Sox to Make Hard Push for Granderson

[southsider2k5]

Well, everything's flawed. Physics is currently VERY flawed with all we're discovering about quantum behavior, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get out of the way when big, heavy things are moving toward you. As humans, it behooves us to act upon the best information we have at the time, while always searching for better information.

 

Look, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong in your suspicions, I'm just saying that until you can find some evidence for your suspicions, it's a lot less likely you're right than what the current evidence is showing us. To say that his 5ish extra baserunning errors were enough to outweigh an entire season of high stolen base efficiency and taking extra bases on singles. changing it from a vaguely positive season to among the worst in history is a BOLD claim, and if you want people to take that claim seriously, you should provide some substantial evidence to support it.

 

 

71.4% is high efficiency? Now you are just reaching for stuff.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not really sure you'd get an argument from anyone here if you went with Garcia.

 

That doesn't really follow though that because Garcia may be a better baserunner than De Aza, that therefore De Aza should be jettisoned this offseason.

 

The argument I have seen is that De Aza is SO BAD on the bases, that he should be discarded. It seems like that would be done just out of personal frustration moreso than anything else.

 

This is like when Contreras used to annoy the s*** out of Hawk with his walks. He'd throw like 120 pitches in 6 1/3 innings with 5 walks. Hawk would be so frustrated. But then you look at the scoreboard and he's given up 1 ER and 2 hits to go with those 5 walks. So what, we're going to just dump him because he's a pain in the ass to watch?

 

Again, I have never said that. If you can replace him, great. But it is no where near my top priority.

[iamshack]

Arguing specific flaws or shortcomings of specific statistical tests is fun, but the dismissal of others is just annoying.

 

SS2K5, the idea that stats need to be tweaked doesn't mean they aren't good measures. It means they are improving measures, with flaws - like every statistic in any sport. That doesn't make them worthless. And yes, one can be a bad baserunner (which DeAza was this year at least), but have enough speed to make an overall positive impact on the bases.

 

But on the flip side, people got hugely frustrated with DeAza, and the mistakes are more amplified than the successes. Furthermore, the value within any equation of a given event is not not an exact science. So there is no need to dismiss people's frustrations at them. It also can be an indicator of future problems, because as DeAza ages, he can lean on that speed less, and has to have better instincts.

 

Why is that differentiation so hard for people? Why does this stat have to be useless or perfect?

Agreed. And let's keep in mind here...the reason the folks who have worked on the advanced stats have been doing so is because those that we had for so long left so much to be desired. They sought to create better, more representative statistics and data, because they viewed the old ones as rudimentary. It follows that those same folks would continue to try and tweak the data year after year in an effort to improve it, because that has been their goal all along - better statistics and data. To suggest that because they continue to try and fine-tune things more, the data they have developed should be disregarded, is just foolish.

Edited October 15, 2013 by iamshack

[witesoxfan]

I don't know anything about most of that list.

 

All it is saying is that these guys were valuable on the base paths. If you look at the bottom 20 on that list, you see a who's who of old dudes, fat dudes, and old, fat dudes. The two names that stick out to me are Yasiel Puig (-4.2) and Norichika Aoki (-3.9). Puig was 11 of 19 on steals and his baserunning blunders are well documented. Aoki was 20 of 32 in steals.

 

I think the underrated part of those is taking an extra base. De Aza may not have good instincts when the pitcher has the ball in his hand, but he tends to read the ball well off the bat and takes the extra base.

[TaylorStSox]

I was sighing at your bulls*** "SOME OF US STILL LIKE TO WATCH GAMES" line.

Was I talking to you? J4L doesn't watch the games.

[Eminor3rd]

71.4% is high efficiency? Now you are just reaching for stuff.

 

No, no I'm not. That's a widely known standard for the breaking point between providing net positive value with baserunning and net negative. That's one of those pop stats that was even featured in Moneyball.

[Eminor3rd]

Was I talking to you? J4L doesn't watch the games.

 

I took that as the cliche "SABR nerds would rather play the game on paper than watch games." I was probably being over-sensitive. I'm sorry.

[witesoxfan]

How did De Aza rank in 2012? He didn't seem nearly as dumb on the bases and in the field.

 

Worse, but some of that has to do with being caught stealing. This past year, he was 20 of 28 for a 71.4% clip, while last year he was 26 of 38 for a 68.4%.

[witesoxfan]

No, no I'm not. That's a widely known standard for the breaking point between providing net positive value with baserunning and net negative. That's one of those pop stats that was even featured in Moneyball.

 

The rule of thumb with this is 75%, but I would guess that this percentage has gone down in recent years. It's harder for a runner on 1B to score than it was 10 years ago and I would guess that that percentage has gone down at a greater clip than scoring a run with a runner on 2B (because while it's harder to get just 1 hit, it's even harder to actually string together 2 hits). I'm guessing De Aza was basically a break even, if not slightly productive, base stealer this year.

[Eminor3rd]

The rule of thumb with this is 75%, but I would guess that this percentage has gone down in recent years. It's harder for a runner on 1B to score than it was 10 years ago and I would guess that that percentage has gone down at a greater clip than scoring a run with a runner on 2B (because while it's harder to get just 1 hit, it's even harder to actually string together 2 hits). I'm guessing De Aza was basically a break even, if not slightly productive, base stealer this year.

 

Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-changin...ing-calculus-2/

 

This cites the 2012 league-wide figure at 66%. This article also agrees with your explanation of the number dropping as run environment decreases.

 

 

[iamshack]

The rule of thumb with this is 75%, but I would guess that this percentage has gone down in recent years. It's harder for a runner on 1B to score than it was 10 years ago and I would guess that that percentage has gone down at a greater clip than scoring a run with a runner on 2B (because while it's harder to get just 1 hit, it's even harder to actually string together 2 hits). I'm guessing De Aza was basically a break even, if not slightly productive, base stealer this year.

Yeah, with less home runs and extra base hits, the value of a successful stolen base should increase, thus decreasing the threshold at which one is successful would be considered a net positive.

[witesoxfan]

Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-changin...ing-calculus-2/

 

This cites the 2012 league-wide figure at 66%. This article also agrees with your explanation of the number dropping as run environment decreases.

 

You're awesome

 

I remember reading an article in the BP book from about 8 years ago that cited that and talked about run expectancy from 1B and I recognized right away that the number was likely to fluctuate. It does actually make sense to invest in base stealers right now because the marginal value of a single run has increased. If you can steal 150 bases as a team at a 70% clip, you are talking about adding between 25-30 runs, which could add 2-4 win to your total.

[caulfield12]

All it is saying is that these guys were valuable on the base paths. If you look at the bottom 20 on that list, you see a who's who of old dudes, fat dudes, and old, fat dudes. The two names that stick out to me are Yasiel Puig (-4.2) and Norichika Aoki (-3.9). Puig was 11 of 19 on steals and his baserunning blunders are well documented. Aoki was 20 of 32 in steals.

 

I think the underrated part of those is taking an extra base. De Aza may not have good instincts when the pitcher has the ball in his hand, but he tends to read the ball well off the bat and takes the extra base.

 

 

Therein lies the rub.

 

The Dodgers also know how many times he's taken an extra base...pushed a single to a double, a double to a triple....1B to home on a double, etc.

 

They don't want to take away his natural exuberance.

 

At his age, can he be taught to curb or reign in his instincts and still be the same dynamic player?

 

That's the question with basestealers AND/OR players who often push for extra bases. If they start becoming hesitant to make mistakes, then they lose a lot of their value. (And their mistakes can often ruin rallies and bring life/momentum to the other team).

 

For example, Pods in his second time around wasn't nearly the basestealer, and he made up for it with clutch hitting, but he still wasn't the same type of disruptive force on the game (and yes, that's impossible to measure or quantify, just like you can't do that with the PNC crowd and Cueto).

 

Can DeAza be much better on the basepaths? Or will his losing a step or two cause him to make even more mistakes?

 

Alex Rios, for example, had a boatload of stolen bases this year without being an incredibly fast or explosive runner...can DeAza "learn" instincts like those?

 

Most would probably argue no...that when guys like Pods, Pierre or Figgins get older, they just go downhill quickly.

Edited October 15, 2013 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

You're awesome

 

I remember reading an article in the BP book from about 8 years ago that cited that and talked about run expectancy from 1B and I recognized right away that the number was likely to fluctuate. It does actually make sense to invest in base stealers right now because the marginal value of a single run has increased. If you can steal 150 bases as a team at a 70% clip, you are talking about adding between 25-30 runs, which could add 2-4 win to your total.

 

That is a hell of an article. Bradley Woodrum has done some good work lately. Looking at it by team is really cool.

[caulfield12]

Yeah, with less home runs and extra base hits, the value of a successful stolen base should increase, thus decreasing the threshold at which one is successful would be considered a net positive.

 

 

Bring back Astroturf and the 80's versions of the Cardinals and Royals.

 

The players' union would hate it, but we might not be far away in the post-steroids era from a team building another version of the Metrodome/Skydome/Kingdome and trying to orient their entire style of play around speed, pitching and defense.

 

The Mariners SORT of tried it at Safeco, but it doesn't work unless you have a little power.

 

Remembering that Cardinals' team, they had McGee, Pendleton, Ozzie Smith and Vince Coleman that would run at all times. Herr could take some bags....David Green, Lonnie Smith, etc.

 

It's the opposite of teams like the 2000 White Sox have 20+ homer guys at every position.

 

And the White Sox are going to have to adapt...

Edited October 15, 2013 by caulfield12

[SCCWS]

Bring back Astroturf and the 80's versions of the Cardinals and Royals.

 

The players' union would hate it, but we might not be far away in the post-steroids era from a team building another version of the Metrodome/Skydome/Kingdome and trying to orient their entire style of play around speed, pitching and defense.

 

The Mariners SORT of tried it at Safeco, but it doesn't work unless you have a little power.

 

Remembering that Cardinals' team, they had McGee, Pendleton, Ozzie Smith and Vince Coleman that would run at all times. Herr could take some bags....David Green, Lonnie Smith, etc.

 

It's the opposite of teams like the 2000 White Sox have 20+ homer guys at every position.

 

And the White Sox are going to have to adapt...

 

 

The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis.

[Eminor3rd]

The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis.

 

Yeah, runs are runs. But that Tigers have a bunch of hitters with skills that it's difficult to acquire without paying a premium. If we know we can't afford to do what they're doing, we gotta find a cheaper way. And high efficiency aggression on the basepaths might be the most cost-effective way to do it.

 

The problem is that part of high-efficiency baserunning is the ability to get on base at a high clip. And OBP is definitely at a premium in today's run environment.

[Dick Allen]

The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis.

Pitching and power still and always will, win.

[caulfield12]

The Tigers have less speed than any team in baseball and they are successful. Next slowest team after the Tigers---St Louis.

 

PITCHING, and Miguel Cabrera/Fielder/V. Martinez.

 

With the Cardinals, of course they've gotten surprising results from Carpenter, Molina (compared to expectations), Freese (less this season), Craig, Adams, Jay...and then the veteran leadership with Beltran and Holliday.

 

But that pitching....

 

Earlier in the season, you would have said Shelby Miller was one of the best in the NL, right?

 

Combined with Wainright, Joe Kelly, Wacha, Shelby Miller, Lance Lynn.....Jaime Garcia, Carpenter, Jake Westbrook, Carlos Martinez, Lyons, Gast, it's incredible.

 

That's 10 deep. Almost all of them under 25, except for Wainright, Carpenter and Westbrook.

Edited October 15, 2013 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I have a question for Dick Allen.

 

What would you do if you were Robin Ventura, starting today, to turn around next year's White Sox team....even before Spring Training?

 

And how would you conduct your Spring Training differently? Do you think you would do everything exactly the same? Do you think spring training has ANY bearing on regular season performance?

 

If not, what corrections are realistic in the middle of the season, if any?

[Dick Allen]

I have a question for Dick Allen.

 

What would you do if you were Robin Ventura, starting today, to turn around next year's White Sox team....even before Spring Training?

 

And how would you conduct your Spring Training differently? Do you think you would do everything exactly the same? Do you think spring training has ANY bearing on regular season performance?

 

If not, what corrections are realistic in the middle of the season, if any?

All you can do is work on the same things. There will be a new hitting coach, so I'm sure there will be something a bit different. What did Mattingly do differently that transformed the Dodgers from a last place team, and about to lose his job,to a team that may win the WS, and a probable extension almost overnight?

 

I really think blaming the 2013 season on spring training is wrong and old. It's already been stated by people who were actually there (Hawk, Stone, Hahn, Robin) that the White Sox actually worked more on fundamentals this past spring than they did in 2012. If it was the country club some here say it was and the Sox lost 99 games, there would be a new manager. Gene Lamont, who won 2 division titles in a row, was fired by the Sox about 30 games into the 1995 season and replaced by Terry Bevington. The reason.......spring training was a country club and they weren't ready to play. JR said as much. Besides, you don't boot grounders in August because they didn't hit you enough fungos in March. This team was bad, but will be better when they get better players.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

All you can do is work on the same things. There will be a new hitting coach, so I'm sure there will be something a bit different. What did Mattingly do differently that transformed the Dodgers from a last place team, and about to lose his job,to a team that may win the WS, and a probable extension almost overnight?

 

I really think blaming the 2013 season on spring training is wrong and old. It's already been stated by people who were actually there (Hawk, Stone, Hahn, Robin) that the White Sox actually worked more on fundamentals this past spring than they did in 2012. If it was the country club some here say it was and the Sox lost 99 games, there would be a new manager. Gene Lamont, who won 2 division titles in a row, was fired by the Sox about 30 games into the 1995 season and replaced by Terry Bevington. The reason.......spring training was a country club and they weren't ready to play. JR said as much. Besides, you don't boot grounders in August because they didn't hit you enough fungos in March. This team was bad, but will be better when they get better players.

He waived his hands, healed Hanley, healed Greinke, and called up Puig.

 

And just to note...even if the Sox thought Ventura did everything he could have wrong this year...they don't like eating money on contracts unless they have to. You know that as well as I do.

[caulfield12]

All you can do is work on the same things. There will be a new hitting coach, so I'm sure there will be something a bit different. What did Mattingly do differently that transformed the Dodgers from a last place team, and about to lose his job,to a team that may win the WS, and a probable extension almost overnight?

 

I really think blaming the 2013 season on spring training is wrong and old. It's already been stated by people who were actually there (Hawk, Stone, Hahn, Robin) that the White Sox actually worked more on fundamentals this past spring than they did in 2012. If it was the country club some here say it was and the Sox lost 99 games, there would be a new manager. Gene Lamont, who won 2 division titles in a row, was fired by the Sox about 30 games into the 1995 season and replaced by Terry Bevington. The reason.......spring training was a country club and they weren't ready to play. JR said as much. Besides, you don't boot grounders in August because they didn't hit you enough fungos in March. This team was bad, but will be better when they get better players.

 

 

Except Mattingly has about a 50% chance of getting fired if they don't make the World Series.

 

Even in the playoffs, the games they've lost, the LA writers have immediately pounced/pounded on Mattingly, almost incessantly.

 

 

The reason the Dodgers turned their season around was/is Hanley Ramirez and Yasiel Puig and some other veterans like Crawford, Ethier and Uribe showing up and playing well all at the same time.

[Kyyle23]

Caulfield, how come in the White Sox thread, you post about Mattingly and the Dodgers, but in the Dodgers/Cardinals thread you post about Ventura and the White Sox?

 

It cracks me up

[Dick Allen]

Except Mattingly has about a 50% chance of getting fired if they don't make the World Series.

 

Even in the playoffs, the games they've lost, the LA writers have immediately pounced/pounded on Mattingly, almost incessantly.

 

 

The reason the Dodgers turned their season around was/is Hanley Ramirez and Yasiel Puig and some other veterans like Crawford, Ethier and Uribe showing up and playing well all at the same time.

As I have stated, better players can transform someone from an idiot to a genius. I would imagine Mattingly's baseball IQ and the way he went about his business wasn't much different from when they were losing to when they were almost unstoppable.

 

People put too much both good and bad on managers. I have even seen people judge managers on the team's record vs. it's pythagorean record. Did you know if you did that, Joe Maddon wouldn't be so highly thought of. This year was only the 2nd time out of his 8 seasons as a manager the team's actual record was better than it's pythagorean.