NorthSideSox72

OK, I promised I'd make some adjustments based on some of the feedback. So I have. Below is the result of someone between assignments at work, bored in front of the computer. Final stats at the end... OK, I am adding 4 adjustors to the measure. 1. As Mr. Civic points out, in some situations, a hit is better than a walk, double better than a walk and SB, etc. So let's do this: Situations where there are runners in scoring position, a walk or HBP is only half as valuable as a hit. Since runners in scoring position seems to be the case about 27% of the time, use that half-adjust on 27% of walks and HBP, and keep the others whole. That should adjust for the non-hit. 2. It is also true that SB's aren't as valuable as hits, with runners on (scoring position or not). But, since we are using TB and not H in the numerator, we are really looking at the difference between IsoD and SB-CS. Those two numbers should not be values the same - a 2B's value over a 1B is more than a SB's value is to a 1B, for example, with runners on. How much more valuable is arguable, but the base consideration is that an extra base via the hit helps the hitters in front AND behind, whereas the SB only helps the hitter behind. So let's use 50%. Runners on % among at bats is about 45%. So for 45% of SB's, multiply by .5. This also functions to make CS have a higher absolute value than SB, addressing some other folks’ concerns. 3. I have added SF’s and SH’s to the numerator to add value for those outs that create a base movement of a player on base. These do not need an adjustment as they only can be recorded with men on base anyway. 4. Finally, what to do about speed and taking an extra base on hits. This raw number is simply not available, but it certainly is part of the game. In order to project the number, you would need a formula like this: XBOH = TPA*OBP*LBA*SUCCESS*SPEEDADJUST Total plate appearances, OBP (how often actually on base), League Batting Average (how often a hit occurs), Success (how often, league-wide, taking the extra base occurs) and finally a speed adjustment factor. All of those except the speed factor are available as hard stats, and I used them. The question is, what is the difference between an Owens/Ozuna type, and a Konerko/AJP type, in terms of how often they can take the extra base. To be safe, I’d say that at most, over the same X number of chances, that the fastest players might take the extra base 3 times as often as the slowest. The league average sits in the middle. So, we establish a speed adjustment range of 0.5 to 1.5. Paul Konerko I rate a 0.5, so he is 50% as likely to take that extra base as a league average runner. Jerry Owens is 50% more likely than a league average runner to take that extra base. Here are the speed factors I assigned: Owens: 1.4 Ozuna: 1.3 Pods: 1.3 Richar: 1.2 Terrero: 1.1 Erstad: 1.1 Fields: 1.0 Cintron: 1.0 Gonzalez: 0.9 Dye: 0.8 Uribe: 0.7 Hall: 0.6 Crede: 0.6 AJP: 0.6 Thome: 0.6 Konerko: 0.5 Given those factors, this is the number of extra bases each player has probably taken over their season (remember that this is greatly dictated by the number of times on base, because speed is useless if you are in the dugout): Owens: 15.1 Pods: 7.5 Richar: 5.8 Terrero: 3.9 Erstad: 10.3 Fields: 10.5 Cintron: 5.0 Gonzalez: 4.9 Dye: 12.3 Uribe: 9.6 Hall: 1.2 AJP: 8.3 Thome: 11.3 Konerko: 9.7 That gives us the new formula: TB + [bB – .5(.27 * BB)] + [HBP - .5(.27 * HBP)] + [sB – CS – .5(.45 * SB)] + SF + SH + XBOH – GIDP / Total PA So for everyone, here are the final numbers, with data through yesterday’s action: Jim Thome: .611 Paul Konerko: .518 Jermaine Dye: .514 Josh Fields: .507 Joe Crede: .505 (***05+06 numbers) Luis Terrero: .475 Danny Richar: .471 Pablo Ozuna: .446 (***05+06 numbers) Juan Uribe: .438 Jerry Owens: .437 Darin Erstad: .423 Scott Podsednik: .413 AJ Pierzynski: .410 Alex Cintron: .358 Andy Gonalez: .310 Toby Hall: .238 Comments: --The changes moved a few players around, but not that much --AJ really isn't looking good --Fields is very impressive for a rookie --Terrero, Uribe and Crede are higher than I would have thought --AJ is lower than I would have thought Part of the reason for this was to see how much speed came into play. Owens, even with speed factored in, isn't great. For a rookie he isn't bad, but he is still nothing spectacular. These numbers are his full season, by the way, not just since his July recall - his number since his July recall is .466, around the same as Richar. Combine all that, and I think he is marginal as a starter right now, but he is also a rookie. I'd say he is best off as a 4th OF on a competitive team for now, but could start and probably get better with a lower bracket team. He might actually fetch something in trade, if the Sox pick up a better CF. Something to think about. If not, and of significant upgrades are done at SS and maybe other positions, I think you do could a lot worse than Owens in CF.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) Sanchez was in his 3rd season. He's not a prospect at the moment. Was he? That certainly changes things then. That, to me, is more telling than his calendar age. Where did he play before? I don't see it on his page on MILB.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:59 PM) Well Barack has already talked about raising taxes on the $250K + crowd... Now he is onto the $97K+ crowd. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1 This is a tax increase I would actually support. The 97k SS cap is a regressive tax as it stands now - I would be more than OK with applying the SAME RATE (not a higher rate) to money made beyond that point as well, given the need to stabilize the SS fund and hopefully stop Congress from borrowing from it.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) I think Walden will be one.... But Poreda should be the second pitcher. Moreno will crack the top 20, but I bet he'll be at the bottom, and they call him "a command and control" guy -- Full disclosure: I have never received a scouting report on Moreno, so I could be completely off. I doubt it though. No other White Sox players will make the list. If there are questions asked about them in the corresponding chat, age will be the determining factor that keeps the offensive players from making the cut. I guess it all depends on what the writer(s) of these lists think about age. Gallagher, Retherford and Sanchez are all 22, but they are all true rookies in their first year of professional ball. Some writers see 22, and ignore them, in favor of 20 and 21 year-olds. Others realize there is more to it than that, and further see that a 21-year old and a 22-year old are both still young. We'll see. Fortunately, this Regier fellow who is now managing the system is preaching patience, so we'll actually get to see some talented players have a chance to develop, even if they aren't a just out of high school phenom. I'm pretty happy about that, since I am of the mind that many players are not physically or mentally ready for professional ball at age 20, no matter how much talent they have. Patience will also help those 20-year olds.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:52 PM) Does it take $30+ an hour plus pension plus paid health care to screw on a f***ing bolt or push a button? I know this will sound crass, but... what it should take is a robot. The number of actual people on the assembly lines does not need to be nearly as many as there are in those plants. Japanese companies figured that out a long time ago.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_po/bush_politics No surprise, really. He hopes.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 01:46 PM) It is very classy of Mark Buehrle to give up his last start for Broadway. Personally I would have rather them run Phillips out there as he is out of options, but it works either way. I was thinking that too - I'd rather see Phillips than Broadway.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Who else thinks that Poreda has a great shot at being top 2, maybe number one? Jordan Walden, Juan Moreno seem like the closest competition. I looked at the stats and did not see any guys batting that I would take over Aaron. We will see tomorrow, but any one else get the feeling he will be number one? Gallagher and Retherford should make that list, I'd bet (along with Poreda). Juan Moreno too. Might be 4 or even 5 from GF on that list (Ely or Sanchez may be outside shots to get on it). I'm excited to see this one, since the GF team seems to be the one with the most promise in the system right now.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) Bayh endorses Hillarity... I believe that SS2K5 called this - and Bayh being her VP pick.

Fortunately, I doubt the Sox would have invested in that scuzzball anyway.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) GM has one major thing going for it. They seem to be ahead of the Japanese Auto Makers when it comes to altnerative fuel technology and it appears they have a solid chance at passing them at Hybrid technology as well and I think long-term GM has a very good prognosis and outlook. I wish that was true, but it really isn't. Japanese companies have been producing and selling hybrids that are much more fuel efficient, and doing it for a much longer period of time. Check out the stats - Japanese model sales dwarf those of American companies' cars. Also, the next generation hybrids (cars that get in the territory of 100 mpg) are well underway in Japan, whereas American companies aren't even on that playing field yet. As for alternative fuel like E85, that is a short-term bridge technology that saves very little in total oil consumption. The Japanese companies aren't even bothering with it. Here is an article about how GM is marketing the Chevy Volt, even though not only does a prototype not even exist, the underlying technology hasn't been completed yet. I'd love it if American companies actually got competitive in this arena, but they are nowhere near that right now.

Kap is going to check around, but he may or may not have anything. So if anyone else does, please do still post it here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) Techinically the BSA wasn't running the event. It was a local unit event, and I guess you could bill the Church who sponsors the Troop. The non-billing groups do not expect them to be judge and jury, they would expect a court to decide based on negligence, same as any other civil case. Makes sense to me. OK, then you still have to send the bill. If they want to contest it, they can take it to court. And I am not really aware of all the legal trappings, but if this was a "local unit" event, I am pretty sure you can still send the bill to Boy Scouts of America. If you send it to the troop, they are just a unit of BSA anyway.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) The bright side: this means less of their s***ty cars on the road. Its kind of sad, the s***ty predicament that the American car companies have put themselves into. By allowing themselves to be hamstrung over the decades by unions, they have simply not been able to be competitive with Japanese and Korean manufacturers (even those who also make their cars in the U.S.). And now the American workers, who were the ones the unions were supposed to protect, are the ones who are suffering. The only way these companies could really get themselves on a level playing field at this point is if they bite the bullet, and really start things over. Tear up every single labor contract on the books and structure something reasonable. Get out of the pension business. Tear down the aging facilities and build newer, more automated ones (over time of course). If the union resists... and here is the really hard part... call their bluff. Hire people individually. This will be very costly for all involved in the short run, but ultimately, it may be the only way they can be around in 10 years.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) basically the argument is this, they never really needed rescue. The alternative was to continue to try and find their way out to avoid a bill that certainly would be in the thousands of dollars. Why would we want to reward risky behavior and punish smart behavior? I agree when some ill prepared newbie with a cell phone and a DVD of Survivorman pulls a stupid stunt, bill them, but this group wasn't negligent. I agree that a bill everyone is a simpler policy, but billing based on negligent behavior is fairer. In this group, would you bill everyone? Just the adults? The adult in charge? Tough call. I'd bill the organization running the trip - Boy Scouts of America. I know it doesn't seem fair, but you cannot expect the Podunk County, North Carolina Fire Rescue Team to be judge and jury on who to bill and not bill.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:51 AM) look it up yourself. http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=14859 in 29 at-bats?

Well Tex, you know I would appreciate that these scouts were as prepared as they were. I am glad to see that. But as far as the rescue bill, I have to think they should be billed. Those rescue services provide an expensive, and risky service, and 80% of what they do is rescue people who did very stupid things. I think it would be unreasonable and perhaps even illegal for those services to start decided who does and does not get billed, based on their level of preparedness. You pretty much have to bill everyone.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) This argument never flies. There have always been exceptions to this freedom and there always will be, for good reason. And what do you mean probable cause and innocent until proven guilty? Last I checked he's on record stating he wants to wipe Jews off the Earth and that the Holocaust never happened. I guess we can squabble over what "is" means, but he said what he said. There's no lost in translation issue here. I'm not opposed to the government not stopping this guy from speaking, per say, I'm upset that more Americans aren't outraged by this. I want to see protests at the school. I want this country to actually care enough to voice their opinion about a man who wants to destroy the west. This is exactly what I was talking about in another post about liberals being so neutral. It's a wonderful thing that we are a civil society and don't resort to violence to oppose his views. But it also shows how backwards we are merely thinking his views are "radically different." You can't say the f'n "n-word" in this country out of context without people all up in arms about it, but this guy calls for the murder of millions and its fine and dandy. And I know that no one believes what he believes or thinks its right for him to do it. That's not the point. There are protests. Lots of them. As there should be. Just as Imanutjob should be allowed to speak. Those together provide the world a great reminder of what makes this country something special.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) And that's pretty much what the Bushies say. We allow him to come here and express his beliefs, so why don't Iran try it? Good. While I vehemently disagreed with the forced attempt at democracy and capitalism in Iraq, I do believe that the more westernization we can encourage in places like Iran, the better off the world will be. The more people in Iran come to like a western lifestyle, the leadership there will either need to moderate, or will react the other way into the extreme, and then a real political change may occur.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) It cracks me up that people are so OK with this. I guess it shows how great this country is and what great principles we have, allowing this piece of garbage into the country, let alone the opportunity to speak in public. Can you imagine if Bush repeatedly stated that all Muslims should die (ALL of them) or something like the genocides in Rawanda/Darfur didn't happen, all right before taking a trip either to a heavily Muslim populated country or to Africa? An entire army division couldn't protect Bush from the people who would try to kill him. And what do we do? We show our extreme apathetic nature and invite this guy to speak as a guest in a major university in the country. He's mocking us by showing up here. He's trying to be "the good guy" when behind the scenes he's working towards the destruction of the West. I HOPE the dean/president of the school asks him the tough questions, but I won't hold my breath. I actually think the fact that he is allowed to come here and speak says a lot positive about this country.

So, as this awful season dies down, it kind of feels like the 2005 championship has finally faded into history. That being the case, I am now scrambling to try to find a few pieces of data I'd like to keep around. If any of you die hard fans out there could help me, it would be sincerely appreciated... 1. I vaguely recall someone posting, back in 2005 or shortly after, a playlist of songs from the team's run. Stuff they play at the park (Pirates, AC/DC), stuff that was in the clubhouse (Journey), music for the various players when they came to bat... if anyone still has this list, if they could post it here or PM it to me, that would be most excellent. I tried searching the old threads for this, but did not see it. 2. The intro videos they played at the games. There was the one they played throughout 2006, set to Pirates music - I've seen this on YouTube, but would like a version I can actually save and keep. And then there was the one they played just once, on Opening Day 2006, that was a montage of the 2005 season (set to music from Alexander). If anyone has either of these video files, or if they know a way to scrape them from YouTube, let me know. That is all - thanks in advance!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) All valid points, but what does "non" mean? I think you should change your screen name to Pedanticsox.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) dynamite areolas.... band name.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) Iowa State is set to announce a new logo on Wednesday, it looks like. The favorite is probably my av. No more bird in the blender?

I must say, that Star Wars Family Guy episode last night was one of the best animated shows I have seen in a long time. If you missed it, find it. And I can't believe no one has yet mentioned the Chicago Simpsons episode - it even had a White Sox reference!