Ranger

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) That's a pretty big generalization, Ranger. There's a pretty even divide here between the small ball types and the OPB guys. I thought I was pretty clear in what I said. Most of what I get (caller, emails, texts) is that people wanted Thome gone by midseason last year. Actually they wanted him gone midseason the year before. Now it seems to have completely changed. QUOTE (quickman @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 06:58 PM) Ranger, this board has a tendancy to fall in love with players. That said, and I am by no means wanting thome back, Ozzie and KW have put themselves into this corner. They could have just cut bait and moved on. KW did not do a good job with this whole scenerio. They all like thome, he is a nice guy who does everything the whitesox want. Hire him as a bench coach after nobody picks him up. Actually, the Sox are really only in this position because Thome doesn't have a job yet. And because he said publicly that he would welcome a return, which then piqued everyone's interest and it became a topic. And because it became in issue, they've had to address it. I thought it was fairly obvious they decided to part ways with him this winter.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 11:13 PM) I thought we wanted to get past the station to station baseball we've had the "enjoyment" of watching the last few seasons...I like Big Jim as much as the next guy but time to move on. I'm somewhat confused by this, as well. During the season, almost every bit of feedback I'd get on Thome was that fans were sick of his HR-or-nothing game and that they needed to trade/release/bench him. And now that he may not be coming back, people think the Sox need to sign him?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) That is a great point. However, he's going to have to learn to control his temper. I could practically hear him screaming the F-bomb here in Las Vegas after popping out to center. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Ideally, having the four veterans on the bench next to him, might help him get a hold of himself after failure. Ideally, yes. But who knows how far that will go?

QUOTE (YASNY @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) He's also under contract for a limited amount of time with no arbitration years to tie him to the team after the contract is complete. So yeah, there is a rush. No. There isn't. They have him under control for his first 6 ML seasons. If he has enough service time, he'll be arb eligible. If not, they still have him under control like they would any other player. It just so happens that he cost more than most players beginning their careers.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 11:53 AM) If Jones really is going to start for this team he needs to be playing the OF full-time with Q as the DH. We cannot waste Jones defensive advantages just to get Mark Kotsay ab's in the name of "flexibility." I think this is a possibility worth exploring, but not because of wanting to keep Kotsay out of the lineup. If they felt that doing something like this would keep quentin healthier, I'd be all for it. The only concern with having Quentin as a primary DH is that I'm not sure it's the best thing in the world for him to go straight to the bench after an AB. It might do a guy like him some good to get his butt back on the field after a strikeout so he can forget about it. I don't know that they want him stewing on the bench for 3 innings until he comes up to the plate again.

No rush. He's still only 20. It may not seem like it because his name has been around for a couple of years now, but he's a baby. For some perspective, we look at Beckham like he's advanced beyond hs years, but he's 3 years older than Viciedo.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) I've written this before, and I am going to write it again, as I really think it's the best analogy one can make regarding this situation: The White Sox have credit cards and use their income to pay those credit cards off, in full for the most part, from month to month. The White Sox say they have little or no more money, but could make an acquisition (and put that player on their "credit card") if an impact player was out there for the right price and he was the right fit for the Club. What DA is asking them to do is max out their credit cards every month/season. Spend EVERY AVAILABLE dollar. It's just ridiculous. Touch 'em all. You can only max out those cards if you are absolutely positive that money is going to come back to you during the year. Like in '06, they knew they would make that money back because of the World Series excitement. That's as close to a guarantee of revenue as they will ever get. You cannot expect a team to ever take an operating loss just to go balls out in the hopes the money they spend will win them a title. It's simply too big of a gamble and it's a lot of money to be playing around with. It's just not smart.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 19, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) Handing Randy "journeyman" Williams anything makes me uneasy. Many relievers are journeymen.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) LOL. Those "bench players" could end up starting a bunch of games unfortunately. Not enough to matter. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 04:41 PM) I was responding to a post listing the reasons (including a few hyperbolic) why the Twins will struggle in 2010 with an even more negative outlook of the 2010 Sox. I was proving a point. Fair enough. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Beckham (23), Ramirez (28), Teahen (28), Quentin (27), Rios (29) = 5/9 = 56% Konerko (34), Pierzynski (33), Pierre (32), Kotsay/Jones (34/33) = 4/9 = 44% Am I missing something here? Though, questionable math aside, I do agree. Yes, you're missing 3 of the 5 starting pitchers that are under 30 (60%). And that it's actually 5 of 8 everyday players, not 5 of 9, we know of (we still do not know who the DH will be for sure). That's 63%. And even if they do sign an older DH, or keep the Kotsay/Jones duo, it's still going to be 60% of the everyday club that's under 30. If you're going to nitpick to try to make some sort of point, make it count.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 18, 2010 -> 01:26 PM) You missed the point entirely. Care to explain it better then? Because it sure doesn't seem like I missed anything..

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) The Sox's bullpen aside from 1 lefty reliever is a giant clusterf***. Konerko is nothing special at 1B and another year older, which Alexei is the real Alexei at the plate? Can he improve on his fielding at SS? Can Mark Teahen hit or field? Because he hasn't done either in 4 years. Can Quentin stay healthy or even come close to the production we saw in '08? Does Alex Rios really give a s*** about baseball? can he crack a .700 OPS in 2010? They're probably looking at a .325-.330 OBP slap hitter at the top with one of the worst arms in the game, that should be a step back from the production of the '09 leadoff man. Right now the Sox have to be slated for some of the worst production out of the DH spot of any team in the AL, that's not good when the rest of your offense is one big question mark. Can Gordon Beckham avoid a sophomore slump? Will AJ's defense become a liability in 2010? He's been toeing the line the past few years and he's now getting into his mid-30's and has logged nearly 9000 innings back there over the past 8 years. Has the team defense been anymore than marginally improved from 2009? It's all about how you look at things. The bullpen is most certainly not in as bad a shape as you're making it sound. They're actually in pretty good shape, and with their rotation, the pen shouldn't factor in as much as it did last year anyway. Everything else in your post is doomsday stuff. Not worth freaking out over it. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) we need anomalies to win the division, and all of them on the good side. No they don't. They just need guys to perform at their normal abilities. QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) I watched a bit on ESPN BBTN last night and Buster Olney says the AL Central is weak and the Sox have done little or nothing to get better. They are old and added older players to the mix. He thinks Detroit might be the team to beat this season Buster Olney isn't paying attention. Their bench got older, but who cares? It's a bench, and they're all signed on 1-year deals. More than 60% of the everyday players are under 30.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 03:42 PM) I wonder if they would keep it as Jimbo's. They bought Cork & Kerry after it burned down and kept the name. Jimbo's has the name in the Bridgeport area as Cork & Kerry does on the southside. I don't believe they're going to call it Jimbo's.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 07:39 PM) The Orioles offer was more, but I seem to remember when taxes were included the Anaheim offer was identical to the Sox. The Orioles offered around $65 mil, the Angels for about what the Sox offered. Not a huge difference for either.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 03:00 PM) No, because he IS a first baseman. It's a matter of opportunity cost. The question is this: Is Konerko worth $12m when we could sign a better first baseman for less? I don't know, he's a bit overpaid for his production but he's still a very good player, offensively and defensively, and he's a proven veteran. That's how it works when you make a career on one team, the longer you're in, the more you get paid. I don't mind his salary as long as he keeps putting up last year's numbers. That's assuming it is actually possible to acquire a firstbaseman that is better but won't cost as much. The market may be different now in that the money isn't flowing quite as freely as it was a few years ago, but first base is, on average, the highest-paid position in baseball. Everything you consider should be done so in the larger picture. That picture is that the Sox basically had to re-sign him when they did (even though moves shouldn't be made because it's what the fans want, you all know fans would have been livid had they not brought him back at the time), and there weren't better, cheaper free-agent available options at the time. What they didn't know is that he would struggle in year 2 and 3 of that contract. They were, as they should, expecting some regression by the final season or two. But, sometimes that's the rub with a multi-year deal. Teams have to expect some regression for players in their early 30s. Within the context of Konerko having been signed to a slightly-less-than-market-value multi-year extension (in the 2006 offseason), how could they have realistically signed a better, cheaper first baseman for this year?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Some see the glass half empty and some half full. Might as well enjoy your favorite team and not lose sleep over it. You'll live longer . Being overly critical is no way to go through life as you'll have few friends and make those around you miserable. Amen. Everything isn't as terrible, or as great, as it seems to some people. The problem I have is when people automatically assume the worst case scenario will happen for every player. QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jan 3, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) In general I agree with this.....but when tons and tons of fans fail to keep a critical eye, you start getting what has happened to the Cubs. The diehards are still there but there's this mass culture of people who just like their lovable cubbies coming back year in year out. They kept Grace and Dunston way past their viability just b/c they were popular. What the fans support does have an impact on what the team does. Though I think Sox fans in general are smarter than that. And it's not like elrockinMT is supporting a totally finished guy in Konerko. PK is average at his position right now, no more no less. I'm not sure how you can say the Cubs held on to grace for too long because his final yuear with them wasn't all that bad when you consider his entire game including defense. At any rate, that was 10 years ago and Dunston was like 15 years ago. That has nothing to do with the recent...new GM, new front office, new coaching staff. I kind of think this idea that fans blindly follow the Cubs is one of the biggest myths in the city. The notion that their fans are somehow more likely than any other team's fans to stand behind them when they're bad is just entirely inaccurate. You can't confuse attendance with blind loyalty. Their true fans and die-hards (and yes, the Cubs do have some true fans) are no different than Sox fans. Angry, annoyed, and critical. ANd many of them will go to games because they're fans, just like Sox fans do. The one difference is that Wrigley has been selling out, but that has as much to do with the ballpark and the surrounding neighborhood as anything else. Some of it also has to do with expectations, which you have to admit over the last several years have been pretty high for them. There were a few years in this past decade where there was legitimate reason to believe they would actually win the World Series. They've had some pretty good teams lately. Yes, the losing was cute for them at one point, but that attendance wasn't always there. The 70's were a terrible decade for them attendance-wise, and up until the late 90's, they were averaging less than 28,000 per game. If the Cubs are truly terrible, people will not show up. They may have bought tickets early in the year for late season games, but when they're out of the race you will notice a drastic decrease of people actually using those tickets. The "mass culture" of Cubs fans you're talking about is casual fans, and that's how casual fans consume baseball. They like it when they win, but they don't get fired up when they lose. It just so happens the Cubs have more casual fans than the Sox do. I wish the Sox had as many casual fans as they do because that would mean better attendance and higher payroll.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 29, 2009 -> 08:48 PM) The funny thing is that the Twins can't have complementary players like Getz if they won't keep Mauer/Morneau/Cuddyer in the middle of that line-up. Because Getz is a lot like a Brendan Harris, Tolbert, Punto type that doesn't really have any "plus" tools. That's why they have been trying to upgrade their offensive output there, as well as hoping for bigger numbers from D. Young and continued excellent all-around play by Span. It will be very interesting to see if they pull the trigger on Mr. Beltre. If they make that move, they have to be the favorites heading into the pre-season, although nobody knows how they'll play in their new stadium, their pitching has a lot more room for improvement coming off 2009. Whereas, the White Sox have to get lights out performances from the Big 4 starters if we go into 2010 with THIS as our offense going forward. That is exactly what Getz is. He's a nice complementary player. You can't have too many of him on one team but if you have Morneau and Mauer, Nick Punto/Chris Getz/Brendan Harris is nice to have.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 29, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Thanks...Chris (I guess Mr. seems to make everyone feel older, haha...maybe if you work in St. Louis someday, they'll call you that too, because everyone is so polite there) When I said Getz was a gym rat, I was thinking of it more in terms of a player who perhaps "overachieves" or who maybe doesn't light up the scouting scales with numbers off the chart in any of the five areas, but he's just a guy that "gets it done" and usually does the little things to help the team win. Sometimes the words like "heady" and "grinder" get overused as well, especially when used to refer to white players (in the NBA or college basketball)...obviously Beckham and Getz are both talented (hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in any major sport, arguably...look at all the trouble Michael Jordan had in Birmingham), but they certainly weren't considered as talented coming out of high school as uber-athetes like Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Jeremy Hermida or JD Drew. Getz was kind of lighning rod last year around here, and so was Nix. Both had their defenders and opponents. Getz was streaky, had some injury problems that caused a few to be concerned about his durability, played average or below average defense, but he came up through our system (a rarity that a position prospect makes an impact, since Rowand/Crede), had proven himself at every level of the minors, had the POTENTIAL to be a high OBP guy from the bottom of the order or possibly a #2 hitter, very good stolen base percentage, etc. Without stating the specifics, perhaps there were some concerns on the part of KW and Ozzie about him as a starter...obviously that must have been the case, because they certainly have to believe they'll now receive "plus" offensive numbers from that position with Beckham there, and at least above-average defense, considering Beckham is a converted SS. With Getz, there was always a question if he could put up a league-average OPS for a 2B or have a high enough OBP (.340?) to make up for his lack of power. He also seemed to have a hard time adjusting to getting busted in on the hands constantly by opposing pitchers. Yeah, even the borderline rednecks/hillbillies are pretty polite down there. I can say that, ya know, because I was born and raised in one of the redneckiest towns in the midwest. I even have some in my family. And by "some" I mean "plenty". I think Getz will turn out to be a "just fine" player. Not bad, but nothing special. He would probably fit right in with the type of team the Twins put together for so many years. The issue with him is that he hasn't quite learned to handle himself in the best way at this level. Not that he is a problem in the lockerroom, because he is not. It seems he also rubbed some of the guys the wrong way because he wouldn't play through some aches and pains that other guys play through. Probably for fear of making an injury worse, though often times they were ailments that just about every player deals with throughout the year. It's certainly something that he can correct very easily. He'll be fine.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 28, 2009 -> 01:39 AM) Mr. Rongey, Can you give us a little more "behind-the-scenes" on Mike Gellinger and his role with the club. If there's anyone who seems like they would be into this "stats world" in the White Sox organization, it might be him. On the other hand, if you look at players like Iguchi (video-scouted but never actually seen in-person by KW), Ramirez, Viciedo, etc., it still seems the White Sox are more traditionalist in their approach to scouting. I would call them Moneyballers in quite a different regard, they find undervalued players with potential/ability and/or injury concerns (Jenks, Thornton, Dye, Rios, Quentin, Ramirez, etc.) and maximize their talent/performance output. This "buy cheap" philosophy goes back to the 80's and 90's when seemingly every year we found corner outfielders (like Ellis Burks, Mike Devereaux, Dave Martinez, Cory Snyder, Ivan Bubbling Calderon, Lyle Mouton, Shawn Lil Abner, etc.) in the same way. I think Beckham and Chris Getz would be the two players who would be "gym-rats" if they were basketball players...contrasting with some of the higher round draft choices the White Sox made over the last decade, where they alternated between "projectable" athletes and "MLB-ready" pitchers like Ginter, Wright, Royce Ring, Broadway, McCulloch, etc. Whatever has been said about Beckham's physical limitations (speed/range/throwing arm), the guy is just a baseball player, hopefully with a career-track similar to another one we grew up with in Robin Ventura. On a scale or spectrum of 1-100 (with 90-100 being teams like the Red Sox and A's that use a blurrying amount of statistics to analyze players), how much do KW/Hahn rely on this for their analysis of both players for the draft and potential trade/FA acquisitions? If you look at this offseason, you have the typical KW "special" in Putz and then it seems you have Vizquel, Jones, Kotsay and Pierre who feel more like "Ozzie picks" than KW ones. Well, I'll amend that, Jones and Kotsay feel like players that KW and Ozzie both wanted over time, whereas Vizquel and Pierre will be more like "Joey Coras" both on and off the field for the organization, serving as teachers/mentors/role models for everyone about how to approach the game. What's with all this "Mr. Rongey" stuff? Gellinger's job really isn't so much to help them decide what players to acquire as much as it is to help in the advance scouting and self-evaluation area. Players can quickly get video of their ABs or pitching performances from that department and Gellinger is in the statistical analysis of that. It's more about figuring out what they're doing wrong, and what they need to do within the game. The organization as a whole does use non-traditional numbers and one of the biggest proponents of that is Rick Hahn. They know the numbers and they're considered when they make evaluations. You're right, though, they have had a history of finding the undervalued player or under performing player they believe still has something in the tank or has maybe not been tapped yet. I think they do it the way it should be done in that they use a combination of traditional scouting and statistical analysis. The problem is that neither (stats or observation) is perfect, so they need to use both to make a decision. They can't just use one or the other. Sure, sometimes they'll go on hunches and there is nothing wrong with that considering they really aren't in position to be in on every top free agent every year. They just don't have the financial resources for it, so they have to find the "diamonds" to round out a roster. Beckham works hard and he is open to listening to his teammates. He fits in nicely. I wouldn't say that Getz is a gym rat...I don't think he's lazy, but he isn't a gym rat.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Dec 27, 2009 -> 06:01 PM) I'm not gonna reiterate what ozzie ball said considering he hit the nail on the head... in every post thus far. I was also insulted by... Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? as it was directed at myself. Come on, that is baby stuff, absolute basics, and if you don't know the methodology behind any stat, i feel there is no reason to even bring it up. You are more from the old school training of thought, not entirely, but more so than some others. You seem to be willing at times to be opened up to some of the slightly advanced metrics, but then discount them because they have flaws. Basically every stat has a flaw(s) in some shape or form, but we have to do our best to work around them (while trying to find ways to eliminate the flaws) and get the most information out of them. I acknowledge what is wrong with uzr, much more past what has been mentioned in this very thread, but i'm not gonna cite it's flaws in a precursor form every time uzr is mentioned. I don't owe anyone that much, nor does anyone else. By your logic since upwards of 80% of the unearned runs came from infield they hurt us more than the outfield. As previously stated by bmags are more common in the infield than the outfield, vastly more common, for a number of reasons. You state that the infield defense killed the sox, but the degree that the outfield defense hurt us was not significant which is highly debatable, to say the least. Say what you want about uzr, but a -25.6 outfield defense in comparison to -10 infield defense is too large to of a difference to throw out the window. The outfield defense would have therefore cost us two and a half wins.. while on the other hand the infield defense cost us just one. It's fine to have a right to your own opinion, but the numbers (debatable or not, they are the best we as a community have to work with) do not favor your argument, in any shape or form. Well i just read your last post in this thread, and i see that you don't think uzr can measure the amount of runs saved or lost close to the neighborhood it suggests, so it's sort of a lost cause. Anyway, when sportsvision and STATS bring those systems public, i'll be the first one to jump on board. But until then, it's uzr, +/- (not a huge fan) zone rating, range factor, arm ratings, etc. Everyone of these bring something to the table, that the others cannot by themselves. Defensive metrics are best used when these stats are used together, and not standing alone, the best analytical studies are done in such a fashion. Defense is the hardest thing to gauge in every sport, always has, and always will, so there will always be big time debate about the subject. Ops does indeed stand alone, if just for two reasons, the simplicity of it, and how well it correlates to runs scored. Though ops still has a number of flaws of it's own, that cannot be disputed. First, let me say that it was not my intent to insult you. If you were, I apologize. Second, no I have a hard time being convinced by UZR. Though I think it, along with OOZ (which doesn't really seem to be discussed all that much around here), are valuable and shouldn't be pushed aside, I also don't think they can be entirely accurate. Maybe sometimes they are, but I think there are too many variables (as I said earlier, positioning, accurate ball speed for example) which make it hard to put a number on it. I know UZR might be the best we have to work with at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily make it great. That's why I would never look at a player's UZR and use that as the evidence that a player is either good or bad in the field. It should be a point of reference, really. And I agree with you, I'll be all over these optical computer programs when they are perfected. I'm excited for them, and I think they'll change everything. They'll also be able to give us a true idea as to how reliable UZR really is.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 27, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) It depends on your definition of "killing". The Sox had one of the worst outfield defenses in baseball last year. Pods, Quentin, and Dye were all negatives in UZR, with Dye being a -20. When you're a -20, there's no need to explain why Dye was an absolutely horrendous outfielder. Pods, as bad as he looked, isn't as bad as some people here think he is. Some here probably think he's worse than Dye, which is obviously not the case. Pods isn't good, but he's not horrendous either. Quentin was a below average outfielder due to his foot problems last year, I think we can cut him a little slack. Wise, given his small amount of playing time, was probably our best defensive outfielder last year. He was even better than Anderson. Rios was slightly above average in CF (although UZR did not say this). Kotsay didn't play much, but when he did, he was mediocre. So basically, you have three guys who were negative in value, one mediocre in a small sample size, and three above average in a combined medium sample size. The overall UZR of these White Sox outfielders last year was -29.4. I don't care how flawed UZR might be, but if your outfielders supposedly cost your pitchers 29.4 runs last year, that's killing the team. When your outfield defense costs you 3 win shares (it would have been about 4.5 if Wise wasn't here), you need to correct that. Now, with the current defensive outfield alignment, we can expect something a whole lot better. Rios can be at least an average center fielder, if not an above average one. Pierre is an above average left fielder. Quentin, if healthy, can be a slightly below average right fielder. All three combined can possibly post a UZR around 0-5 together. That's a huge improvement from last year. You also have Jones and Kotsay on the bench who can play the outfield. Those two together should yield a 0 UZR if not a slightly negative one. So basically, you've improved your outfield defense by 3-4 wins. That in itself could be the difference between a great team and a good one. I disagree. The Sox allowed 732 runs last year, second fewest in the American League. That 29.4 runs is only 4% of all the runs they allowed last year. I don't believe that's significant. Furthermore, you're assuming the Sox outfield did, in fact, cost them 29.4 runs last year. Do we know that for sure? Since at this point in time defense is incredibly difficult to quantify, I can't be confident that the number is correct anyway. Maybe it was less (maybe it was even more than that in reality), I just don't think it can be measured. I understand the value of the statistic, I just can't accept it to be as undebatable as OPS, BA, OBP or any other offensive stat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) Lots of things could be said hurt the Sox, I'm not sure I can label 1 and say "this killed them", perhaps aside from Quentin's injury. Jenks has a better season, are they a playoff team, probably not. Dye doesn't stink in the 2nd half, are they a playoff team, probably not. The Sox have a better defense, are they a playoff team, probably not. 2 or 3 of those start happening...are they a playoff team, probably. QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Dec 27, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) We had high hopes for Rios when he came to get us some hitting and it didn't happen, he can't totally wear the collar for last year. Absolutely. Of the multitude of issues they had last year, outfield defense is pretty low on the list in regard to things that hurt them the most. Fewest hits in the league, Fewest extra base hits, one of the worst in OPS and runs scored, unearned runs, errors (in particular on the left side of the infield), 4th and 5th starters...those are the biggest reasons things went the way they did.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 27, 2009 -> 10:19 AM) And again, unearned runs are more common in the infield than outfield. You have to be straight up Soriano awful to accumulate errors in the outfield. Did we have a lot of mistakes with the Fields-Ramirez-Getz lineup, yes, that led to a lot of noticeable runs given up that shouldn't have. BUt our outfield doesnt get errors for not being able to make a play they should. Dye can run about 5 ft. in front of him before a ducksnort lands. Pods runs like a deer in the headlights, and Quentins foot prevented him from getting to balls as well. So, I'd say OF defense was definitely a problem. Just because they don't get unearned runs attributed to them often doesnt mean they were good or even average. I didn't say they were good, I just said I don't think it killed them last year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) Does UZR ever take into account the first baseman saving the other infielder's ass on a play? Ramirez had a UZR of 2.4 I believe last year. If Frank Thomas was the White Sox first baseman, he easily would have had at least 15 more errors maybe 20 or 25 if he made the same throws. Would his UZR still be 2.4? I'm not being a smart ass, I don't know the answer. I would imagine a first baseman that is good defensively would probably increase every other infielder's UZR. It is not factored in, and if you look at the methodology it really can't be. You're right, Ramirez had a short-hopping issue in the first few months of the season. He has a strong enough arm to make the throws, but he wasn't getting them there. QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) Vazquez wasn't a great fit here. A flyball pitcher with a small home ballpark and some bad outfield defenses. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. He was also somewhat unlucky during his down years of '06 and '08 when he posted two of the three highest BABIP's of his career at .321 and .328 respectively (his career mark is .309). He also had the two lowest strand rates of his career since 1999 at 65.8% and 68.3% compared to his average during that time frame of about 72/73%. Vazquez is a strange pitcher though. Advanced statistics would tell you that he's a 3.60 ERA pitcher on talent, yet here he is after 2500 career IP with an ERA of 4.19. Is it really possible for a pitcher to be that unlucky for that amount of time? I guess there are always going to be outliers. As for Swisher he just had a down year. It happens. Luck wasn't on his side with a .251 BABIP compared to his career .278 BABIP and an expected BABIP (based on his speed, power, contact and batted ball data) in '07 of .299. But luck aside his BB%, K% and power were all below his career averages. I have no doubts that Swisher would have returned to his career averages (or thereabouts) if he had stayed with the team for '09 and his performance with the Yankees shows that he wasn't a player on the decline. I have the same expectations of Alex Rios next year (returning to his career norms, that is). It may have turned out that neither of them were great team fits here, though Swisher was supposed to be. Vazquez just didn't even seem to fit in this city with the way he carried himself compared to what fans expect of him. He's incredibly talented, though, and they missed him in the rotation last year.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 02:38 AM) I think the bold part above is exactly what SoxAce was getting at with the "I'm always right" thing a few posts back. Now, even though he and I pretty much agree with you, I don't know that the stat people around here would exactly put together worse teams. Just because people are paid to do something does not mean they do it well. There are plenty of coaches and GM's out there are quite frankly terrible. Does it mean that because they are paid their opinions are worth more than a well-informed fan? I don't think so. I'm not saying that specifically Kenny is a bad GM because I think he's one of the best in the business, but just because he is the one paid to make the decisions does not mean that his decisions are necessarily the best ones. Also, regardless of UZR etc. it is pretty obvious to the eye that Dye and Podsednik aren't very good in the field. Quentin with his injured foot looked pretty terrible out there as well. Was it the biggest problem with the team? That's debatable, but it was definitely up there. Yes, some GM's are not very good, but they aren't very good when compared to other GM's. It's almost always the case that a "bad" GM is just not very good when having to operate within the framework of MLB economics and the free market. I would figure that even the worst GM in the Majors understands the market better than any of us do. Hell, most people should be able to put a pretty good team together without having to deal with the contraints of payroll or having the human element of dealing with other GM's with their own payroll issues and their own pressures. Sure, I believe some guys that get those jobs are in over their heads, but there is almost always a reason they are where they are. QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 02:41 AM) Exact batted ball speeds are not calculated, true, nor are they attempted to be calculated, again true, but the issue of batted ball speed is not entirely ignored. There are stringers at every game who break down the speed of every batted ball into one of three categories (hard, medium, and soft), this then gives us lots of useful and relevant information that is factored into UZR calculations. I realize that these classifications are not as accurate as exact batted ball speeds, and nor are they trying to be, but they give us a rough idea of batted ball speeds. Getting back to the classifications we know things such as the average ground ball out percentage for balls hit into zone 3 (the area directly behind the first base bag) for "hard" hit balls was 0.639, for "medium" hit balls was 0.883 and for "soft" hit balls was 0.953 (all as of 2003). These figures are then combined with batter handedness to give us a more accurate evaluation of defensive value. Defensive positioning would be a problem if, and only if, UZR was attempting asses defensive ability. It's not. UZR attempts to asses defensive value as compared to league average over a one year period. The best way to asses ability is to use multiple years of UZR data weighted towards the most recent year. Of course multi year data still doesn't take positioning into account, but at some point you just have to hope that the managers/players are smart enough to position themselves so they can reach as many balls that they are expected to reach as possible. For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything. So how do you propose we evaluate defense then? UZR is flawed and can only be given some consideration. You scoff at "people watching on monitors", so I guess opinions formed by watching games on T.V. are out of the equation. So what's left? We need to quantify defense somehow and holding our balls until GAMEf/x arrives is hardly a pro active solution. Basically, you're agreeing that UZR is flawed and that Sportsvision's program should give us some real accuracy. You're admitting that UZR doesn't give us the full story, which is exactly what I'm saying. I didn't say, and I'm not saying, that it should be ignored. It should be considered, it shouldn't be everything. It's helpful, but there isn't yet a defensive statistic that can stand alone (like we have with offense and OPS). Sportsvision and STATS will have systems that can accurately measure ball speed so we don't have to rely on UZR which has an element of subjectivity. The problem with having an individual declare a soft, medium, or hard-hit ball is that the subjectivity of that decision ultimately influences the final number. Therefore, it can be a disputable QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 03:08 AM) But at the same time just because someone is paid to put a team together doesn't mean that his opinion is superior to the opinion of the well informed fan. As has been previously mentioned, there are many terrible GM's. Is it just a coincidence that teams are leaning towards sabermetrics more and more? I don't think so. People are starting to look at the Oakland A's and Billy Beane as an example of why sabermetrics don't work, but these people are failing to see the whole picture. The A's were able to put great teams together on a small budget because their methods of evaluation were different to everyone else, they were able to sign the underrated, unappreciated player on the cheap who in turn gave them great value. Now, however, these players are no longer underrated (or at least not to the previous extent), now you have Boston and New York swooping in and snapping these players up. That is why the A's haven't been as competitive of late, it's not because sabermetrics don't work, but rather, because the rest of the field has caught up. Of course, there's a good reason to use SABR, but there is also a very good reason that they still rely heavily on scouting and obeservation, too. Teams don't dismiss a player simply because they don't like his UZR. We can't quantify everything. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 08:19 AM) I don't know if it's possible to really quantify what did the most damage....certainly, if you deconstructed all the earned runs, you'd find 75-80% of them were caused by the infield errors, both physical and mental ones that didn't show up in the box scores, or double plays that often weren't completed as well. We could probably point out at least 10 significant areas of weakness in last year's team, and you could have legit arguments about which areas were most debilitating overall. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of our better defensive years ever (2005) was the year we won it all...and it's not a coincidence that the Twins teams that have been the most dangerous this decade were the ones that played superior defense as well (actually, it's interesting they traded Gomez because he was certainly their best overall defender, but they must have reached the conclusion he wasn't as valuable on grass going forward as on that carpet). Dye has always been a myth defensively, he has horrible set-up mechanics on throws (usually throwing flat-footed or from his heels going backwards instead of charging into the ball like you're taught from Little League on) and very rarely threw out anyone while with the White Sox. His height allowed him to snag some balls that would have gone over the fence, but he was barely adequate out there the last 2-3 seasons. He probably had the worst range of any RF in the majors as well, I'm hard-pressed to think of someone any more limited in this area. How many balls have we seen drop down the line or over 1B or into foul territory that would have been caught by a "normal" MLB RFer? That said, there's no argument he earned his money until the final two months of 2009 and that he was perhaps the best "value" sign ever by KW (after the frigid start in 2005). Pods was better than in the past, Quentin was obviously much more limited physically...overall, it was close to a disaster everywhere on the field except for 1B. Even the highly-touted Nix was never GREAT at 2B, and he was barely adequate at SS and 3B. Except for Teahen, at least going into this year they have the potential to be league-average or better at every position except for 3B and C, and AJ brings so much to the table, it's not reflected in CS/SBA numbers, not to mention our history of pitchers like Contreras, Floyd, Jenks and Garcia that let opposing baserunners run at will on them. First, I think Teahen absolutely has the ability to play average defense at 3B. That's not out of the question. Also, it's a mistake to define an outfielder's ability based on assists because, as you know, some of the best arms in the outfield sometiems don't throw many runners out. Because of reputation, guys eventually stop trying to run on them. I agree with you, though, that the infield was responsible for up to 80% of the unearned runs, which is what I've been saying. The infield killed them last year. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) I think Q was being just a bit sarcastic. He was definitely trying to be a smartass instead of actually contributing to the discussion.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 01:32 AM) The constant contradictions here is cute, but basically what I was saying was in regards to this. This team had a ton of problems not just in one area, but to completely eliminate the OF defense as even people's eyes watching the games all year is completely foolish. That was one of the many problems that team last season had. That is what some posters here wanted to mere merit and they have excellent points and pretty much what KW and company certainally addressed from the additions. I agree 100% with this BTW. There are some things here people can see with eyes instead of the stats. But what I saw added more of with what the sox did was in the OF FYI. Hope you had a good X-Mas Chris. Speaking of always having a point... What contradictions? I seriously don't believe I've contradicted myself. But, yes, I had a nice Christmas, hope you did too. Just getting some late-night prep for Sox Weekly tomorrow (well, technically today). Good night, friends.