many are suggesting MUST happen here.

 

Maybe he'll be great, maybe it takes some time to adjust to ML over the grind of a long season, but development risk is a sliding scale.  You never get to 1.0 versus 0.0....it's 20/80, 50/50, 80/20.  Holliday is in the 20/80 box for me where Norby would be more in the 80/20 box (but nobody cares about Norby, we can't trade him and now he's playing OF?)

 

I'll keep saying this...I'm not invested in the answer.  Whatever choices they make come with consequences. All we're doing now is balancing risk/reward of the different elements of the decision. The only outcome we know 100% is that once you promote him the clock to FA starts. You aren't (and shouldn't unless it's an extreme case) jerk him around by sending him back down.  It's OPSing anything over .600....he's sticking around.

 

Jackson Holliday can not justify rebuilding for anyone that thinks that's a thing.  We won 101 without him.  We're generally considered the favorites without him.  He can certainly be part of winning, but when he leaves, we still have to win.  When Jackson Holliday takes off for his next financial pasture, we don't need to rebuild again to try and find the next "Jackson H9olliday".



#36 hallas

hallas

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts
  • LocationDaniel Larusso's hometown

Posted 06 April 2024 - 02:06 AM

I want all of the better outcomes and I think the financial argument (article?) is irrelevant.

I don't accept the service time argument if you have any standards for your development timeline.

I don't understand why you are suggesting there isn't a benefit for the Orioles by waiting.


...so nobody seems to want to pick a lane here. If he has to be in the Majors RIGHT NOW because of his incredible performance, you lose the year anyway. If he doesn't perform for even a week(?) then we send him down? When does he come back up? Are you betting that he's a hammer or not?

Personally, I would expect more modest performance for a 20 year old with one professional season under his belt, for all of the discussions of other players, NONE of them has been promoted (HSers) nearly as quickly as many are suggesting MUST happen here.

Maybe he'll be great, maybe it takes some time to adjust to ML over the grind of a long season, but development risk is a sliding scale. You never get to 1.0 versus 0.0....it's 20/80, 50/50, 80/20. Holliday is in the 20/80 box for me where Norby would be more in the 80/20 box (but nobody cares about Norby, we can't trade him and now he's playing OF?)

I'll keep saying this...I'm not invested in the answer. Whatever choices they make come with consequences. All we're doing now is balancing risk/reward of the different elements of the decision. The only outcome we know 100% is that once you promote him the clock to FA starts. You aren't (and shouldn't unless it's an extreme case) jerk him around by sending him back down. It's OPSing anything over .600....he's sticking around.

Jackson Holliday can not justify rebuilding for anyone that thinks that's a thing. We won 101 without him. We're generally considered the favorites without him. He can certainly be part of winning, but when he leaves, we still have to win. When Jackson Holliday takes off for his next financial pasture, we don't need to rebuild again to try and find the next "Jackson H9olliday".


I'm sending him back down if I am not confident that he'll play every day. Especially if we're in a pennant race. If he OPSes south of .675 and I'm thinking about letting him sit vs lefties on a regular basis then I'd rather let guys like Urias, Mateo, etc. do the platooning.

#37 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 April 2024 - 08:11 AM

I'm sending him back down if I am not confident that he'll play every day. Especially if we're in a pennant race. If he OPSes south of .675 and I'm thinking about letting him sit vs lefties on a regular basis then I'd rather let guys like Urias, Mateo, etc. do the platooning.

 

Before last night, Chourio was OPSing over .900....he goes 0-5 last night and he's down to .746....if he takes another 0-4 tonight....he'll be under .690.  Langford is at .616.  Carter is at .546 and only has 2 hits.  Merrill is at .751.

 

None of them should be doing anything other than what they are doing  This notion that we're going to make all of these decisions off of small or terrible sample sizes makes me smh.

 

Whenever they call up Jackson, he'll get a lot of leash and he should.  He's a 20-year old with ONE SEASON of professional experience.  He's done nothing over time yet.  #1 ranking is not based on "most ready to help ML team".  It'd take a 3 for 43 type start to send him down, not waiting for the next game that he goes 0 for 4.

 

Captain Obvious, but there's huge swings in small samples...yet look around at all of the posters making proclamations 7 games in.

 

Holliday will be here when he gets here.  Enjoy some winning baseball (hopefully) until then.



#38 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,223 posts

Posted 06 April 2024 - 09:55 AM

Before last night, Chourio was OPSing over .900....he goes 0-5 last night and he's down to .746....if he takes another 0-4 tonight....he'll be under .690. Langford is at .616. Carter is at .546 and only has 2 hits. Merrill is at .751.

None of them should be doing anything other than what they are doing This notion that we're going to make all of these decisions off of small or terrible sample sizes makes me smh.

Whenever they call up Jackson, he'll get a lot of leash and he should. He's a 20-year old with ONE SEASON of professional experience. He's done nothing over time yet. #1 ranking is not based on "most ready to help ML team". It'd take a 3 for 43 type start to send him down, not waiting for the next game that he goes 0 for 4.

Captain Obvious, but there's huge swings in small samples...yet look around at all of the posters making proclamations 7 games in.

Holliday will be here when he gets here. Enjoy some winning baseball (hopefully) until then.

I think this is a good take...if Holliday were a typical prospect.

I don't think he is.

To me he reminds me of a 19 year old Manny Machado, getting promoted from A ball and never looking back (not the same player profile, but same sort of star potential). Sometimes talent just plays and I think that's what we're going to see with him.

He could suck and I might be an idiot. We'll see.

#39 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 April 2024 - 10:35 AM

I think this is a good take...if Holliday were a typical prospect.

I don't think he is.

 

I guess I keep asking this....do people think Holliday is a top 10 player in Baseball right now?  ...because that's the way everyone is treating this....like we've got a 1.000 OPS bat at AAA burning daylight and the sooner we get him to MLB the sooner he's the best player in MLB.

 

Adley and Henderson were both #1.  Chourio is/was #2.  The tool that seems the most interesting for Holliday is HIT....nobody thinks he's special on defense or on the basepaths and nobody really talks about the power projection.  Does anyone think he's a 30 HR or 40 HR guy? Someone tell me the (your) expected raw numbers for this year if we promoted him now/

 

To me he reminds me of a 19 year old Manny Machado, getting promoted from A ball and never looking back (not the same player profile, but same sort of star potential). Sometimes talent just plays and I think that's what we're going to see with him.

 

Machado was promoted from AA....and the only reason Machado was promoted was because the Orioles couldn't reinforce a surprising 2012 team at 3B (getting decimated there).  If the Orioles had traded for Chase Headley (or done anything reasonable), Machado wouldn't have been promoted.  Mackus wants to push back on this, but I've gone back and pulled up the comments from the time.  

 

Machado hadn't even played any 3B in the minors, but any defense was a big part of what the Orioles needed at the time.  He OPSed .739 (2012), .746 (2013) and .755 (2014).  It wasn't until his 3rd full season that the bat started to lock in and Machado had a better power (probably less Hit) projection than Holliday.



#40 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,223 posts

Posted 06 April 2024 - 01:50 PM

I guess I keep asking this....do people think Holliday is a top 10 player in Baseball right now? ...because that's the way everyone is treating this....like we've got a 1.000 OPS bat at AAA burning daylight and the sooner we get him to MLB the sooner he's the best player in MLB.

Adley and Henderson were both #1. Chourio is/was #2. The tool that seems the most interesting for Holliday is HIT....nobody thinks he's special on defense or on the basepaths and nobody really talks about the power projection. Does anyone think he's a 30 HR or 40 HR guy? Someone tell me the (your) expected raw numbers for this year if we promoted him now/


Machado was promoted from AA....and the only reason Machado was promoted was because the Orioles couldn't reinforce a surprising 2012 team at 3B (getting decimated there). If the Orioles had traded for Chase Headley (or done anything reasonable), Machado wouldn't have been promoted. Mackus wants to push back on this, but I've gone back and pulled up the comments from the time.

Machado hadn't even played any 3B in the minors, but any defense was a big part of what the Orioles needed at the time. He OPSed .739 (2012), .746 (2013) and .755 (2014). It wasn't until his 3rd full season that the bat started to lock in and Machado had a better power (probably less Hit) projection than Holliday.

You're right - I was thinking of Jose Fernandez, who was promoted from A ball and dominated. Freaking sad he's gone.

I expect a 20 year old Jackson Holliday to OPS between .760 and .820. 17-22 home runs. I also think that could be low. Corbin Carroll destroyed baseball last year in his first full season Gunnar did very well too after he woke up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=