PDA

View Full Version : Alexei benched. For now


palehozenychicty
05-07-2009, 01:59 AM
I did not see a thread about this nor know if it's accurate since it's the Cubune, so please merge if necessary.

linkee (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-07-white-sox-tigers-chicago-may07,0,1792676.story)

WhiteSox5187
05-07-2009, 02:12 AM
Man, putting a guy at short who hasn't played there in eight years? I dunno. I think Alexei is probably a bit lost now in his own thoughts, but he might just be a slow starter (he was hitting even worse this time last year), or...he might be a flash in the pan.

oeo
05-07-2009, 02:22 AM
Man, putting a guy at short who hasn't played there in eight years? I dunno.

You have a better idea?

JB98
05-07-2009, 02:48 AM
I don't think it's a bad thing to give Ramirez one day off. Benching him for multiple games, though? Not sure that's such a good idea.

DonnieDarko
05-07-2009, 02:48 AM
I was wondering when this was going to happen. How long does he stay benched, though?

I don't think it's a bad thing to give Ramirez one day off. Benching him for multiple games, though? Not sure that's such a good idea.

Hasn't he been given a day or two off already before? Hasn't improved. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but he needs to learn to be a better batter for chrissakes. He's being thrown off-speed breaking pitches first now instead of fastballs, and he hasn't seemed to have adjusted. Hopefully this'll give him the wakeup call that he needs. His ability to quickly adjust to pitching in an at-bat I haven't seen thusfar, and it's troubling.

Hopefully by the All-Star break he's off and running, though.

CWSpalehoseCWS
05-07-2009, 04:11 AM
I hope this doesn't cause more harm than good for Ramirez. He's obviously struggling, so something needs to be done, but benching him in favor of Nix? Seems to me like the Sox staff is starting to panic a little, IMO. I comepletly agree with what their doing with Contreras, but now Ramirez? Hopefully they get him back on track.

Illini Stripes
05-07-2009, 08:32 AM
No worries...Greg Walker will fix Alexei! :?:

veeter
05-07-2009, 09:00 AM
Man, putting a guy at short who hasn't played there in eight years? I dunno. I think Alexei is probably a bit lost now in his own thoughts, but he might just be a slow starter (he was hitting even worse this time last year), or...he might be a flash in the pan.I think it's a matter of him always looking to jack homeruns. Ozzie wants better at bats when guys are on third with less than two outs. I mean cut your swing down and drive the guy in. Alexei's a hot dog, which is part of why he's good. But when times are tough, be smart enough to hit a little ground ball to get the job done.

DeuceUnit
05-07-2009, 09:07 AM
I think the strike out on an almost wild pitch after AJ's triple was the final straw. Horrible at bat in a crucial situation.

SoxFan1979
05-07-2009, 09:23 AM
I think the strike out on an almost wild pitch after AJ's triple was the final straw. Horrible at bat in a crucial situation.

That's what did it for me too. Like many have observed in here, it seems he just goes for the jugular with every swing. Something has to give soon. Tired of all these base runners stranded but that's not just Alexei's fault.

Rohan
05-07-2009, 09:24 AM
I might be wrong but i'm pretty sure Alexei has been starting to pick up production.
He was hitting in the low 200's last season after the first month as well.

Seems hasty to me.

soxyess
05-07-2009, 09:28 AM
I think it's a matter of him always looking to jack homeruns. Ozzie wants better at bats when guys are on third with less than two outs. I mean cut your swing down and drive the guy in. Alexei's a hot dog, which is part of why he's good. But when times are tough, be smart enough to hit a little ground ball to get the job done.

Yes Alexei is trying to swing for the fences. This seems to be the mind set of just about every batter that ends up in one of our lineups. Situational hitting goes out the window and swing for the fences comes in. This is why you are seeing all or nothing scores. We either win big or get shutout. I think this has to change, and Ozzie knows it.

GlassSox
05-07-2009, 09:36 AM
I think the strike out on an almost wild pitch after AJ's triple was the final straw. Horrible at bat in a crucial situation.

Yes that at bat was awful and what's bad is that we just knew it was coming but Alexei is not the only guilty party for leaving runners in scoring position. I think you could see the disappointment in AJ's expressions while he was stranded on 3rd.

TomBradley72
05-07-2009, 09:43 AM
Nix, Podsednik, Contreras...I sense the return of 2007.

Tragg
05-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Alexei needs a serious professional hitting coach that can help him with the strike zone; I know they don't want to stifle his aggressiveness, but right now he's hitting like Ozzie Guillen instead of Soriano.

The Walker/Guillen approach isn't working. Get the man a coach.

As for 2007, I thought that there was about a 30% chance that would happen. Our bullpen is a lot better (we have Dotel in the Bukvich position) so it won't get that bad.

102605
05-07-2009, 10:41 AM
Ozzie is just trying to wake him up. I think it will work.

Metalthrasher442
05-07-2009, 10:51 AM
Nix, Podsednik, Contreras...I sense the return of 2007.

How is it Nix's or Pods fault that were losing? How is that 07 at all.

I'll give you Contreras.

russ99
05-07-2009, 11:27 AM
Ozzie is just trying to wake him up. I think it will work.

Agree. Yesterday was the classic Ozzie light a fire/taking the heat for the players press conference. Let's hope it works.

Milw
05-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Nix starting at short for the second day in a row... that's pretty ominous.

oeo
05-08-2009, 03:58 PM
Nix starting at short for the second day in a row... that's pretty ominous.

One day off wouldn't be a benching, it would be a day off.

Rocky Soprano
05-08-2009, 03:59 PM
I just got rid of the Alexei signature I had, maybe that will help. :D:

FielderJones
05-08-2009, 04:07 PM
Nix starting at short for the second day in a row... that's pretty ominous.

Ominous for Alexei, yes. Ominous for the Sox? We'll see.

Rdy2PlayBall
05-08-2009, 07:51 PM
What a waist of a Christmas present getting a signed jersey from Alexei. I would have rather just got a regular Buehrle jersey if he's never going to even play.

DirtySox
05-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Alexei's Benching Ends Saturday (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-09-white-sox-brite-chicago-may09,0,7044755.story)

KRS1
05-08-2009, 10:19 PM
What a waist of a Christmas present getting a signed jersey from Alexei. I would have rather just got a regular Buehrle jersey if he's never going to even play.

Nice, I didn't know they measured that to determine jersey size.

Also, :rolleyes:, about whining about a manager not playing a guy who's jersey you have.

Rdy2PlayBall
05-08-2009, 10:43 PM
Nice, I didn't know they measured that to determine jersey size.

Also, :rolleyes:, about whining about a manager not playing a guy who's jersey you have.You guys make it a sport to criticize my spelling/grammar.

DannyCaterFan
05-08-2009, 11:27 PM
Just stick him in center field and see how he performs out there. Leave Nix at short for now.

DirtySox
05-08-2009, 11:29 PM
Alexei Playing Center Not an Option (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-09-white-sox-bits-chicago-may09,0,3824302.story)

Frater Perdurabo
05-09-2009, 07:51 AM
Alexei Playing Center Not an Option (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-09-white-sox-bits-chicago-may09,0,3824302.story)

:bandance:

Rocky Soprano
05-09-2009, 09:57 AM
You guys make it a sport to criticize my spelling/grammar.

They are compensating for something else.

Billy Ashley
05-09-2009, 06:13 PM
I seem to recall getting killed here for arguing that Ramirez wasn't nearly the player Longoria was and that it was incorrect to argue that Ramirez would likely be a better all around player over the next several years.

I initially believed Ramirez would make a great super sub type- he's bad defensively, but is an acceptable liability at 2b, SS and CF in a pinch. He'll never be good at getting on base but he does have plus power and above average speed (though last year he hurt the White Sox while trying to steal- however this year he's doing much better).

I still believe Ramirez is a very useful player- but he's a complementary asset rather than a building block.

If he can get his batting average back to around .300 his power will allow him to be an above average middle infielder (albeit he'd still be an out machine) but otherwise he's not a very good option as a starter.

DonnieDarko
05-09-2009, 06:19 PM
He's bad defensively? Now, don't get me wrong, he doesn't get everything that comes his way, and he's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I wouldn't call his performance "bad". If anything, above average.

guillen4life13
05-09-2009, 06:43 PM
I seem to recall getting killed here for arguing that Ramirez wasn't nearly the player Longoria was and that it was incorrect to argue that Ramirez would likely be a better all around player over the next several years.

I initially believed Ramirez would make a great super sub type- he's bad defensively, but is an acceptable liability at 2b, SS and CF in a pinch. He'll never be good at getting on base but he does have plus power and above average speed (though last year he hurt the White Sox while trying to steal- however this year he's doing much better).

I still believe Ramirez is a very useful player- but he's a complementary asset rather than a building block.

If he can get his batting average back to around .300 his power will allow him to be an above average middle infielder (albeit he'd still be an out machine) but otherwise he's not a very good option as a starter.

:?:. I don't think his defense is too shabby myself. Not great, but not bad by any stretch.

Milw
05-09-2009, 06:47 PM
I seem to recall getting killed here for arguing that Ramirez wasn't nearly the player Longoria was and that it was incorrect to argue that Ramirez would likely be a better all around player over the next several years.

I initially believed Ramirez would make a great super sub type- he's bad defensively
I was with you up until here, and then I stopped reading. You can say a lot of things about Alexei, but "bad defensively" is not one of them.

Daver
05-09-2009, 07:43 PM
:?:. I don't think his defense is too shabby myself. Not great, but not bad by any stretch.

Billy doesn't believe in anything you can't put a number on, like any propellerhead.

Brian26
05-09-2009, 08:04 PM
:?:. I don't think his defense is too shabby myself. Not great, but not bad by any stretch.

My only complant - I've been somewhat unimpressed with what I've seen of him going to his right. I realize this is a completely subjective statement, but from what I've seen it seems like he's not getting to balls in the hole that Cabrera used to get to easily.

Tragg
05-09-2009, 08:26 PM
I initially believed Ramirez would make a great super sub type- he's bad defensively.
He's not bad defensively...that's a baseball prospectus myth. There are others such as their notion that Mark Buehrle is an average pitcher and Mark Shapiro is an elite GM.

Billy Ashley
05-09-2009, 09:11 PM
He's not bad defensively...that's a baseball prospectus myth. There are others such as their notion that Mark Buehrle is an average pitcher and Mark Shapiro is an elite GM.

If by BP you mean every single objective statistic relating to defense along with the opinion of numerous evaluators than yes-

BTW- anyone who thinks Buehrle is an average pitcher isn't paying attention. His ERA+ (yes a saberish stat) is damn impressive. Furthermore, his career FIP is only .05 runs higher than his ERA, so most stat minded people wouldn't argue he's a fluke.

That said- some people at BP are likely concerned about the massive workload he's endured (which is not with out warrent).

What never ceases to amaze me about Tragg and Daver is that they really seem to beleive that the eyes of White Sox fans on this board are much more objective than BP, BA, Kieth Law, John Dewan's +/-, Bill James and fans of other ballclubs.

Some views other than my own

Fangraphs

"While Ramirez is certainly an interesting player with some power and contact skills, it’s difficult to say just how much of an asset he will become (overall, Alexei was worth just 1.1 Value Wins in ‘08, as his league-average bat was coupled with poor fielding numbers: his -9.2 UZR/150 at 2B does not bode well for a transition to shortstop). Ramirez is already 27- not old by any means, but in the age range where “what you see is what you get”, and his less-than-discerning eye is troublesome."

(http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/aggressive-alexei-ramirez)

Scout.com

Alexei Ramirez (http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=8&c=1&nid=4249203) reminds me so much of Alfonso Soriano (http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=8&c=1&nid=4155408) circa his rookie season in 2001. Thin as a rail? Check. Lots of pop for his size? Check. Athletic-yet-poor defense at second base? Check. Big clutch hits? Check. Refusing to draw walks? Check. Ramirez made more contact, but Soriano was the superior baserunner. I'm sure the Sox would be thrilled to get what Sori gave the Yankees in 2002 (39 HR, 41 SB, .300 BA), but I'm predicting that the Cuban Missile sputters in his sophomore season before reaching those kinds of heights. He'll also represent a defensive downgrade from Orlando Cabrera and will almost certainly lead baseball in Defensive Misplays Plus Errors (http://baseballevolution.com/keith/fbibleii.html).

(http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=2&c=853129)


I'll have more later

Daver
05-09-2009, 09:21 PM
If by BP you mean every single objective statistic relating to defense along with the opinion of numerous evaluators than yes-

OK this made me laugh out loud.



I'll have more later

We can't wait for more terrific links to propellerhead slanted observations, really.

Billy Ashley
05-09-2009, 09:31 PM
Daver-

The list of people who think Ramirez is a good defensive player start and end with White Sox fans. It's ok, you're not alone. A lot of homers think their players are good defenders. I've had similar debates with Yankee fans in regards to Jeter, Red Sox fans in regards to Jason Bay, Phillies fans in regards to Ryan Howard (Things could be worse, you could be stupid enough to argue that Howard's a plus defender while ignoring the greatness of Feliz and Utley)

Each time you post, you just embarrass yourself. What evidence do you have to him being a good fielder? I can only find one- Tom Tango's fan website had 38 fans argue that he was an average to good fielder. Beyond that- no one argues he's a good fielder.

Provide evidence or a counter argument or shut the hell up. Unless of course you just like reading you're own insipid prose.

Daver
05-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Daver-

The list of people who think Ramirez is a good defensive player start and end with White Sox fans. It's ok, you're not alone. A lot of homers think their players are good defenders. I've had similar debates with Yankee fans in regards to Jeter, Red Sox fans in regards to Jason Bay, Phillies fans in regards to Ryan Howard (Things could be worse, you could be stupid enough to argue that Howard's a plus defender while ignoring the greatness of Feliz and Utley)

Each time you post, you just embarrass yourself. What evidence do you have to him being a good fielder? I can only find one- Tom Tango's fan website had 38 fans argue that he was an average to good fielder. Beyond that- no one argues he's a good fielder.

Provide evidence or a counter argument or shut the hell up. Unless of course you just like reading you're own insipid prose.

Exactly where did I say he was a good defender? Or even offer an opinion of his skills?

Perhaps you should shut the hell up, since you are creating an argument that does not exist, I take a dim view of that, it's a tool used by trolls, troublemakers, and those that think they are the more intelligent than every other person on the planet.

Billy Ashley
05-09-2009, 09:43 PM
Exactly where did I say he was a good defender? Or even offer an opinion of his skills?

Perhaps you should shut the hell up, since you are creating an argument that does not exist, I take a dim view of that, it's a tool used by trolls, troublemakers, and those that think they are the more intelligent than every other person on the planet.

so your criticizing without making an argument.


I'm just going to assume you like those prose.

Daver
05-09-2009, 09:55 PM
so your criticizing without making an argument.


I'm just going to assume you like those prose.

I merely make observations, you draw your own conclusions.

Like most properllerheads your conclusions are usually wrong.

Tragg
05-09-2009, 10:10 PM
Fangraphs

"While Ramirez is certainly an interesting player with some power and contact skills, it’s difficult to say just how much of an asset he will become (overall, Alexei was worth just 1.1 Value Wins in ‘08, as his league-average bat was coupled with poor fielding numbers: his -9.2 UZR/150 at 2B does not bode well for a transition to shortstop). Ramirez is already 27- not old by any means, but in the age range where “what you see is what you get”, and his less-than-discerning eye is troublesome."

(http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/aggressive-alexei-ramirez)

Scout.com

Alexei Ramirez (http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=8&c=1&nid=4249203) reminds me so much of Alfonso Soriano (http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=8&c=1&nid=4155408) circa his rookie season in 2001. Thin as a rail? Check. Lots of pop for his size? Check. Athletic-yet-poor defense at second base? Check. Big clutch hits? Check. Refusing to draw walks? Check. Ramirez made more contact, but Soriano was the superior baserunner. I'm sure the Sox would be thrilled to get what Sori gave the Yankees in 2002 (39 HR, 41 SB, .300 BA), but I'm predicting that the Cuban Missile sputters in his sophomore season before reaching those kinds of heights. He'll also represent a defensive downgrade from Orlando Cabrera and will almost certainly lead baseball in Defensive Misplays Plus Errors (http://baseballevolution.com/keith/fbibleii.html).

(http://whitesox.scout.com/a.z?s=261&p=2&c=853129)


I'll have more later
Who is fansgraph? I have no idea what -9.2 UZR/150 means nor how its measured.

Does Misplays/errors consider good plays and arm strength?

Some of your sources are objective and some aren't. BP does some great work but they are extremely biased toward teams that use their methods and hire their people.....like Mark Shapiro and the last place Indians.

WhiteSox5187
05-09-2009, 10:32 PM
I merely make observations, you draw your own conclusions.

Like most properllerheads your conclusions are usually wrong.

My suggestion for these guys would be to watch games and say "Oh, well his D here hurt you" but again, that would require a hell of a lot of effort and a sort of understanding of the game of baseball that can't really be broken down with numbers.

Daver
05-09-2009, 10:54 PM
My suggestion for these guys would be to watch games and say "Oh, well his D here hurt you" but again, that would require a hell of a lot of effort and a sort of understanding of the game of baseball that can't really be broken down with numbers.

The entire game can be broken down into numbers, just ask any properllerhead and they will give you the gospel according to BP. if you can't grasp that you are just hater that likes to see yourself type.

Right Billy?

Billy Ashley
05-10-2009, 12:32 AM
The entire game can be broken down into numbers, just ask any properllerhead and they will give you the gospel according to BP. if you can't grasp that you are just hater that likes to see yourself type.

Right Billy?

You know if anyone actually could poke holes in the theories I've championed- then you might have a point. Until then, you just look like an idiot.

I wish I could sport bet against the common wisdom of this board-

I have been correct (and ridiculed) about the following issues

-Floyd's regression
-Josh Fields inability to hit major league pitching
-Jerry Owens BABIP fueled .330 BA in AAA at 27 being nothing to be too excited about
- Ramirez being a bad fielder (still waiting on evidence to the contrary)
-Nick Swisher being a great rebound candidate (I also argued that of Konerko btw)

I keep turning out right on the issues I get the most crap over.

For the record (and I've said this about a million freak'n times)- Stat heads should be open to critique. There are a number of issues with both UZR and +/- that I've brought up myself in past threads. The amazing thing about Daver and his ilk is they've never brought up those issues because they don't know what they're talking about.

Instead, I get called out for worshiping at the altar of BP (whom I actually don't care for that much btw, they write like pure ****).

If I bring up +/-, I get called out on loving BP

If I quote Kieth Law, the same occurs

If I quote fangraphs, ditto

You know what those 3 things have in common- no association with baseball prospectus.

The arrogant buffoonery of some here astounds me.


How about instead of posting "ZOMG I hate stat heads they don't like Kenny (which btw, is incorrect) and they love Shapiro!!!111!!!!! So Baised!!!!!111!!!!" You actually critique the methods used.

Daver
05-10-2009, 12:38 AM
You know if anyone actually could poke holes in the theories I've championed- then you might have a point. Until then, you just look like an idiot.

I wish I could sport bet against the common wisdom of this board-

I have been correct (and ridiculed) about the following issues

-Floyd's regression
-Josh Fields inability to hit major league pitching
-Jerry Owens BABIP fueled .330 BA in AAA at 27 being nothing to be too excited about
- Ramirez being a bad fielder (still waiting on evidence to the contrary)
-Nick Swisher being a great rebound candidate (I also argued that of Konerko btw)

I keep turning out right on the issues I get the most crap over.

For the record (and I've said this about a million freak'n times)- Stat heads should be open to critique. There are a number of issues with both UZR and +/- that I've brought up myself in past threads. The amazing thing about Daver and his ilk is they've never brought up those issues because they don't know what they're talking about.

Instead, I get called out for worshiping at the altar of BP (whom I actually don't care for that much btw, they write like pure ****).

If I bring up +/-, I get called out on loving BP

If I quote Kieth Law, the same occurs

If I quote fangraphs, ditto

You know what those 3 things have in common- no association with baseball prospectus.

The arrogant buffoonery of some here astounds me.


How about instead of posting "ZOMG I hate stat heads they don't like Kenny (which btw, is incorrect) and they love Shapiro!!!111!!!!! So Baised!!!!!111!!!!" You actually critique the methods used.

Keep digging that hole.

Billy Ashley
05-10-2009, 12:41 AM
Keep digging that hole.


Certainly, I hope to find some sort of subterranean creature with as little reasoning ability as you.

Daver
05-10-2009, 12:45 AM
Certainly, I hope to find some sort of subterranean creature with as little reasoning ability as you.

Find a mirror, it is a glass thing that shows a reflection.

Billy Ashley
05-10-2009, 12:53 AM
Find a mirror, it is a glass thing that shows a reflection.

And we've officially gotten our first "I'm rubber you're glue" argument from Daver.

I hope he enthralls use with more hip humor such as "Knock Knock" and "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Tell me Daver, what was the cast of Life Goes On like in real life? I loved that show, especially the episode in which you burned down your house. Did the flames scare you?

DSpivack
05-10-2009, 12:56 AM
And we've officially gotten our first "I'm rubber you're glue" argument from Daver.

I hope he enthralls use with more hip humor such as "Knock Knock" and "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Tell me Daver, what was the cast of Life Goes On like in real life? I loved that show, especially the episode in which you burned down your house. Did the flames scare you?

Classy. My dad's cousin wrote for the show, and my aunt had down's syndmore.

WhiteSox5187
05-10-2009, 01:26 AM
You know if anyone actually could poke holes in the theories I've championed- then you might have a point. Until then, you just look like an idiot.

I wish I could sport bet against the common wisdom of this board-

I have been correct (and ridiculed) about the following issues

-Floyd's regression
-Josh Fields inability to hit major league pitching
-Jerry Owens BABIP fueled .330 BA in AAA at 27 being nothing to be too excited about
- Ramirez being a bad fielder (still waiting on evidence to the contrary)
-Nick Swisher being a great rebound candidate (I also argued that of Konerko btw)



I owe you an apology as obviously you have seen into the future and know that these things are destined to continue. I mean, never mind that it's only May and there is still a lot of time for Floyd to turn it around and for Swisher to go into a tailspin, but obviously you called it and since you know so much about stats these things are going to continue the whole year. Impressive.

Finally, I'm wary of anyone who relies on BABIP to figure out that Jerry Owens isn't a good baseball player.

asindc
05-10-2009, 10:59 AM
The list of people who think Ramirez is a good defensive player start and end with White Sox fans. It's ok, you're not alone. A lot of homers think their players are good defenders.

I don't dispute the defensive numbers that objective observers have calculated, but to call Alexei a poor defender gives the impression that those observers don't watch him play on a regular basis, which I might be wrong about. I'm ok with evaluating any player's ability with numerical calculations, but if that's where the analysis begins and ends, I think it leaves the evaluation incomplete.

For me and many others, the numbers have to be combined with real-world visual analysis, such "does not go to his right very well," or "throws erratically when fielding a grounder up the middle," for instance. I think that's where the distinction is. What most Sox fans have observed in Alexei is a middle infielder who does not get to all the balls he should, but does field the balls he does get to very well and makes the occasional exceptional play. I don't know if the numbers you cite accurately reflect that, but if they do, I don't understand how someone can conclude that Alexei is a poor enough middle infielder to be compared to Soriano.

asindc
05-10-2009, 11:40 AM
I wish I could sport bet against the common wisdom of this board-

I have been correct (and ridiculed) about the following issues

-Floyd's regression
-Josh Fields inability to hit major league pitching
-Jerry Owens BABIP fueled .330 BA in AAA at 27 being nothing to be too excited about
- Ramirez being a bad fielder (still waiting on evidence to the contrary)
-Nick Swisher being a great rebound candidate (I also argued that of Konerko btw)

I keep turning out right on the issues I get the most crap over.

I among the issues you cite here, I think your dispute is with a minority on this board. For the past year or so, the consensus on this board has been--

-Floyd makes most Sox fans nervous and we don't have nearly as much confidence in him as we do Danks, so we are not surprised with his regression so far. We just don't think he's destined to be a terrible pitcher;

-Fields strikes out way too much, has trouble handling breaking balls, and is a below average fielder. By the way, he has significantly improved his OBP and fielding so far this year;

-Owens is a bust. If you found anyone on this board arguing otherwise from the beginning of last year up to the present, you have found one more Owens supporter than I have;

-Ramirez is not a bad fielder, objective numbers notwithstanding. See my previous post on this; and

-Swisher would play much better playing corner OF and batting farther down in the lineup for the Yanks than he did for the Sox, where is played CF and batted 2nd. Thing is, though, we don't need another corner OF who is at his best batting in the middle of the order. That's why many of us did not think he was a good fit for the team in the first place. The trade to get him was bad, but trading him away was necessary because his skills were redundant on the Sox. So bottom line is that most of us are not surprised he is playing better now than last year.

As another poster noted, however, the book is still open on Floyd, Fields, and Ramirez. With that said, I think it is fair to say that the only thing the consensus on this board does not agree with you on these issues is Ramirez. I think you are confusing your dispute with a few posters on this board with the "common wisdom" on this board.

Milw
05-13-2009, 12:56 AM
Just throwing this out there, but... Alexei = Chris Singleton?

Rookie stats are awfully similar, and, sadly, their sophomore stats are shaping up similarly as well...:(:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/singlch01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramiral03.shtml

sunofgold
05-13-2009, 12:59 AM
Nix already has more HRs than Alexei. I believe that Nix has taken the job away from Alexei. Maybe Alexei could play some CF in Toronto if he can make it across the border.

WhiteSox5187
05-13-2009, 01:16 AM
Just throwing this out there, but... Alexei = Chris Singleton?

Rookie stats are awfully similar, and, sadly, their sophomore stats are shaping up similarly as well...:(:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/singlch01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramiral03.shtml

Jesus it's May 13th! He was hitting around the same last year too!

Jim Shorts
05-13-2009, 09:38 AM
And we've officially gotten our first "I'm rubber you're glue" argument from Daver.

I hope he enthralls use with more hip humor such as "Knock Knock" and "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Tell me Daver, what was the cast of Life Goes On like in real life? I loved that show, especially the episode in which you burned down your house. Did the flames scare you?

Stats or not, wrong or right. This post makes you an *******.

And you can kiss my ass. Keep this kind of chit up and I'll gladly get banned belittling your ignorance.

guillen4life13
05-13-2009, 09:58 AM
Not to seem like an arrogant ******* (though it's already a foregone conclusion), but I often wonder if you stat-heads understand how these statistics are formulated on a mathematical level instead of just the alleged meanings that are attributed to these stats. Can you yourself, with relative accuracy, produce the linear regressions and other tests/calculations that you stand behind so vehemently if given all of the sample data?

The stats/probability classes I've taken recently have made me much more skeptical of such statistics because in any linear regression, there's a final variable that represents random error that no one can account for. In a sport like baseball, that is especially pertinent. And any fluke-ish statistics can skew the rest of your line to give a misleading result or prediction, and the data doesn't take physical/mental development into account. Thus, what may seem like a fluke may just be the result of the player developing and vice versa. In other words, it's an educated guess at best. And at worst, it's a load of BS. Especially in baseball, you can't predict the learning factors. It's not like basketball or football where, if by age 26 you haven't shown it, then you probably don't have it. How many times have we seen 27+ year old players suddenly figure it out and become solid players when coached properly?

Now, if seeing a player play in person is not possible, then stats are all that anyone has to go by. But otherwise, especially with young players, stats tell very little of the story.

Billy: it's really quite ironic that you would accuse anyone else of being arrogant.

Billy Ashley
05-13-2009, 10:51 AM
Not to seem like an arrogant ******* (though it's already a foregone conclusion), but I often wonder if you stat-heads understand how these statistics are formulated on a mathematical level instead of just the alleged meanings that are attributed to these stats. Can you yourself, with relative accuracy, produce the linear regressions and other tests/calculations that you stand behind so vehemently if given all of the sample data?

The stats/probability classes I've taken recently have made me much more skeptical of such statistics because in any linear regression, there's a final variable that represents random error that no one can account for. In a sport like baseball, that is especially pertinent. And any fluke-ish statistics can skew the rest of your line to give a misleading result or prediction, and the data doesn't take physical/mental development into account. Thus, what may seem like a fluke may just be the result of the player developing and vice versa. In other words, it's an educated guess at best. And at worst, it's a load of BS. Especially in baseball, you can't predict the learning factors. It's not like basketball or football where, if by age 26 you haven't shown it, then you probably don't have it. How many times have we seen 27+ year old players suddenly figure it out and become solid players when coached properly?

Now, if seeing a player play in person is not possible, then stats are all that anyone has to go by. But otherwise, especially with young players, stats tell very little of the story.

Billy: it's really quite ironic that you would accuse anyone else of being arrogant.

Yes, I can do the things you speak of. I'm proficient in SPSS and have taken a number of statistics classes that have required me to do so including public policy analysis and research methods.

The largest problem with statistical analysis is that as you argued it is a game played by humans. While seen as a good prospect, no projection system could have imagined Danks learning a cutter. That said, no scout could have made that assumption either.

Another problem with statistical analysis is that the sample sizes we're playing with are a bit screwy. 32 starts does not provide us with enough information about a pitcher alone, there are too many variables beyond our sight. Pitchers could be hurt of a series of starts, negatively impacting their overall season performance (though variance is to be expected).

Furthermore, aging patterns do not remain constant for all people. Paul Molitor was better at 35 than 25 (an aberration). Ted Williams hit .390 at around 40 and so on.

You'll never hear me argue that statistical analysis is perfect- it's demonstrably not. However, it is a better form of analysis than the musings of an untrained baseball fan.

Finally, the truisms that have been discovered through statistical analysis are pretty damn statistically significant. There have been millions of innings pitched and you know what- during those innings there's zero evidence to suggest a pitcher can control his babip (unless he throws a knuckler). Additionally, there is little evidence that line up protection matters and a host of other issues I get killed for when arguing on this site.

PECOTA has its issues- but it's usually more correct than anyone else. What they're trying to do is basically impossible and likely does nothing more than further excite us stat heads as winter thaws. That said, the princibles behind it are tested and pretty important.

chisox77
05-13-2009, 10:52 AM
I love Alexie, but he's not hitting. So I agree with the move, and Nix looks very good so far.

thedudeabides
05-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Yes, I can do the things you speak of. I'm proficient in SPSS and have taken a number of statistics classes that have required me to do so including public policy analysis and research methods.

The largest problem with statistical analysis is that as you argued it is a game played by humans. While seen as a good prospect, no projection system could have imagined Danks learning a cutter. That said, no scout could have made that assumption either.

Another problem with statistical analysis is that the sample sizes we're playing with are a bit screwy. 32 starts does not provide us with enough information about a pitcher alone, there are too many variables beyond our sight. Pitchers could be hurt of a series of starts, negatively impacting their overall season performance (though variance is to be expected).

Furthermore, aging patterns do not remain constant for all people. Paul Molitor was better at 35 than 25 (an aberration). Ted Williams hit .390 at around 40 and so on.

You'll never hear me argue that statistical analysis is perfect- it's demonstrably not. However, it is a better form of analysis than the musings of an untrained baseball fan.

Finally, the truisms that have been discovered through statistical analysis are pretty damn statistically significant. There have been millions of innings pitched and you know what- during those innings there's zero evidence to suggest a pitcher can control his babip (unless he throws a knuckler). Additionally, there is little evidence that line up protection matters and a host of other issues I get killed for when arguing on this site.

PECOTA has its issues- but it's usually more correct than anyone else. What they're trying to do is basically impossible and likely does nothing more than further excite us stat heads as winter thaws. That said, the princibles behind it are tested and pretty important.

I respect Nate Silver, as he has a great statistical mind, but I could poke holes into PECOTA all day. Although, they love to pat themselves on the back a lot, their predictions haven't really been any better then what the vegas lines put out for win totals each year.

And before I get a speech on not understanding what they do, I have an educational background in statistics and work in a statistical field. I have followed BP and understand what they do. It's good for entertainment, but I don't find it to have a ton of value in real world baseball.

Billy Ashley
05-13-2009, 11:40 AM
I respect Nate Silver, as he has a great statistical mind, but I could poke holes into PECOTA all day. Although, they love to pat themselves on the back a lot, their predictions haven't really been any better then what the vegas lines put out for win totals each year.

And before I get a speech on not understanding what they do, I have an educational background in statistics and work in a statistical field. I have followed BP and understand what they do. It's good for entertainment, but I don't find it to have a ton of value in real world baseball.

I'm not going to give a speech because I don't disagree with you about the value of PECOTA. I actually said that it doesn't have that much real world value (other than maybe contemplating extensions for pre arb players, but even that's flawed due to fluctuations in the market).

I do believe much of what BP does has value- however most of the value comes in the pursuit the answers rather than the answers themselves. We know a hell of a lot more about how the game works because of them.

I actually am not the biggest BP fan btw- I barely ever visit their site and have never owned any of their books. I do believe they're correct on a number of issues- such as DER, that value differs depending on position and that defense is just as important as offense and that conventional defensive statistics leave a lot to be desired (but so does UZR and FRAA, though I like +/- a lot).