Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jose Abreu

Renteria goes on pregame anti-analytics rant

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said:

No surprise that it wasn’t a local beat guy.  They are gutless chumps and worry more about their relationship with the team and managers than asking the tough questions.  Great questions by Fegan.

Can you blame them? They literally make their living off access and teams/players league wide have frozen out writers for very little criticism in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm not giving them too much credit, I'm just saying knowing Hahn's background he has to think that commentary was absurd. He may not have said it out loud but it's impossible for him to think any other way; unless Jerry is a brainwashing gypsy.

Why would he think it was absurd? It's how he has been all along. There is no new revelation here, and Hahn has gone out of his way to sing his praises, and tell us Rickey is the man with the plan who is going to see this thing all the way through. 

Do you really think Hahn had no idea Rickey felt this way until yesterday? If you do, it's a pretty strong indictment against your boy RH.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Why would he think it was absurd? It's how he has been all along. There is no new revelation here, and Hahn has gone out of his way to sing his praises, and tell us Rickey is the man with the plan who is going to see this thing all the way through. 

Do you really think Hahn had no idea Rickey felt this way until yesterday? If you do, it's a pretty strong indictment against your boy RH.

Because a part of Hahns background is in analytics and he has very clearly pushed to integrate analytics more and more throughout the organization. 

As I said, the hiring of Renteria had nothing to do with maximizing wins - that wasn't the goal. The goal was for him to help build up the young players and keep the team together. I think the players like him and the clubhouse chemistry has improved. Renteria was hired after a period in the organization in which a lot of clubhouse turmoil and fighting was happening. I like to think that was Ricky's job to stop and prevent. 

When the gear changes to winning itll be very telling what decision and direction the team goes in. I still think most fans greatly overvalue the impact of a manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Because a part of Hahns background is in analytics and he has very clearly pushed to integrate analytics more and more throughout the organization. 

As I said, the hiring of Renteria had nothing to do with maximizing wins - that wasn't the goal. The goal was for him to help build up the young players and keep the team together. I think the players like him and the clubhouse chemistry has improved. Renteria was hired after a period in the organization in which a lot of clubhouse turmoil and fighting was happening. I like to think that was Ricky's job to stop and prevent. 

When the gear changes to winning itll be very telling what decision and direction the team goes in. I still think most fans greatly overvalue the impact of a manager.

Hahn has said Ricky will be here, that he is the long term answer. Listen to the podcast.  And I know the question would be, what else would he say. One thing RH is better than just about everyone   is answering a question with a non answer. That didn't happen here. BTW, Ricky was also in the clubhouse when that supposed bad period was occurring.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I'll add to this convo is that analytics are 100% useful in evaluating talent and making decisions, but they are still a work-in-progress. I think metrics now don't necessarily represent the absolute end-all be-all and eventually some of them will change and be improved upon. T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to be honest, I think the White Sox are sticking with Renteria in part because he's fluent in Spanish and they value that with such a big proportion of latin talent.

Edited by Greg Hibbard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greg Hibbard said:

The only thing I'll add to this convo is that analytics are 100% useful in evaluating talent and making decisions, but they are still a work-in-progress. I think metrics now don't necessarily represent the absolute end-all be-all and eventually some of them will change and be improved upon. T

And you know what? If RR wanted to present himself as honest, strong, and intelligent, he could have said exactly that and then followed it up with an example of something that he thought analytics didn't catch and an example of a place where analytics helped him understand something and reshape his thinking. That would have been a great example of the "Balance" he literally said was important and an excellent, strong response to people asking about it. It would show he's a strong manager but he's also open minded and it would even speak well to his ability to help players benefit from the flood of new information. 

Instead...well, bleep off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Because a part of Hahns background is in analytics and he has very clearly pushed to integrate analytics more and more throughout the organization. 

As I said, the hiring of Renteria had nothing to do with maximizing wins - that wasn't the goal. The goal was for him to help build up the young players and keep the team together. I think the players like him and the clubhouse chemistry has improved. Renteria was hired after a period in the organization in which a lot of clubhouse turmoil and fighting was happening. I like to think that was Ricky's job to stop and prevent. 

When the gear changes to winning itll be very telling what decision and direction the team goes in. I still think most fans greatly overvalue the impact of a manager.

What evidence do we have of this?  I was with you maybe 5 years ago.  I've seen nothing that tells me there's been any changes.  You can handwave away the RR hire (I guess) but what about Don Cooper?  Don Cooper is clearly of another mind from the top pitching minds in the game at the moment and yet here he is.  Giolito had to go somewhere else to fix his delivery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If you're comparing this to your business, it doesn't work. By your business sense, the White Sox are likely outstanding. Regardless of what they say, they worry about the bottom line. They're not trying to win the game of value if the value costs more than their break even point. 

Teams that go into the luxury tax very clearly aren't worried about maximizing profits and the bottom line when constructing their team. They take it into consideration, but there's a value to winning to them. No one can say one player pushing you over the luxury tax warrants the penalty because he gives you a better chance to win the World Series. 

Winning a World Series really isn't all that much more profitable than losing a 1st round wildcard game. 

For all the discussion last offseason of collusion and the disparities between the marquee free agents and the number of teams actually interested in them, it really just comes down to this right here. Baseball teams are a business, and they don't really have any incentive to spend money to win games the way you would in, say, the NBA or the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Instead...well, bleep off.

Sometimes non analytics people tell others to bleep off which is what Ricky did. He's human. A lot of people like me get upset when analytics deduce a guy like Jose is basically worthless even though he's got close to 100 RBI with a month to go. It's obvious the guy is a good player analytics be damned and non analytical people like Rick R probably get sick of stuff like that thrown in his face every day.

Truth be told, if teams are beholden to analytics they should hire a manager who is totally bought in to analytics. It's stupid to have the manager hate analytics (which is his right) but work for a front office that wants all analytics all the time. Hire an analytics guy as manager, White Sox, it's not that difficult. Otherwise you get some decisions based on analytics, some not.

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lostfan said:

For all the discussion last offseason of collusion and the disparities between the marquee free agents and the number of teams actually interested in them, it really just comes down to this right here. Baseball teams are a business, and they don't really have any incentive to spend money to win games the way you would in, say, the NBA or the NFL.

Winning a WS pays off.  fangraphs estimate for the 2012 playoffs., had the Giants organization pulling in an extra $20 million in postseason money alone. 

 

 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Winning a WS pays off.  fangraphs estimate for the 2012 playoffs., had the Giants organization pulling in an extra $20 million in postseason money alone. 

 

 

Sure, but if you pay a free agent $22 million a year it's not the same is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lostfan said:

Sure, but if you pay a free agent $22 million a year it's not the same is it?

You probably make more.  The $20 million was just postseason ticket revenue and concessions etc. Advertisers then hang with a winner. If the Sox were a perennial playoff contender, the ChiSox Bar and Grill would have a different name. The ads would cost more both at the park and on TV, and there would be a lot more people sitting in the stands willing to pay a bit more than they are now.  

It's not like the White Sox are Curly Howard and a victim of circumstances. They made the circumstances, and still seem irked by anyone who wants to question them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chitownsportsfan said:

What evidence do we have of this?  I was with you maybe 5 years ago.  I've seen nothing that tells me there's been any changes.  You can handwave away the RR hire (I guess) but what about Don Cooper?  Don Cooper is clearly of another mind from the top pitching minds in the game at the moment and yet here he is.  Giolito had to go somewhere else to fix his delivery.

I don't have the hatred for don cooper that many here have.

Coaches are only as good as their players. There are still examples of players progressing just as their are examples of players not progressing. 

The only reason I do not like Cooper is because I have heard from people within that he doesn't work hard anymore, which, if true, is unacceptable. I don't blindly trust peoples word but if that is the perception one player had from within, I worry that player was not alone in that thought. 

I don't think Coopers principles or beliefs are that archaic. Baseball philosophy goes in waves. 30 years ago the high pitch was in and successful, as players came up they focused on hitting that pitch and evolved. Then the low sinker was in 20-10 years ago, as players had adjusted to get the high fastball. When Mike trout came into the league he was one of a very few bats who destroyed the low pitch. Then swing paths changed and the low fastball was getting killed and the high fastball is back in. It's not revolutionary by any means, it's just another cycle. I, by no means, believe cooper is saying fuck the data and keep the ball down. 

I also don't disagree with teaching pitchers not to max effort every game and inning - changing speeds on your fastball is valuable and not throwing your best fastballs every at bat could elongate ones career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Winning a WS pays off.  fangraphs estimate for the 2012 playoffs., had the Giants organization pulling in an extra $20 million in postseason money alone. 

 

 

There is very little difference between (monetarily) winning the world series and making the playoffs. One player doesn't impact the game enough to warrant paying 50% luxury tax to acquire a player to increase your odds of winning it all by 5%. That is why the Yankees and Dodgers arent willfully throwing endless amounts of cash at players near the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There is very little difference between (monetarily) winning the world series and making the playoffs. One player doesn't impact the game enough to warrant paying 50% luxury tax to acquire a player to increase your odds of winning it all by 5%. That is why the Yankees and Dodgers arent willfully throwing endless amounts of cash at players near the cap.

In 2012 there was a $20 million difference, not including future advertising etc. If the Sox lost to Boston in 2005, their attendance the next several years would have been far less. Buying WS tickets for committing to season tickets in 2006 was a huge boon. Most of those people were gone in a year or two.  If the goal is to be safe and make as much money as possible, then being terrible with a low payroll pays off. JR and his buddies have more money than they ever could spend. Either make a legit effort to win with the checkbook, or take the profits and suck back some margaritas. 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

In 2012 there was a $20 million difference, not including future advertising etc. If the Sox lost to Boston in 2005, their attendance the next several years would have been far less. Buying WS tickets for committing to season tickets in 2006 was a huge boon. Most of those people were gone in a year or two.  If the goal is to be safe and make as much money as possible, then being terrible with a low payroll pays off. JR and his buddies have more money than they ever could spend. Either make a legit effort to win with the checkbook, or take the profits and suck back some margaritas. 

If the Sox make the playoffs 2 years in a row the impact on season tickets would be as substantial as winning a world series and missing the playoffs. 

The sox sold playoff tickets tied to season ticket packages. The world series was just an element of that. 

That 20 million escalation was for making the playoffs not winning the World series.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If the Sox make the playoffs 2 years in a row the impact on season tickets would be as substantial as winning a world series and missing the playoffs. 

The sox sold playoff tickets tied to season ticket packages. The world series was just an element of that. 

Those tickets didn't start really selling until they made the WS. Go ask a White Sox employee who was around then.  The first part is not based on fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Those tickets didn't start really selling until they made the WS. Go ask a White Sox employee who was around then.  The first part is not based on fact.

Ok. You cite a 20 million number that is tied to making the playoffs. Diamond Dollars explains the dynamic and value of winning: the conclusion was basically that getting to the postseason is where the value comes from - the world series is simply a bonus but no team that has a playoff roster should be spending heavily or going over the luxury to acquire one more piece. It's exactly why teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are so dedicated to not staying over the luxury tax threshold. The cost of that extra 1% isnt worth the price.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Ok. You cite a 20 million number that is tied to making the playoffs. Diamond Dollars explains the dynamic and value of winning: the conclusion was basically that getting to the postseason is where the value comes from - the world series is simply a bonus but no team that has a playoff roster should be spending heavily or going over the luxury to acquire one more piece. It's exactly why teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are so dedicated to not staying over the luxury tax threshold. The cost of that extra 1% isnt worth the price.

 

Winning the WS kept Sox fans interested a couple of more seasons than a playoff appearance. Maybe winning a few times and some sustained success with change things. The Bulls drew peanuts before Michael Jordan, now either sellout or get very close every night despite being mostly pitiful the 20 years he's been gone. Maybe something like that happens to the Sox. I certainly would like to see if that worked. 

If winning isn't worth it, maybe the Sox need to be owned by someone who really doesn't fret over hundreds of millions they will never spend anyways. 

 

The White Sox are never going to have a payroll under this ownership where they are actually risking a $20-30 million loss. That's fine. But risking a little loss shouldn't be problematic. Look how they run the Bulls. They rarely go into tax territory despite making more money every year than one or two teams at most.

 

 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thad Bosley said:

It's not ridiculous at all.  You keep trying to paint the five years of Veeck's second go-around as owner from '76-'80 as this "dark" and "laughingstock" window of time in the organization.  My point was it was no darker or more of a laughingstock than what we've experienced this decade. 

Take out the three rebuild years if you want and look at the four years preceding them that resulted in the need for the rebuild to begin with.  For a team that was "going for it" from 2013-2016, and with a core that included the likes of Sale, Abreu, Quintana, and Eaton, the team didn't even play .500 ball.  That's every bit as laughingstock as anything that happened from '76 thru '80. 

We lost quite a few ballgames between '13 and '16, which one should think would meet your definition of "dark".  At least in late '70s we had Nancy Faust playing the organ and Harry Caray singing "Take me out to the ballgame" every day/night at the ballpark, along with the many unique, themed days and nights Veeck had going on back then.  Don't recall any of that feeling particularly "dark".  

Agree 100%. My Dad took us to 10-15 games a year during Veecks second go round and it was always a blast. Even just watching on TV, Harry and Jimmy kept even a blowout entertaining.  I see in another comment back down thread someone calling Comiskey Park a "dump." Please. It was a beautiful ball park. Yeah there were obstructed seats, so what? When you were in the upper deck you were hugging the field, right on top of the action. Didn't feel you were a million miles from the action like the new park. I still miss the old place. Lotta good times there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lostfan said:

For all the discussion last offseason of collusion and the disparities between the marquee free agents and the number of teams actually interested in them, it really just comes down to this right here. Baseball teams are a business, and they don't really have any incentive to spend money to win games the way you would in, say, the NBA or the NFL.

While this is less true recently, winning a World Series used to guarantee a five year sustained boost in attendance.  Now, it’s just as much about broadcasting/media rights.

And the Royals are definitely challenging that “five year” theory with their current rebuild.  

It was a lot more accurate for the Sox, with the 2010 season marking the downswing into the Dunn signing, Ozzie/Buehrle departing, 2013 and the eventual rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roofshot said:

Agree 100%. My Dad took us to 10-15 games a year during Veecks second go round and it was always a blast. Even just watching on TV, Harry and Jimmy kept even a blowout entertaining.  I see in another comment back down thread someone calling Comiskey Park a "dump." Please. It was a beautiful ball park. Yeah there were obstructed seats, so what? When you were in the upper deck you were hugging the field, right on top of the action. Didn't feel you were a million miles from the action like the new park. I still miss the old place. Lotta good times there.

I have a coffee table book of Comiskey Park during the 1977 season. It was a dump. But it was a nice dump. JR's group actually did do a lot of fixing up of the place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Ok. You cite a 20 million number that is tied to making the playoffs. Diamond Dollars explains the dynamic and value of winning: the conclusion was basically that getting to the postseason is where the value comes from - the world series is simply a bonus but no team that has a playoff roster should be spending heavily or going over the luxury to acquire one more piece. It's exactly why teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are so dedicated to not staying over the luxury tax threshold. The cost of that extra 1% isnt worth the price.

Tell that to the Astros as they added Verlander, Cole and Greinke. Or the Cubs with Chapman, Heyward and   Royals with Shields, Cueto and Zobrist.

Last time I checked, LAD and NYY aren’t winning any titles recently.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cubs supposedly were able to add Castellanos at the deadline due to Ricketts taking into account likely playoff revenue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×