If you only had the option to choose “better” or “same”, the people that picked “worse” would have most likely just answered the opposite of what they really think to mess with the poll, only we wouldn’t know that they’re being a jackass. This way you edit out some of the jackass votes and get a clearer picture of what everyone actually thinks.
Then he’s on a hot streak right now which means he’ll be cold shortly, which means if you alternate hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold it’s now more likely he’ll both start and end the season on a cold streak. Thus, lower the projection.
I have a weird compulsion to answer poll questions as honestly and accurately as possible, or maybe that’s not uncommon. Too bad the built in poll doesn’t allow for some depth to the initial question.
I was thinking more of a vertical score to accompany the answer.
I think it makes it better, but do I think it matters with the overall decision? Gives it a bit more of an up and down with something of that type. Rate the overall importance, I’m not sure of the best way to word that.
I seriously do not consider myself qualified to answer
I agree with Dave Cameron that roster decisions based on spring ball can be/are capricious or unwise, but then again, aren’t they playing baseball? Even if the air is dry and the competition uneven? I think it’s reasonably fair for a ballclub to make decisions between a player that’s shown nothing and a one that’s hit the cover off the ball. But projections? Fuck do I know.
If he manages to somehow translate what he’s done in Spring Training to the regular season, then he would be better than expected/projected, no? The average offensive projection for Sweeney at Fangraphs is .327 wOBA. Can Mike Sweeney provide pre-2005 level offense (+.360 wOBA) at this stage of his career? I’m a bit curious myself. Maybe he thinks he’s Shawn Michaels (defying age with performance).
If nothing else, tearing the cover off the ball in spring training didn't make Mike Sweeney a WORSE hitter
so I can live with his projection being a bit better than before. If he wOBAs like .345, then I really don’t even care about the whole Garko thing – it’s a difference of like two runs
But a PA against Felix towards the end of spring training, when he’s throwing fire and has unrivaled movement, is more telling than a PA in May against Jason Berkan.
So, like everything else in baseball, there are tons of variables.
You don't need a detailed statistical report... worse players get playing time in ST than in the regular season.
Pitchers do things like throw 20% less fastballs than they normally would to work on other pitches.
Players play out of their normal position sometimes.
So you think that good hitters should do better during spring training than they normally would during a season?
I’m not sure that this is true.
Anyway, I feel like we assume that spring training is worthless for a variety of reasons (most of which make complete sense). I’m sure there is some information in there that is useful though. It would be interesting to see how much useful info a player’s spring training stats held.
Are 50 spring training PA worth 50 April PA, 25 April PA or less?
I'm not saying that they should do better. Many of them probably don't do any baseball-related things for months before ST?
Others swing a bat every day in the offseason.
Yes, there probably is some value to ST performance, but I think it’s fairly obvious that ST PAs should get less weight than regular season PAs. It would be interesting to know how much weight to give them… but it seems like over such a small sample size, a hitter could have 80% of their PAs against replacement level or worse talent whereas another could have 80% against major league average talent. I mean yeah ST stats might be able to tell you something, but I don’t think that you can give it a constant weight like 5 ST PAs are as predictive as 1 regular season PA because it’s not the same environment.
and probably has more noise and bias than a normal PA. There probably is some info in there if you went through and tried to correct for quality of opponent and all but in general its probably more trouble than its worth to figure out how useful they actually are.
Which is hard to do because most people haven't seen him play.
And I don’t think there is quality data with advanced statistics during Spring training.
It does sound like Sweeney is locked-in on hitting, though. It’s not like he has hit 10 home runs into the Arizona jet stream, but has been hitting line drive singles and doubles, which is a good sign. With Wakamatsu making the decision to keep him on the roster, there might be some merit to him increasing his talent level just based on that.
Depends upon what type of projection you're doing.
And I think it goes back to a conversation we had here about the different types of projections when FanGraphs started the community projections system. If your projection was a weighted average of possible/likely outcomes (meaning it had accounted for the risk that he might just fall off a cliff, and deducted from the projection accordingly) I would think you would bump up the projection a little, as if nothing else he’s demonstrated he HASN’T fallen off a cliff or gotten worse. That risk factor can be reduced, like if we were projecting innings for Bedard this year and in his first two starts he dominated without any remote signs of pain – we’d reduce the risk factor of him getting hurt again and bump up his projected innings by 10-20.
However, if you’re doing a projection of his MOST LIKELY performance, then I guess it would depend upon what you projected him at. If you thought the most likely outcome was a .300 wOBA then you might bump that up a little. If you projected him with a .330 wOBA I wouldn’t change it, because he hasn’t really demonstrated his base talent level has improved, he’s just demonstrated that the worst-case-scenario is less likely to happen than we may have previously thought.
So while I don’t think he’s suddenly good, I feel like his production at least shows he’s in shape (which I was skeptical of) so I have to think he’ll be at least marginally better than what I thought he’d be, which, again, was dogshit.
is whether or not a player is healthy. l recall an article last season in which Sweeney claimed to have learned to hit better with his recurring condition, and the numbers seemed to bear that out. The fact that his OPS is a bout a million strongly suggests that his condition either isn’t bothering him, or he’s able to play with it.
Granted he could develop an all new condition as guys his/my age frequently do. But his performance this spring suggests that he’s not being held back much by any injury, so assuming projections were based on his aggregate numbers last year, when he was held back, I would adjust the projection up.
And there's our first vote for "Make it worse"
God dammit you guys
Jeff Sullivan - March 31, 2010
It's your fault for giving them the option.
Eyebrows - March 31, 2010 via mobile
Posting a poll with an option like that one, right after you posted that podcast, was just asking for it
Griffin Cooper - March 31, 2010
What, exactly, is it asking for?
Someone who takes joy in doing things he or she thinks will annoy us? Out of what? Spite? Because he or she thinks it’s funny?
Matthew - March 31, 2010
Yeah, pretty much
There are a lot of people like that on the internet.
Griffin Cooper - March 31, 2010
I don't think the internet has anything to do with it.
Matthew - March 31, 2010
Fair enough
I just find that stupidity is even more prominent online than it is in the real world
Griffin Cooper - March 31, 2010
Relative anonymity does tend to turn some percentage of normal people into assholes
in my experience.
ChristopherA - March 31, 2010
It's not really an anonymous poll, because you can see which option someone picked by viewing their profile.
Of course, that takes effort, and a lot of time.
But I realize you were speaking of the internet, as a whole, providing the relative anonymity.
circa81 - March 31, 2010
And please don't take that to mean I'm the type of person who would do that, or that I think it's funny
Because it’s pointless and kind of annoying. This is just the type of thing stupid people do on the internet when they get bored
Griffin Cooper - March 31, 2010
Seems like a good idea to put "worse" in there.
If you only had the option to choose “better” or “same”, the people that picked “worse” would have most likely just answered the opposite of what they really think to mess with the poll, only we wouldn’t know that they’re being a jackass. This way you edit out some of the jackass votes and get a clearer picture of what everyone actually thinks.
Mind of no mind - March 31, 2010
The guy only has so many hits in his bat, but he's wasting them all in Arizona...
thehemogoblin - March 31, 2010
Or maybe, before spring training, you expected Sweeney to bat .650 this year
And so he seems to be performing worse than original expectations.
Eyebrows - March 31, 2010 via mobile
If you believe in hot streaks
Then he’s on a hot streak right now which means he’ll be cold shortly, which means if you alternate hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold it’s now more likely he’ll both start and end the season on a cold streak. Thus, lower the projection.
Corco - March 31, 2010
Whose projection system are we talking about? They're all so different.
Kermit. - March 31, 2010
Pretty much just what you expect him to do
Does Mike Sweeney’s spring training in any way change your opinion of him as a hitter?
Jeff Sullivan - March 31, 2010
Thanks for the clarification!
I have a weird compulsion to answer poll questions as honestly and accurately as possible, or maybe that’s not uncommon. Too bad the built in poll doesn’t allow for some depth to the initial question.
Kermit. - March 31, 2010
Basically, if your opinion of Sweeney has changed 1%, you should indicate as such
Jeff Sullivan - March 31, 2010
I was thinking more of a vertical score to accompany the answer.
I think it makes it better, but do I think it matters with the overall decision? Gives it a bit more of an up and down with something of that type. Rate the overall importance, I’m not sure of the best way to word that.
Kermit. - March 31, 2010
If this is about what we expect Sweeney to do in 2010 then you should have had an option for
“Ruptures a testicle doing a crotch chop after a Griffey home run”
Sec 108 - April 1, 2010
I seriously do not consider myself qualified to answer
I agree with Dave Cameron that roster decisions based on spring ball can be/are capricious or unwise, but then again, aren’t they playing baseball? Even if the air is dry and the competition uneven? I think it’s reasonably fair for a ballclub to make decisions between a player that’s shown nothing and a one that’s hit the cover off the ball. But projections? Fuck do I know.
lemonverbena - March 31, 2010
For me, his projection is unchanged.
If he manages to somehow translate what he’s done in Spring Training to the regular season, then he would be better than expected/projected, no? The average offensive projection for Sweeney at Fangraphs is .327 wOBA. Can Mike Sweeney provide pre-2005 level offense (+.360 wOBA) at this stage of his career? I’m a bit curious myself. Maybe he thinks he’s Shawn Michaels (defying age with performance).
ThundaPC - March 31, 2010
If nothing else, tearing the cover off the ball in spring training didn't make Mike Sweeney a WORSE hitter
so I can live with his projection being a bit better than before. If he wOBAs like .345, then I really don’t even care about the whole Garko thing – it’s a difference of like two runs
seattlebruin - March 31, 2010
Maybe you assume that all the hitting Sweeney has been doing is going to wear his body out more quickly and therefore make him worse?
abender20 - March 31, 2010
There is no way his performance does anything but make his projections rise
Unless you already projected him to perform as good or better than he is playing now.
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
I had Mike Sweeney at .608/.715/1.277 over 600 PAs this year
seattlebruin - March 31, 2010
Seems bearish.
abender20 - March 31, 2010
Just not sure how much he has left in the tank =/
seattlebruin - March 31, 2010
Doess 50 PA in spring training give us significantly less information about a player's talent level
than 50 PA during a season?
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
Yes.
abender20 - March 31, 2010
In general, the answer would be yes.
But a PA against Felix towards the end of spring training, when he’s throwing fire and has unrivaled movement, is more telling than a PA in May against Jason Berkan.
So, like everything else in baseball, there are tons of variables.
But, the short answer is obviously yes.
circa81 - March 31, 2010
And that's one at bat, which tells you next to nothing.
abender20 - March 31, 2010
I would say yes
Offensive stats are inflated, players don’t really care about winning, etc. etc.
OlSalty - March 31, 2010
The opposing pitchers are frequently guys like David Pauley or are MLB pitchers working on specific stuff.
Mike Morse owns spring training. Who cares?
abender20 - March 31, 2010
Definitely.
Pitchers are still getting up to speed and Sweeney faced poor minor league pitching on several occasions.
Wilder. - March 31, 2010
I should have asked if anyone has evidence or knows of somebody who has evidence.
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
You don't need a detailed statistical report... worse players get playing time in ST than in the regular season.
Pitchers do things like throw 20% less fastballs than they normally would to work on other pitches.
Players play out of their normal position sometimes.
lailaihei - March 31, 2010
So you think that good hitters should do better during spring training than they normally would during a season?
I’m not sure that this is true.
Anyway, I feel like we assume that spring training is worthless for a variety of reasons (most of which make complete sense). I’m sure there is some information in there that is useful though. It would be interesting to see how much useful info a player’s spring training stats held.
Are 50 spring training PA worth 50 April PA, 25 April PA or less?
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
I'm not saying that they should do better. Many of them probably don't do any baseball-related things for months before ST?
Others swing a bat every day in the offseason.
Yes, there probably is some value to ST performance, but I think it’s fairly obvious that ST PAs should get less weight than regular season PAs. It would be interesting to know how much weight to give them… but it seems like over such a small sample size, a hitter could have 80% of their PAs against replacement level or worse talent whereas another could have 80% against major league average talent. I mean yeah ST stats might be able to tell you something, but I don’t think that you can give it a constant weight like 5 ST PAs are as predictive as 1 regular season PA because it’s not the same environment.
lailaihei - March 31, 2010
Yeah its probably not simple
and probably has more noise and bias than a normal PA. There probably is some info in there if you went through and tried to correct for quality of opponent and all but in general its probably more trouble than its worth to figure out how useful they actually are.
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
Hmmm....
Probably you say?
88fingerslukee - March 31, 2010
Hah, I probably should read what I type or learn to write better.
Edgar for Pres - March 31, 2010
Mike Morse is your evidence.
Sec 108 - April 1, 2010
Has to make it better, doesn't it?
If only by .001 across the stat line.
Wilder. - March 31, 2010
The real question: Has Mike Sweeney done anything in Spring Training to change what we think of his talent level?
lailaihei - March 31, 2010
Which is hard to do because most people haven't seen him play.
And I don’t think there is quality data with advanced statistics during Spring training.
It does sound like Sweeney is locked-in on hitting, though. It’s not like he has hit 10 home runs into the Arizona jet stream, but has been hitting line drive singles and doubles, which is a good sign. With Wakamatsu making the decision to keep him on the roster, there might be some merit to him increasing his talent level just based on that.
Wilder. - March 31, 2010
I would care about a spring training performance if a guy looked absolutely unable to make contact or something like that.
abender20 - March 31, 2010
But not if he's spraying line drives all over the field? That seems inconsistent.
I think that Sweeney’s hot spring has to improve his projection, if only very slightly.
cowdisciple - March 31, 2010
I expect a veteran like Sweeney to have no issues hitting subpar talent.
abender20 - March 31, 2010
Depends upon what type of projection you're doing.
And I think it goes back to a conversation we had here about the different types of projections when FanGraphs started the community projections system. If your projection was a weighted average of possible/likely outcomes (meaning it had accounted for the risk that he might just fall off a cliff, and deducted from the projection accordingly) I would think you would bump up the projection a little, as if nothing else he’s demonstrated he HASN’T fallen off a cliff or gotten worse. That risk factor can be reduced, like if we were projecting innings for Bedard this year and in his first two starts he dominated without any remote signs of pain – we’d reduce the risk factor of him getting hurt again and bump up his projected innings by 10-20.
However, if you’re doing a projection of his MOST LIKELY performance, then I guess it would depend upon what you projected him at. If you thought the most likely outcome was a .300 wOBA then you might bump that up a little. If you projected him with a .330 wOBA I wouldn’t change it, because he hasn’t really demonstrated his base talent level has improved, he’s just demonstrated that the worst-case-scenario is less likely to happen than we may have previously thought.
Terminator X - March 31, 2010
Well I thought he'd be terrible...
So while I don’t think he’s suddenly good, I feel like his production at least shows he’s in shape (which I was skeptical of) so I have to think he’ll be at least marginally better than what I thought he’d be, which, again, was dogshit.
SethGrandpa - March 31, 2010
Among the questions ST can answer
is whether or not a player is healthy. l recall an article last season in which Sweeney claimed to have learned to hit better with his recurring condition, and the numbers seemed to bear that out. The fact that his OPS is a bout a million strongly suggests that his condition either isn’t bothering him, or he’s able to play with it.
Granted he could develop an all new condition as guys his/my age frequently do. But his performance this spring suggests that he’s not being held back much by any injury, so assuming projections were based on his aggregate numbers last year, when he was held back, I would adjust the projection up.
short - April 1, 2010
Just a little tiny bit better.
ARock - April 1, 2010
So we're now up to 4% retards
Regression towards the true retard level.
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
I think we can attribute most of those votes from fans of other teams.
Wilder. - April 1, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.