almagest

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 11:02 PM) Why is a double taken away defensively worth less than a double produced offensively? I've never quite understood this logic. It's not. But the difference in offense from Anderson to Swisher is much larger than the difference defensively from Anderson to Swisher, based on what we have seen from both players to this point.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 10:41 PM) You guys can throw all the stats around that you want to. But, I agree with ptatc that Pods had a huge impact on the Sox success in the first half of '05. Pods took a lot of pitches, and not just in his first at bat but in just about all of them. He was a force on the bathpaths, and he did get into the pitchers' heads. The Sox built a big lead that cushioned the second half problems the team had and Pods first half was a very important part of that. Stats are fine, but I know what I saw with my own eyes. Without Pods first half, we don't even make the playoffs. Podsednik averaged 3.89 pitches per plate appearance in 2005. That didn't crack the top 25 in baseball that year -- number 25 was Todd Helton, at 4.03, 0.14 points higher than Podsednik. Also, if you look at the list, you'll find some very decidedly not-good baseball players on the list, who were on some very decidedly not-good teams, so I'm not sure how important or relevant this stat is, overall. Also, I don't understand the unwavering Pods devotion for 2005. Was he valuable? Yes. Did he make or break this team? No. The pitching was far, far, far more important. I think relying on Pods (and later, Erstad) for these phantom, intangible concepts of "grindiness" and "getting in pitchers' heads" caused us a lot of problems in '06 and '07, as well.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:24 PM) you still need a guy in the mold of crisp or owens at the top of the lineup. Say what you will about the "numbers and OBP" is all that matters but I'll bet if you look at the past WS winners most of them had that type of player at the top. Red Sox: Ellsbury Cards: Eckstein White Sox: Pods Red Sox Damon Marlins: Pierre Angles: Eckstein D-backs: Womack Ellsbury was with the Red Sox for all of 33 games in 2007, during which he put up a .903 OPS (.394 OBP). He's not just a speed guy. He was a non-factor in the ALDS, and hit .250 / .333 / .250 in the ALCS. He was good in the World Series, but the Red Sox destroyed the Rockies. Ellsbury performing well probably didn't have all that much to do with their WS victory. The 2006 Cardinals won all of 83 games, in the worst division in baseball. They happened to get hot at the right time. Eckstien had a .350 OBP, a robust .344 SLG, stole 7 bases, and was caught 6 times. How does he fit into this speedy/stealy mode, besides being awful at stealing bases like Pods is now, having no power like Pods and Owens, and not having a team at this time, like Pods? Pitching is the main reason why we won in 2005, not Pods. Take away our pitching and we probably would've had the same record we did this year. Pods had an OBP of .351 with us in 2005, .375 in the postseason. He stole 6 bases in the postseason, but was caught 3 times. He also slugged over .600 in the World Series. Damon had an OPS of .857 in 2004 (OBP of .380), with only 19 steals, and was caught stealing 8 times. How is this anything like Pods/Owens/Crisp? None of them have ever come close to this on the MLB level. Crisp was at .810 in 2005, and that's the closest. Juan Pierre had an OPS of .781 in 2003, the second-highest of his career (probably the highest, since the other time he was close to this was in Coors). He had a .361 OBP, meaning he was on base a fair amount. When did Pods or Owens put an OBP up this high for us? When did Coco Crisp put an OBP near this in his entire MLB career? Eckstien had an OBP of .363 in 2002, a .388 SLG, with 21 steals, 13 times caught stealing. This is better than his 2006 season, but is in-line with his career stats: no slugging ability, a decent/solid OBP, and a bad base stealer. Tony Womack was absolutely awful in 2001: .266 / .307 / .345. His stolen base numbers were good -- the only part of his season that was: 28SB, 7 CS. He also stunk in the NLCS and World Series. Did he even lead off most of the year for them? That team won mostly because they had two Hall of Fame caliber starters in their rotation, and because Luis Gonzales had an OPS of 1.117. Please tell me how Womack was as or more important than Johnson/Schilling/Gonzalez, or how the Diamondbacks wouldn't have won the World Series without him. If anything, the common thread between all the past World Series winning teams has been a leadoff hitter with an OBP over .350.

There's absolutely no reason to not let Quentin play LF or RF. We traded one of the few good offensive prospects in our barren minor league system for him. It'd be a waste to let him sit on the bench.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) Thank You Bill James for the rhetoric about base stealing is only effective with a 75% success rate. I won't argue the numbers for base stealing. My point is that speed or even the threat of speed has a much greater effect on the game than the numbers can analyze. Look at the number of stressful pitches the starter threw or the number of pickoff attempts. All of these have a greater impact on the pitcher than just the OBP guy. Ok, so what are qualified as stressful pitches? And where's the evidence that shows that a high number of said stressful pitches leads to a higher ERA, WHIP, more pitches thrown, or rate of injury? I've never seen any. I'll agree that "statheads" tend to blindly throw stats around without considering any other factors, but you can't just say "this works this way" without any sort of evidence to back it up.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) Your second graf conflicts with the first. Speed is important, and steal rate isn't necessarily a good indicator of that value. It only indicates the value of their ability to steal bases, which is not solely dependant on speed. Some players are fast on the paths but not great base-stealers. Rob Mackowiak was a great example of that - didn't steal much or all that successfully, but he was pretty darn quick on the paths. Mackowiak isn't fast, but is a good base runner. He gets good jumps, makes wise decisions, etc. Most good base runners aren't stolen base threats, per se. They also need to be fast.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) OBP from the leadoff spot is obviously important because he will have on average more plate appearances than anyone else, but how much of a difference do you need to negate the effect of the speed is a real conundrum. It is also one that polarizes people, they either think it helps or don't. I for one believe it has a great impact on the game. Speed is only a significant threat if the base stealer has a success rate near or over 75%. Otherwise the player's speed has little effect. Personally, I feel speed has the greatest effect in being able to go from first to third or second to home on a single. Especially if the team or the hitters coming to bat struggle with RiSP.

I don't disagree that Podsednik was a big part of the White Sox having such a great first half, but he had an OBP of .369. You have to get on first to steal second. And as Podsednik later showed, with his mediocre performance and injury problems, it can be tough to sustain a high OBP and a high SB rate. I'd rather have a leadoff hitter who gets on base, and hits lots of doubles, instead of hoping we can find a speedy leadoff guy with a 80% SB success rate. How many teams have one of those, anyways?

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:47 AM) Would someone please go to Spring Training and step on Ozuna's leg so that the Sox can get a useful player for the bench? Thank you. Why is Ozuna not useful? He's been solid off the bench for us offensively, brings some speed, and defensively can play lots of positions mediocre-to-poor. That's about as good as you can expect off the bench.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) Sometimes those projections pan out, sometimes they don't. If I recall correctly, we were picked to finish 3rd or 4th in the Central in 2005, and we all saw what happened there. Bottom line in professional sports is that so often, injuries can crush a team that otherwise would have been right in the thick of things. There are no projections or theories that can predict what players are going to get injured, and when; nor can they predict what players are going to have career years and, conversely, what players are going to have off years. That's why they go out and play 162 games and see what happens. And like I said before, the '07 Sox finished at 72-90, which was their Pythagorean Record. And like I said before, I realize statistical evidence isn't the only way to evaluate baseball, because of the variances present in a full season. It's still a useful tool, though. And in cases like this, there is absolutely NO evidence that Owens would put up anything better than the projected ZiPS or Marcel line. Anything else requires a leap of faith, and that's not going to help this team.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) Simply because projections like this, or other "pythags" and mundane calculations are meaningless until the games are played. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he will improve over last year, being as young as he was, with more experience under his belt. According to calculations like this, the 2005 Sox were a second or third place team that didn't win the world series. The line I mentioned would be an improvement for Owens. And what about his minor league stats indicates that he's going to significantly improve? He's a career .294 / .362 / .368 hitter in the minors. And that's mostly due to his breakout AA season, which he hasn't even come close to in any other season in his career. Believe me, I'd like Jerry to hit .300 with an OBP of .370+, and steal 40+ bases. The only evidence we have, though, is his past seasons, and the likely projected results of a full 2008 season from him. Just saying "you have a feeling" that he'll be better because he's young isn't based in any way on fact. If calculations like this are "meaningless," then what about the 2007 Sox? They finished at 72-90, which just happens to be their Pythagorean record. You can't discount any sort of statistical evidence or projection just because the games haven't been played yet. By that logic, no one would know how any player or team would perform, ever.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) Has anyone used the wireless ethernet adapter for 360 yet? I was thinking about getting one instead of running a long cable through my house. Any thoughts on them? Too expensive. Try this

The Accord seems like a pretty good choice. I'm finding some nice ones in my price range. I was looking at a 2 door V6 Mercedes-Benz C320, which was a very nice car, but just thinking about the associated repair costs soon after purchase for a car with 56,000 miles on it makes me shudder. There's some excellent advice in this thread. Thanks everyone!

Jerry Owens' projected 2008 stats based on the Marcels Average (Definition here) is as follows: Year Rel. PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB K BA OBP SLG GPA 2008 0.62 395 358 49 98 14 2 5 29 23 6 30 64 .270 .330 .370 .240 GPA = Gross Production Average. .200 is lousy, .265 is average, .300 is very good. Can we live with .270/.330/.370 from our leadoff hitter? I'm not sure we could -- not in this division. If you think Jerry will produce at a higher rate than this, why? What evidence do we have that'd show he'd be any better at the Major League level?

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) I know overall there's a difference, but guys with premiere stuff have a much easier time transitioning. It's tough to come up with a bunch of examples because there aren't many pitchers with Cain and Lincecum's stuff, but here are some recent examples. Burnett, Beckett, and Schilling before he became an old fart have all made the transition rather smoothly although Beckett did have a rough first season before dominating last season. Mid to high 90's FB, 12-6 CB are dominating no matter who you pitch to. We're talking about Jenks-quality. At 23 years old, they are special. San Fran would be crazy to trade them unless they get a great package. I seriously doubt we'll see the Giants trade either. I wouldn't put Burnett in the same league as Beckett or Schilling. Also, Cain and Lincecum don't have the track record those two did before switching to the AL, so there's certainly no guarantee they'd be able to make the transition as Beckett or Schilling did. It would be nice to have either of them, though. I just don't think we have what it takes to get them without crippling our team in the process.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Just because they pitch in the NL doesn't mean they'll drop significantly if in the AL. I hate that assumption. The assumption with Lowry is justified as his stuff isn't great, but Cain and Lincecum are nasty. They are 2 of the top young arms in all of baseball. It doesn't matter if they pitch in the NL or AL. They are future aces whether in the NL or AL. (I have little doubt Cain will. Lincecum's health is the only concern.) Moving to the AL from the NL most certainly has an effect on your effectiveness. Moving from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park will as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/sports/b...ll/14score.html Have you seen any evidence that shows that switching leagues or moving to a hitters park does not have a negative effect on pitchers? There is also absolutely no guarantee that Cain or Lincecum becomes an ace, or even a solid #2. And if San Franciso was sure they would, I have no idea why they'd trade them.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 05:33 PM) I'd take Cain or Lincecum for that package; I think we simply disagree about the relative worth of the players involved. I'm more impressed with Cain and Lincecum than any single player in the Sox package. It's almost ridiculous to mention, but the Sox could always inquire about Bedard....I don't know about a CF...I honestly can't think of one rumored to be available that would be worth it or a good fit for the Sox. I think Fields is likely to outproduce Crede at the plate, but factoring in defense I think Crede has a reasonable chance of being more valuable this year. I am concerned about Crede's back, but I'm also concerned that the AL will figure out that Fields has trouble with fastballs this coming season. They both have question marks. Longer-term I'd rather have Fields. But the Sox seem to be building for 2008. I agree that Cabrera is a good glove, but if Richar is at 2B the Sox may not get good D at that position -- he didn't show very good range last year. Do you think Cain or Lincecum could be any better than a solid 3rd starter in the AL Central? I'd think that's the only reason you'd make the trade, since we already have 4th and 5th starters aplenty. How important of a factor is defense at 3B to you? To me, it's one of the least important defensive positions, with LF and 1B. Most stats point to the same conclusion, as well. I think Crede is overrated based on his defense, and that with Cabrera at SS, you won't notice too much of a drop off next year. Also, I can't really remember a game when Fields cost multiple runs, or the win, based on his defense. Can you? Teams already know Fields has trouble catching up to fastballs at times. I'm sure they had extensive scouting reports on him from the moment he came up. He adjusted, otherwise he wouldn't have put up league-average offensive numbers for a third baseman. I just think we're better off for the future, as well as in 2008, with Fields.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 04:25 PM) It's really a shame that the MVP series can't come back. Does anyone know when that license with 2k ends? I'd easily drop $100 on MVP 05 upgraded with next gen graphics. That license doesn't end for quite a while, but if you can get your hands on a copy of MVP '05 for PC, you might want to check out http://www.mvpmods.com/. You can get updated rosters, and a few graphical fixes/improvements there. There used to be a similar site for the old High Heat series, which is still my favorite.

If Poreda ends up being a harder throwing version of Matt Thornton with better control and a better GB/FB ratio, I'll be pretty happy with the draft pick, even if Porcello ends up being very good for the Tigers.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) I think that's right. The truth is that Fields can't play defense (at least right now) at 3B. And his K numbers and trouble hitting fastballs make him far from a sure thing. Crede has a good chance of being a more valuable player in 2008 than Fields. The Sox have holes at SP, CF, and 2B. If they really are trying to contend in 2008 and they could trade Danks+Fields+prospect for a solid starting pitcher or CF I think they have to look into that. Who, in your estimation, would be worth getting for Danks+Fields+say, Shelby? I don't know if we should go after a CF for all three for 2008, as you've already got Quentin/Swisher/Dye, and Owens/Anderson if Quentin fails. So what SP would be worth that package, to you? I don't think Cain or Lincecum are good investments at that price, due to Cain's road splits and Lincecum's probability of injury. Plus, we'd still have a revolving door at 5th starter. Also, why should we trade away two young players with so many years left pre-arbitration, who've had some success at the major league level? Joe Crede has a career average of .259 / .305 / .446 (avg / obp / slg). Josh Fields put up .244 / .308 / .480 last year. You don't think he can at least equal Crede's offensive production? And you aren't worried about Crede's health? I'll give you that Fields likely won't play defense near as well as Joe. But Crede wasn't really that good defensively when he came up, and I think defense at third base is overrated. A strong SS and 2B can make up for a large amount of defensive inefficiency at the corner spots, and we have a very good defensive shortstop in Cabrera.

So who's looking forward to MLB 2K8? I enjoyed last year's version, but saw problems with both the hitting and pitching mechanics. Supposedly, those are being addressed for this year's version. Also, how's MLB 2007/2008 on PS3? After MVP went college, I started playing that series on PS2, and thought it was pretty solid.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) Balta. I just read through this thread and you are spot on with your comments. I work in commercial real estate and the overriding message I hear from investors is that things are not getting better any time soon. In particular, that applies to the multi-family housing market. Many markets are either overbuilt or overconverted to condos. In particular, South Florida, Phoenix and L.A. MSAs, and many Texas markets have been hit hard in the housing sector. I do not know how the variables will hit the Chicago MSA, but I think now is the perfect time to wait and do your homework, not rush into a purchase or a mortgage. First of all, the subprime crisis is going to have a much more significant impact on liquidity in the short term. The Federal Reserve Board's recent actions will not immediately translate into lower rates for someone looking to leverage their investment. Many lenders are still reeling from the rash of foreclosures and have really not started offering the most competitive rates as of yet, even if they are at a four year low as of this AM. Further, in many markets, foreclosures are expected to peak this spring. This is going to force a lot of homeowners struggling meet their mortgage payments to sell at a loss on their investment. The combination of desperate homeowners who need to get out from under a mortgage along with those who end up giving the note back to the bank is going to put considerable downward pressure on pricing. Banks do not want to carry housing inventory and are more likely to sell the house at a loss than have to carry the real estate tax and insurance costs indefinitely. All the while, some homeowners are going to try for a compromise and offer their houses and condos for rent. This will increase the options for renters and give them an advantage when negotiating lease terms. To me the time to target is about 6 months from now. In the mean time, I would identify the neighborhoods that fit your needs the most and hook up with a local agent who will help you start to look at product. By the time you are ready to buy a good deal with attractive financing, you will be educated as to the quality of what is available and reasonable pricing for the current state of the economy. Don't trust a lot of these experts who slam Merrill Lynch for being pessimistic. The National Association of Realtors is an association of brokers. It is in their best interest to dismiss negative housing reports and try to keep things from spiraling out of control. Finally, when you do decide to buy and finance, take a close look at the 5 and 7 year ARM options. If this really is your first place, odds are you are not planning on staying there more than 5 years. The ARMs that have raised all kinds of trouble are the shorter term options, not the 5 and 7 variety. The spread between a 30 year fixed rate mortgage and a 5 year ARM is roughly half a percent. On a $200K loan, that is another grand in your pocket every year to build equity toward your next purchase. Good luck. Fantastic advice. Thank you!

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) I don't think thats the case AT ALL, at least not for me. What I see is a team that still has a few holes to fill, and the Sox cupboard is empty. They just don't have any more assets to deal that hold much value. The only one that does is Fields, and the only reason he would be made available is because Crede is still on the roster. So if we don't have many young assets that hold much value, why would we trade one that has performed at the MLB-level? Trading away a young 3rd baseman with a long time left until arbitration and keeping an injured, older 3rd basemen who very well may walk in a year, or may still have injury issues is not a smart move. We have an absolute dearth of position prospects in our minors. We do have a few guys who can possibly step up and fill the 4th and 5th starter roles -- Floyd, Danks, Haeger, Egbert, and Broadway. Unless we're absolutely blown away by a deal, I see no reason to trade Fields.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 02:40 AM) There's no way you can give up about 9 years of experience between Konerko and Fields in any deal involving a pitcher who has thrown only about 150 innings at the MLB level Honestly, is the 30 walk difference between Owens and Roberts worth giving up another 30 HR threat (with the potential for more with both Kong and Fields), to go along with a great reliever with stuff? That's a huge no, regardless of how overrated Fields and Konerko are with Sox fans. I might for Cain, but that's still probably a no. There's just no way you can give that much up for an NL West pitcher. Agreed. Some people just seem to be trying to find any way possible to keep Crede on this team, even if it hurts the Sox.

I'd take Lowry in a heartbeat if he's on the table for Crede. He's nothing special, but I think he could put an ERA of 4.5-4.75 up for us, and solidify the 5th starter position for a while. We'd also be getting a major-league level pitcher for a player with a history of injuries, coming off surgery, who plays a position we have filled with a better, younger player. We'd come out ahead on this one. Matt Cain for Crede? Unlikely, since Alex Rios couldn't pry him or Lincecum away from SF. Danks, Jenks, or Konerko would probably have to be involved in this deal somehow.