Jeff Sullivan FanGraphs Chat -- 3/4/16
powered byJotCast
Bill
10:07
Projection for AJ Reed this year?
Jeff Sullivan
10:08
He's going to be good. He won't be up right away, but when he is, I figure a wRC+ in the vicinity of 120
klof
10:08
Would a Cistulli-Sarris podcast work?
Jeff Sullivan
10:08
Not more than once
Raindog
10:09
Are you fascinated by other aspects of geoscience too? Earthquakes? Hurricanes? The impossibly slow yet inexorable erosion of mountains that reminds us of the impermanence of even the greatest of things?
Jeff Sullivan
10:09
Something I still have trouble wrapping my head around is how many massive volcanoes have existed in this region that simply aren't there anymore
10:10
Like, I get how it happens, but the scale is still beyond my comprehension. Goat Rocks isn't even a great example since remnants are still standing but having been there, it's nuts to look at what's left and think "this used to be a big ol thing"
I'm interested in earthquakes and faulting and so on and so forth but volcanoes speak to me most, mostly because I can look out most windows here and see some
Mike
10:10
How many "who hangs up first" questions do you get a chat?
Jeff Sullivan
10:11
Fewer than you might think! For example, I haven't seen one yet today
Trevor
10:11
Who's Kakie Bryan? Eno mentioned him yesterday
Jeff Sullivan
10:11
Dammit not this again
Justin
10:11
Ryan Anderson famously struck out Griffey, Martinez, and Buhner in spring training, and then bragged to the media afterwards about how he "dominated" them. Karma can damage shoulders as well.
Jeff Sullivan
10:12
Yeah, that's why the best athletes are always the most humble ones
B.Lightyear
10:13
2015 and beyond, Sonny Gray or Carlos Martinez?
Jeff Sullivan
10:13
I slightly prefer Gray overall
Raindog
10:13
Ryan Anderson is a professional chef? I love when ex-ballplayers don't end up as baseball coach / car dealership owner / rich guy just hanging around
Jeff Sullivan
10:13
Sushi chef, I believe, in Arizona. At least that's where he was a few years ago last time I checked
Curtis
10:14
Have the FG writers ever authored a "My Favorite Stat" article? I, for one, would be interested in which stat from each writer and more importantly why... What is your favorite stat & why?
Jeff Sullivan
10:15
Oof. This is hard! Because my favorite stat is always dependent on what I'm trying to examine. Just in general, it's probably wRC+, but that's uninteresting. For pitchers it's K% - BB% because it tells you so much right away about what the pitcher is. But I don't know if I can answer this in a satisfying way
klof
10:18
Rumors of Schwarber being caddie for Hendricks. Seems like a terrible idea since Hendricks relies on location so an above average framer seems like a must. I'm just guessing Schwarber is not this. How much of a hit would it be for Hendricks to only pitch to Schwarber? Would Hammel or Lackey make more sense? I can see how it could make it easier on Schwarber to only have to really learn one pitcher's quirks if he's only catching once a week.
Jeff Sullivan
10:19
I think, if the Cubs are insistent on having Schwarber catch, Hendricks might actually make the most sense. You want to give him a regular, consistent partner so he can get used to the movements and get an idea for the game-calling, but Hendricks also is the softest thrower with his fastball and changeup, so he might be the easiest of all of the starters to receive. Give Schwarber a spring of learning the right techniques and I think this could work out just fine
10:20
The hardest pitches to frame are the fast, darting ones and the ones that end up far away from the target. Hendricks doesn't throw very many of either
Ben
10:21
Will Sean Newcomb find the strike zone enough to live up to expectations, or is his wildness going to be his downfall? How easy/hard is it for young guys to improve their control?
Jeff Sullivan
10:22
I pretty much always bet against these guys, because wildness tends to sustain. But this is the upside: his first two years in the majors, Clayton Kershaw posted one of the very highest walk rates in baseball. He went from 13% in 2009 to 6% in 2011. Just enough pitchers figure it out to make it worthwhile
Stuafoo
10:23
What's the ideal pitcher for Coors field? Feel free to go all Frankenstein on us.
Jeff Sullivan
10:23
I think as a starting point you'd love a guy who can throw both a high four-seamer and a low power sinker. Those guys are incredibly rare
10:24
Rick Porcello tried to be that guy and he was a disaster!
But Coors seems to reduce rise on fastballs, so with that in mind I'd take a guy with a great sinker and a complementary changeup
10:25
I don't think it's a coincidence that Aaron Cook survived
jpg
10:26
If there was ever a team to copy the Royals blueprint, it’s the Rockies, no? It sounds counterintuitive but here’s the plan: Build a contact heavy lineup that rarely strikes out to take advantage of the huge outfield gaps. Focus on fast, aggressive base runners. The home runs will still come. As for run prevention, we have two decades of evidence that Colorado can’t A) develop a front line starter or B) sign one in free agency (sans Mike Hampton). So they should focus on pairing decent starters with elite glove men in the outfield to cover the aforementioned huge gaps and a lights out bullpen because relievers have succeeded there. What do you think?
Jeff Sullivan
10:27
The Rockies pitchers should be strongly incentivized to avoid contact, or at least outfield contact. The best outfield defenders in the world can't make that outfield pitcher-friendly. Batted balls just have an enormous run value in Colorado, so they need their pitchers to either get strikeouts or get grounders, and hopefully both. Defense isn't really the problem
I do think they should feature a contact-heavy offense. And they sort of do, although part of that is just Colorado making it easier to make contact itself
TF Fredrik
10:28
Looking at individual player projections, I know they are median or baseline projections. Yet, I still feel like they almost always look too conservative. Obviously we know there will be guys that drive in 120+ and score 110+, but projections never throw that kind of number on a player. Is this by design? Like they know it will happen, but it’s too hard to predict who exactly will be the one with those lines. Sidenote, I always did enjoy looking at PECOTAs 90th percentiles.
Jeff Sullivan
10:29
Projections try to weigh all the outcomes, and it's just more likely for a player to be bad or average than to be elite. An injury or something can cause a player to slump, but there's no anti-injury to allow a player to run a .600 wOBA over a month and a half
10:31
As a general rule, the best performers were both good and a little lucky. Projections don't deal with luck. Because the season only plays itself out once, we observe a broader distribution in results than we'd see based on "true talent." So the standard deviations in projections will be smaller than the standard deviations in performances. The rankings of players should still be good
Vic
10:32
Are you a fan of Franklin Barreto? Sticks at SS?
Jeff Sullivan
10:32
I like him and I think he can be an average shortstop
Doc
10:32
Would you be willing pay a "clutch" player, someone who may not be as good, but plays better in important situations/playoffs more then someone who always plays the same?
Jeff Sullivan
10:33
Sure, but only if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt the player was really clutch. We pretty much never know that
Connecting...