PDA

View Full Version : Dye gets snubbed from AllStar Game


EuroSox35
07-05-2009, 02:43 PM
How in the world can you justify Curtis Granderson getting on the team and not Jermaine? Dye doesn't even get a final vote spot but he should've made the team period. I would probably pick him over Zobrist as well but there's the TB manager connection, okay, but Granderson? Come on...

ChicagoG19
07-05-2009, 02:55 PM
I have no backing for this, but I get this feeling the other teams and coaches in general just hate the White Sox organization.

russ99
07-05-2009, 02:56 PM
Numbers alone, that's ridiculous that he's not on the team. Hopefully Jermaine gets added if someone can't go.

soxfanreggie
07-05-2009, 03:02 PM
The White Sox will continue to get snubbed. Our players, past one representative, are going to have to go "above and beyond" to make the All-Star roster or be voted in during the final ballot. We don't have players that get voted in on "name alone" like so many Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc do.

Hopefully Dye gets added to the roster, but I think this has happened so many times before that we don't lose sleep over it.

getonbckthr
07-05-2009, 03:14 PM
Along with Dye how does Kinsler and Sandoval not make the team?

lizard6king6
07-05-2009, 03:18 PM
This is only ONE reason the whole all star process is a joke!

tm1119
07-05-2009, 03:22 PM
Ehh, I wouldnt get too up in arms here. Sure Dye could have made the All-Star team, but he was no sure thing. Really, one could make the argument that Choo, Lind, and Markakis all deserved it more than JD.

thedudeabides
07-05-2009, 03:30 PM
He was snubbed. JD is a well respected veteran in this game, and his numbers stack up against any outfielder in the AL. I don't necessarily think there is any bias against the Sox or particularly JD, but he was definitely overlooked.

MarySwiss
07-05-2009, 03:34 PM
This is why I pay no attention to the All-Star game. It's a beauty contest, pure and simple.

The only thing that remotely interests me is the outcome, just in case the Sox happen to make it to the World Series. :smile:

Domeshot17
07-05-2009, 03:47 PM
I would rather JD rest that old tired body of his for the break anyway

BigP50
07-05-2009, 04:18 PM
I get used to it.

The Red Sox and Yankees players always start, and we have to be happy with are 1 or 2 players that get in

Brian26
07-05-2009, 04:21 PM
I get used to it.

The Red Sox and Yankees players always start, and we have to be happy with are 1 or 2 players that get in

...or the four we had in 2005 or the seven we had in 2006.

Lip Man 1
07-05-2009, 05:35 PM
Who cares? It's a popularity contest. The Sox need the rest more.

Lip

Hartman
07-05-2009, 05:47 PM
The All Star team should be renamed to the All-ESPN team. That said, who cares.

kitekrazy
07-05-2009, 05:47 PM
This is why I pay no attention to the All-Star game. It's a beauty contest, pure and simple.

The only thing that remotely interests me is the outcome, just in case the Sox happen to make it to the World Series. :smile:

Wurd! It's a popularity contest and nothing more.

Dick Allen
07-05-2009, 06:01 PM
Like Domeshot said, I'd rather JD rested up for the second half. Screw the All Star game.

doublem23
07-05-2009, 06:02 PM
Like Domeshot said, I'd rather JD rested up for the second half. Screw the All Star game.

You're right those whole 3-4 innings he'd be in the field and 1-2 at bats amid a 4-day break.

Killer.

Say what you want about the All-Star Game, but it has very real consequences (World Series home field advantage). I'd want the A.L. to put its best team on the field.

EuroSox35
07-05-2009, 06:04 PM
I think it matters. It matters to the player in a number of ways. It's a good experience, it's good for that player's financial situation (I'm guessing some players have some ASG type clauses, but not positive). It's good for the team as well, good for marketing, and helps break outsider media perceptions. Recently the Sox have had free agents and players with NTC turn them down, players on other teams seem to hate Ozzie (according to a poll) an opposing manager criticize attendance, etc.

And let's not forget Dye was snubbed last year too, I think he made the final vote thing but he should've been on the team. I also remember a real bad Ordonez snub years ago, where even ESPN talking heads acted surprised and ripped the managers (the next day or so I remember Magglio having a great day at the plate, multi-HR IIRC). Brian26 is right too, we had 4 in 05, though 1 was 'shockingly' voted on at the end and we were a good team and 06 was helped by Ozzie being manager.

Yes, the process is pretty flawed, but when people talk about a player or look back when comparing players, or bring up HOF credentials, people ALWAYS bring up AllStar games, Gold Gloves, and all that, so as flawed as all those honors may be, in the end the final decision is what's remembered in history

Dick Allen
07-05-2009, 06:07 PM
You're right those whole 3-4 innings he'd be in the field and 1-2 at bats amid a 4-day break.

Killer.

Say what you want about the All-Star Game, but it has very real consequences (World Series home field advantage). I'd want the A.L. to put its best team on the field.Oh, come on, the guy's been fighting a nagging injury, it's the perfect time to get healthy. Who's to say he wouldn't aggravate it?

EuroSox35
07-05-2009, 06:12 PM
Ehh, I wouldnt get too up in arms here. Sure Dye could have made the All-Star team, but he was no sure thing. Really, one could make the argument that Choo, Lind, and Markakis all deserved it more than JD.



Curtis Granderson- .256, 18 HR, 43 RBI, .341 OBP, .467 SLG, .808 OPS
Jermaine Dye - .291, 20 HR, 51 RBI, .364 OBP, .571 SLG, .935 OPS

Markakis- .294, 8 HR, 55 RBI, .350 OBP, .450 SLG, .799 OPS
Choo- .301, 12 HR, 53 RBI, .406 OBP, .483 SLG, .889 OPS
Lind- .310, 18 HR, 57 RBI, .384 OBP, .560 SLG, .944 OPS, DH

Seems pretty clear to me

Domeshot17
07-05-2009, 06:18 PM
You're right those whole 3-4 innings he'd be in the field and 1-2 at bats amid a 4-day break.

Killer.

Say what you want about the All-Star Game, but it has very real consequences (World Series home field advantage). I'd want the A.L. to put its best team on the field.

Actually, you are wrong, if it was just that you wouldn't hear so many guys and or coaches say the same thing.

You are forgetting, he also waits in airports, sits on his flight, batting practice, media time etc. vs just 4 straight days of rest.

Edit: I do agree the ASG deciding HFA is absurd, but I am more worried about making the playoffs then HFA in the WS right now

Daver
07-05-2009, 06:20 PM
Say what you want about the All-Star Game, but it has very real consequences (World Series home field advantage). I'd want the A.L. to put its best team on the field.

Don't get me started on the absolute absurdity of having an exhibition game dictate home field advantage for the WS, it is by far one of the most asinine decisions I have ever seen a profesional league of any kind make.

grenda12
07-05-2009, 06:32 PM
Maybe ya should have voted more.

Mr. White Sox
07-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Maybe ya should have voted more.

No, maybe the game just shouldn't count if it turns into a popularity contest, which is what this has become. Wakefield and Fuentes make the roster, and Thornton does not? Really?

Josh Hamilton (DL), he of the .746 OPS in 125 ABs, made the starting squad. There is no reasoning with baseball fans if he's 3rd overall in voting and Dye is nowhere near that with far superior numbers. Either the game should count and fans can't dictate rosters to the degree they can now, or the game should return to being a popularity contest/exhibition game with zero consequences and 12 inning ties.

If Fuentes gives up a game-winning HR to Ryan Howard, the team would have wished they had a better LHP on the roster. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Lip Man 1
07-05-2009, 07:14 PM
Double:

If you want the best team on the field then you have to:

A. Remove the vote from fans
B. Remove the rule that every team must have a rep

Till then it's a total farce as Daver has expressed.

Lip

hawkjt
07-05-2009, 07:16 PM
My only concern was getting MB on the team for his home town family and friends in St Louis...and he is starting sunday so we know he might only pitch a batter or two..no big deal.
Now, I do want to win the game and that would have been aided by the presence of the best right fielder in the AL, JD, but I am glad he is getting the rest, along with the rest of our guys...chill out,boys, and get ready for the run in the second half. All those Rays will fly from the East coast to St Louis, then back to the east coast then back to chicago to face the sox on thursday...all in the space of 4 days...good for them.

anewman35
07-05-2009, 08:00 PM
Don't get me started on the absolute absurdity of having an exhibition game dictate home field advantage for the WS, it is by far one of the most asinine decisions I have ever seen a profesional league of any kind make.

It's no more absurd than having it rotate every year. They should do the best record, but MLB claims again and again it's impossible, so if they want to assign it based on a fairly random thing in the middle of the season, I can't see why that's any worse than assigning it in a way that (in any given season) is completly random.

doublem23
07-05-2009, 08:20 PM
Don't get me started on the absolute absurdity of having an exhibition game dictate home field advantage for the WS, it is by far one of the most asinine decisions I have ever seen a profesional league of any kind make.

That's fine, I don't care what you think about the decision, but the fact is that's the rule, so we may as well try to take advantage of it.

It's no more absurd than having it rotate every year. They should do the best record, but MLB claims again and again it's impossible, so if they want to assign it based on a fairly random thing in the middle of the season, I can't see why that's any worse than assigning it in a way that (in any given season) is completly random.

Best record's pretty much just as silly. The only really fair way to do it would be to award it to the league that had the better interleague record, but that's not as sexy. To be perfectly honest, the All-Star Games have been better since the new rule was established. So I guess it did the trick.

Viva Medias B's
07-05-2009, 08:27 PM
The fact that .233 hitting Carlos Peña is on the final vote ballot while Dye is left off of it is asinine.

SouthSideSoxFan
07-05-2009, 09:19 PM
Say what you want about the All-Star Game, but it has very real consequences (World Series home field advantage).
While this is true, it's worth noting that since "This Time It Counts" for the All-Star Game came into effect, not once has the home-field edge actually come into play. As a matter of fact, even though the AL has dominated the All-Star Game, NL teams played in their parks for more Series games (16) than the AL (14).

Part of the thinking of a 2-3-2 7-game series is that the home field advantage statistically only matters if a 7th game is played. Otherwise, the "away" team actually gets an advantage when only 5 games are played.

SpiderJames
07-05-2009, 10:37 PM
I think the fans should vote for players in the all star team, but I think that they shouldnt vote for the starters, they should vote for the people they want on the team, 8 players for each position get picked, and then the manager picks the rest of the players and then figures out his lineup.

I feel like 5 years ago, getting picked into the All Star game was a priviledge, like it was always a blast the three days that all the best players come together and play against each other, great idea. But I think it should just be for fun, not for home field advantage. They should also adapt the Hockey Skills night that the NHL does, like the Sunday before the Futures Game and Celebrity Softball game, have a Skills contest, see who can throw the ball the farthest, an Accuracy contest for pitching, who can make the best diving catches, etc.

The Allstar game is all for the fans, they should give them a show.

parlaycard
07-05-2009, 10:41 PM
its called the All Star game, not "the guy having a decent year game"

The Sox fans sound more like Cubs fans every day.

Dye was no shoe is, hes having a decent year. Hes not tearing the cover off the ball or anything.

He's had better years.

I dont understand the complaining.

So what.

JermaineDye05
07-05-2009, 10:43 PM
The fact that .233 hitting Carlos Peña is on the final vote ballot while Dye is left off of it is asinine.

Jesus Christ, a 3rd place team could have 5 allstars. At least when Ozzie was managing and the sox got their 7 allstars in 2006, the White Sox were in 1st place.

JB98
07-05-2009, 10:53 PM
Dye has been one of the most consistent and most underrated ballplayers in the American League for years. He was consistent and underrated before he joined the Sox. That hasn't changed in his years on the South Side.

The fact that he was left off the All-Star roster is just added evidence that he is underrated.

pmck003
07-05-2009, 10:56 PM
its called the All Star game, not "the guy having a decent year game"

The Sox fans sound more like Cubs fans every day.

Dye was no shoe is, hes having a decent year. Hes not tearing the cover off the ball or anything.

He's had better years.

I dont understand the complaining.

So what.

Please tell me about the multiple better years he's had: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3449

40hr/100rbi is a decent year....

asindc
07-05-2009, 11:29 PM
its called the All Star game, not "the guy having a decent year game"

The Sox fans sound more like Cubs fans every day.

Dye was no shoe is, hes having a decent year. Hes not tearing the cover off the ball or anything.

He's had better years.

I dont understand the complaining.

So what.

So what constitutes an All Star? The most popular players? The players with the best career numbers? I can see how Zobrist and Inge get the nod over Dye in those cases.

doublem23
07-06-2009, 12:01 AM
Part of the thinking of a 2-3-2 7-game series is that the home field advantage statistically only matters if a 7th game is played. Otherwise, the "away" team actually gets an advantage when only 5 games are played.

I agree, which is why I have no problem with them using it during the World Series, when there seems to be no logical way to award anyone home field advantage, anyways.

doublem23
07-06-2009, 12:03 AM
I feel like 5 years ago, getting picked into the All Star game was a priviledge, like it was always a blast the three days that all the best players come together and play against each other, great idea. But I think it should just be for fun, not for home field advantage. They should also adapt the Hockey Skills night that the NHL does, like the Sunday before the Futures Game and Celebrity Softball game, have a Skills contest, see who can throw the ball the farthest, an Accuracy contest for pitching, who can make the best diving catches, etc.

It's bad enough they have the HR Derby to trash everyone's swing, what happens when someone blows their arm out/seperates their shoulder?

I think it's safe to say the MLB is better off not poaching ideas from a league like the NHL, that is considered a "major" sports league in tradition only.

rwcescato
07-06-2009, 01:04 AM
I have no backing for this, but I get this feeling the other teams and coaches in general just hate the White Sox organization.


The best way to get back is to win the whole thing. I would rather have Dye win the mvp of the ws than be on the all-star team.

GGOOOO SSSSOOOXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want Mags back
07-06-2009, 07:24 AM
I think it's safe to say the MLB is better off not poaching ideas from a league like the NHL, that is considered a "major" sports league in tradition only.
:rolleyes:
The NBA and NFL have them too.

parlaycard
07-06-2009, 09:51 AM
Please tell me about the multiple better years he's had: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3449

40hr/100rbi is a decent year....

Dye has 40 home runs and 100 rbis?

Really?

Stats dont project out, unless you have a crystal ball.

Was Carlos Quentin the AL MVP when you projected out his stats last season too?

pmck003
07-06-2009, 10:41 AM
Dye has 40 home runs and 100 rbis?

Really?

Stats dont project out, unless you have a crystal ball.

Was Carlos Quentin the AL MVP when you projected out his stats last season too?

Well OK, but you said he's had better years... whats your definition of that?

ChiSoxFan81
07-06-2009, 10:44 AM
I think the main reason that guys get snubbed is because they allow the AS team managers to select so many guys. The fans will always vote in a few of the names they know, and a bunch of Yanks and Sawx will get in due to the popularity of the teams. But the fans came through this year leaving out Manny and A-Fraud (although Soriano barely missed the cut in the NL, and he has been God-awful). I guess if you get to the WS, it's your right to pick who you want. Ozzie brought all our guys in '06. What I really couldn't believe is that JD wasn't on the final vote ballot. If JD was on the Yankee or Red Sox, he'd be in every year. Instead, he gets overlooked. I tell everyone I know that JD is the most underrated player in the league.

everafan
07-06-2009, 11:21 AM
its called the All Star game, not "the guy having a decent year game"

The Sox fans sound more like Cubs fans every day.

Dye was no shoe is, hes having a decent year. Hes not tearing the cover off the ball or anything.

He's had better years.

I dont understand the complaining.

So what.

I prefer he rests also but he's having more than a decent year. JD has a higher OPS than 6 of 8 OFer's named to the team. He was snubbed. Hunter, Zobrist are the only 2 that are rightfully ahead of him. Ichiro, with a lower OPS but other-worldly BA could be ahead of Dye also. But that's it.

Harry Chappas
07-06-2009, 12:19 PM
its called the All Star game, not "the guy having a decent year game"

The Sox fans sound more like Cubs fans every day.

Dye was no shoe is, hes having a decent year. Hes not tearing the cover off the ball or anything.

He's had better years.

I dont understand the complaining.

So what.


You're a troll. Ignoring your poor grammar and punctuation for the moment, Dye has had more than a "decent year" thus far - especially if you compare his numbers to the "All Stars."

jdm2662
07-06-2009, 12:20 PM
Just a few weeks ago when this conversation came up, only Mark and Jenks were even in the radar of consideration. How a good couple of weeks can change things.

Konerko05
07-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Dye has 40 home runs and 100 rbis?

Really?

Stats dont project out, unless you have a crystal ball.

Was Carlos Quentin the AL MVP when you projected out his stats last season too?

This doesn't make any sense.

Dye shouldn't make the team because his stats over half a season do not compare to his past full seasons?

Alexei4president
07-06-2009, 05:04 PM
This is total crap Dye totally deserves it...its really stupid what the all star game has become its a popularity contest...cuz Not bein mean but josh hamilton isnt havin a good season and i know this is national league but david wright is havin a horrible season

Rocky Soprano
07-06-2009, 05:21 PM
This is total crap Dye totally deserves it...its really stupid what the all star game has become its a popularity contest...cuz Not bein mean but josh hamilton isnt havin a good season and i know this is national league but david wright is havin a horrible season

:rolleyes:
I don't know what you are smoking, since when is .326avg 5hr 42rbi 20sb having a horrible season?

JC456
07-06-2009, 05:26 PM
This is total crap Dye totally deserves it...its really stupid what the all star game has become its a popularity contest...cuz Not bein mean but josh hamilton isnt havin a good season and i know this is national league but david wright is havin a horrible season
Why don't you ask why he didn't get the votes to make it in by fan voting?

Obviously the fan base doesn't support Sox players for all star games.

BTW, no one deserves anything!

Rocky Soprano
07-06-2009, 05:37 PM
Why don't you ask why he didn't get the votes to make it in by fan voting?

Obviously the fan base doesn't support Sox players for all star games.

BTW, no one deserves anything!


So now its "our" fault.
Great!

Tragg
07-06-2009, 06:17 PM
Joe Sheehan is bitching on BP about Mark Buehrle making the all star team and is going on and on about the injustice suffered by Cliff Lee. That guy really lets his biases affect his analysis these days.

hi im skot
07-06-2009, 06:27 PM
This is total crap Dye totally deserves it...its really stupid what the all star game has become its a popularity contest...cuz Not bein mean but josh hamilton isnt havin a good season and i know this is national league but david wright is havin a horrible season

:rolling:

He can play on my team any day.

Also, Rocky pretty much showed why David Wright deserves to be an all-star.

Konerko05
07-06-2009, 06:29 PM
Joe Sheehan is bitching on BP about Mark Buehrle making the all star team and is going on and on about the injustice suffered by Cliff Lee. That guy really lets his biases affect his analysis these days.

What exactly is the basis for his argument? Buehrle has better numbers across the board. Not to mention his 8-2 record compared to Lee's 4-8. Is it because Lee strikes out more batters?

everafan
07-06-2009, 07:05 PM
What exactly is the basis for his argument? Buehrle has better numbers across the board. Not to mention his 8-2 record compared to Lee's 4-8. Is it because Lee strikes out more batters?

BP hates Buehrle - he makes them look like fools every year.

ode to veeck
07-06-2009, 07:40 PM
Th all star game selection is worse than the HOF selection. Not worth watching anymore for that reason alone.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2009, 07:43 PM
The White Sox make BP look like fools period...almost every year and more than likely this one as well.

This team is not going to finish in last place and will probably beat their "projection" (was it 76 or 78 wins those eggheads said the Sox would win...)

Lip

Tragg
07-06-2009, 07:51 PM
Sheehan predicted the Sox 27 out of 30.
I reread his rant on the all star selections (he says Dye should have been the Sox obligatory selection) and MB and he really made no argument except that MB doesn't belong.

The quality of his work has really gone downhill a lot in the last year. He used to write interesting analytical pieces - i've never agreed with large sections of their stuff but I thought it interesting. Sheehan's work lately has been basically lazy with just restating the platitudes of sabremetrics 101.

Mr. White Sox
07-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Sheehan predicted the Sox 27 out of 30.
I reread his rant on the all star selections (he says Dye should have been the Sox obligatory selection) and MB and he really made no argument except that MB doesn't belong.

The quality of his work has really gone downhill a lot in the last year. He used to write interesting analytical pieces - i've never agreed with large sections of their stuff but I thought it interesting. Sheehan's work lately has been basically lazy with just restating the platitudes of sabremetrics 101.

Cliff Lee should be on the team, sure. But, so should Mark.

The questions should be as follows: Why is Tim Wakefield on the team? Why is Brian Fuentes on the team? Not only do they not belong, but they are potential liabilities out there. Cliff Lee belongs over Wakefield, and I'd rather have Lee throwing in a late inning situation than Fuentes. Lee is the better LHP.

Wakefield's admission is the worst of all. His 4.30 ERA this year is in line with his career numbers. Does this make him a perennial all-star? Hell no. It makes him a bit above average.

I think this is the year the NL wins it.

Gammons Peter
07-06-2009, 08:20 PM
So now its "our" fault.
Great!

uh...yeah.

He didnt get the votes.

Tragg
07-06-2009, 08:21 PM
Wakefield's admission is the worst of all. His 4.30 ERA this year is in line with his career numbers. Does this make him a perennial all-star? Hell no. It makes him a bit above average.

I think this is the year the NL wins it.
Sheehan certainly wailed about Wakefield making it.

everafan
07-06-2009, 08:43 PM
The White Sox make BP look like fools period...almost every year and more than likely this one as well.

This team is not going to finish in last place and will probably beat their "projection" (was it 76 or 78 wins those eggheads said the Sox would win...)

Lip

PECOTA has us down for 76 wins this year. And they have only underestimated the Sox by 38 games since 05

77 in 08 (-12)
73 in 07 (+1)
82 in 06 (-8)
80 in 05 (-19)

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=paSrlgPH0UHto1JLWa1-pQQ

Oh and when they were close in 07 it was for all the wrong reasons - they had the pitching falling apart and offense ok - the opposite happened.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2009, 08:49 PM
Ummm did the eggheads pick the Sox to win the series in 05? How about the division in 08. You make it sound like 38 games is a small number...when you have the arrogant attitude they do, off by 38 games is as large as the Grand Canyon in my opinion. (Not that those phoneys will ever admit they blew it...)

Speaking of which, I passed this along to one of the Sox beat writers (i.e. BP mad Buehrle made the team...)

Here is their reply:

No surprise on those guys.

They love the Moneyball teams. They love the cartel (Oakland, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Arizona). Boston used to be in that group until Theo decided to start listening to his scouts.

Rough year for the moneyball teams and their movie.

Lip

everafan
07-06-2009, 08:52 PM
I was being sarcastic about "only 38 games" 38 games is ridiculously bad - better off pulling a number out of a hat. I'll change it to teal.

asindc
07-06-2009, 09:03 PM
The thing about BP I think is humorous is that they say they still can't figure out how the Sox are consistently beating their PECOTA projections. It's as if they don't watch baseball at all.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2009, 09:05 PM
Asin:

Now that's funny since the image they project is one of "all knowing-all the time."

You're right, they probably don't watch as much as they should...takes away time from pouring in data into a computer you understand!

Lip

ode to veeck
07-06-2009, 09:09 PM
PECOTA has us down for 76 wins this year. And they have only underestimated the Sox by 38 games since 05

77 in 08 (-12)
73 in 07 (+1)
82 in 06 (-8)
80 in 05 (-19)

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=paSrlgPH0UHto1JLWa1-pQQ

Oh and when they were close in 07 it was for all the wrong reasons - they had the pitching falling apart and offense ok - the opposite happened.


There seems to be an epidemic of "faux-teal-atitis" these days. Mayby we should notify NIH.

:tealtutor:

Craig Grebeck
07-06-2009, 09:12 PM
The thing about BP I think is humorous is that they say they still can't figure out how the Sox are consistently beating their PECOTA projections. It's as if they don't watch baseball at all.
I believe they've actually explained why they feel they miss on the Sox before, and they credited Kenny Williams as being a GM who makes small moves as well as Herm for being one of the best trainers in the game. But I'm sure you researched before making such an asinine statement.
Asin:

Now that's funny since the image they project is one of "all knowing-all the time."

You're right, they probably don't watch as much as they should...takes away time from pouring in data into a computer you understand!

Lip
Quick, Lip! Name three BP writers without looking them up. For someone who bitches and whines so much about a publication, I'd hope you're well-versed enough to rationalize your sweeping stereotypes and generalizations. There's quite a bit of information regarding scouts in stories -- but I guess you'd have to actually look at it once in awhile to grasp it.

Daver
07-06-2009, 09:16 PM
I believe they've actually explained why they feel they miss on the Sox before, and they credited Kenny Williams as being a GM who makes small moves as well as Herm for being one of the best trainers in the game. But I'm sure you researched before making such an asinine statement.

Quick, Lip! Name three BP writers without looking them up. For someone who bitches and whines so much about a publication, I'd hope you're well-versed enough to rationalize your sweeping stereotypes and generalizations. There's quite a bit of information regarding scouts in stories -- but I guess you'd have to actually look at it once in awhile to grasp it.

I'm a paid subscriber to BP, and I think most of it is a pile of crap that would fall over on itself if it were piled any higher.

Craig Grebeck
07-06-2009, 09:17 PM
With Guillen one of the few managers who actually brings something to the table, and Kenny Williams’ development from a bumpy start to become one of the better GMs in the game, the White Sox have one of the best management teams in baseball. There’s absolutely no way I would have expected that two years ago, and quite frankly, there’s probably a terrific book in examining how these two men have ascended to the top of their profession. Williams’ career path--from Todd Ritchie to Jim Thome--is one of the most fascinating I can think of for an executive.

Moneyball II, anyone?

I wonder who wrote this...clearly no one at BP!

Oh wait, it was Joe Sheehan.

Not possible you say?! (https://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5276)

asindc
07-06-2009, 09:21 PM
I believe they've actually explained why they feel they miss on the Sox before, and they credited Kenny Williams as being a GM who makes small moves as well as Herm for being one of the best trainers in the game. But I'm sure you researched before making such an asinine statement.

Quick, Lip! Name three BP writers without looking them up. For someone who bitches and whines so much about a publication, I'd hope you're well-versed enough to rationalize your sweeping stereotypes and generalizations. There's quite a bit of information regarding scouts in stories -- but I guess you'd have to actually look at it once in awhile to grasp it.

Other than actually reading their website this year where they stated what I repeated in my previous post, no I didn't research. If you think the statement is asinine, blame the BP writer who wrote it, not me.

If citing Herm's work as trainer is BP's way of partially explaining the "anomalous" results the Sox consistently put up, then that's weak IMO. It's not as if the Sox have suffered relatively fewer games lost to injury than the average team in recent years.

Craig Grebeck
07-06-2009, 09:28 PM
Other than actually reading their website this year where they stated what I repeated in my previous post, no I didn't research. If you think the statement is asinine, blame the BP writer who wrote it, not me.

If citing Herm's work as trainer is BP's way of partially explaining the "anomalous" results the Sox consistently put up, then that's weak IMO. It's not as if the Sox have suffered relatively fewer games lost to injury than the average team in recent years.
Bull****. Our medical staff has been nothing short of fantastic.

everafan
07-06-2009, 09:35 PM
[QUOTE=Craig Grebeck;2280745]I believe they've actually explained why they feel they miss on the Sox before, and they credited Kenny Williams as being a GM who makes small moves as well as Herm for being one of the best trainers in the game. But I'm sure you researched before making such an asinine statement.

If that's true why wouldn't they apply some kind of coefficient to account for this? Are you saying that they just throw their arms up and say - no way to compensate for a known variable?

Daver
07-06-2009, 09:35 PM
Bull****. Our medical staff has been nothing short of fantastic.

And this justifies BP's excuse for being wrong?

The training staff has been the same for a decade, but BP needs a new scapegoat every year.

Lip Man 1
07-06-2009, 09:36 PM
Tell that to the half dozen pitchers in 2000 and 2001, Ordonez and Thomas in 2004, the numerous injuries in 2007 and this year.

That doesn't mean I'm saying the medical staff is bad, I'm simply saying the Sox had two legit seasons this decade destroyed by injuries. Nothing would have helped 2007 and they are surviving the ones this year (so far)

It simply offers "proof" to Asin's statement. The Sox have been hit and hard with injuries this decade and it has cost them.

Daver's retort to you sums up my feeling nicely about the eggheads, mathematicians and stat-geeks that are trying to turn baseball into advanced calculus.Nothing more needs to be said.

Lip

everafan
07-06-2009, 09:37 PM
Other than actually reading their website this year where they stated what I repeated in my previous post, no I didn't research. If you think the statement is asinine, blame the BP writer who wrote it, not me.

If citing Herm's work as trainer is BP's way of partially explaining the "anomalous" results the Sox consistently put up, then that's weak IMO. It's not as if the Sox have suffered relatively fewer games lost to injury than the average team in recent years.

It's not anomalous if it can be accounted for.

Tragg
07-06-2009, 09:45 PM
It's not anomalous if it can be accounted for.

Not necessarily.

I don't think one can account for the lack of injuries as the reason for 2005 anyway. Frank Thomas missed most of the year.....

asindc
07-06-2009, 09:46 PM
It's not anomalous if it can be accounted for.

Which is why I put it in "quotes.":smile:

Craig Grebeck
07-06-2009, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE=Craig Grebeck;2280745]I believe they've actually explained why they feel they miss on the Sox before, and they credited Kenny Williams as being a GM who makes small moves as well as Herm for being one of the best trainers in the game. But I'm sure you researched before making such an asinine statement.

If that's true why wouldn't they apply some kind of coefficient to account for this? Are you saying that they just throw their arms up and say - no way to compensate for a known variable?
Because PECOTA accounts for injuries based on history and age. They acknowledge that PECOTA has flaws, and one of them is accounting for something as volatile as injuries.

And this justifies BP's excuse for being wrong?

The training staff has been the same for a decade, but BP needs a new scapegoat every year.
I don't think the word of PECOTA, but BP does a good bit of self-analysis, and often explore why exactly the White Sox consistently out-perform PECOTA while most other teams are easy to peg.

Tell that to the half dozen pitchers in 2000 and 2001, Ordonez and Thomas in 2004, the numerous injuries in 2007 and this year.

That doesn't mean I'm saying the medical staff is bad, I'm simply saying the Sox had two legit seasons this decade destroyed by injuries. Nothing would have helped 2007 and they are surviving the ones this year (so far)

It simply offers "proof" to Asin's statement. The Sox have been hit and hard with injuries this decade and it has cost them.

Daver's retort to you sums up my feeling nicely about the eggheads, mathematicians and stat-geeks that are trying to turn baseball into advanced calculus.Nothing more needs to be said.

Lip
So I take it you can neither name three writers nor explain to me how exactly BP's analysis amounts to turning baseball into calculus?

Geeks!

asindc
07-06-2009, 09:53 PM
Tell that to the half dozen pitchers in 2000 and 2001, Ordonez and Thomas in 2004, the numerous injuries in 2007 and this year.

That doesn't mean I'm saying the medical staff is bad, I'm simply saying the Sox had two legit seasons this decade destroyed by injuries. Nothing would have helped 2007 and they are surviving the ones this year (so far)

It simply offers "proof" to Asin's statement. The Sox have been hit and hard with injuries this decade and it has cost them.

Daver's retort to you sums up my feeling nicely about the eggheads, mathematicians and stat-geeks that are trying to turn baseball into advanced calculus.Nothing more needs to be said.

Lip

Add to that the following:

2005

1) Hermanson
2) El Duque
3) Pods
4) Frank

2008
1) TCQ
2) Uribe
3) Crede
4) Contreras
5) Pauly
6) Jenks

Those are just the regulars who missed significant time due to injuries, not those who missed just a couple of games here or there. Herm and his staff are top flight, but the implication from BP's citing Herm as a major factor for the Sox success is that the team has had fewer games lost to injury than the average team. That's just not true.

Daver
07-06-2009, 09:55 PM
[QUOTE=everafan;2280757]
Because PECOTA accounts for injuries based on history and age. They acknowledge that PECOTA has flaws, and one of them is accounting for something as volatile as injuries.


I don't think the word of PECOTA, but BP does a good bit of self-analysis, and often explore why exactly the White Sox consistently out-perform PECOTA while most other teams are easy to peg.


So I take it you can neither name three writers nor explain to me how exactly BP's analysis amounts to turning baseball into calculus?

Geeks!

PECOTA in and of itself, is pure mental masturbation, as it is a number that measures nothing.

angiew
07-07-2009, 09:45 AM
Along with Dye how does Kinsler and Sandoval not make the team?

I completely agree with this. Kinsler is one of if not the best 2B out there:scratch: And Josh Hamilton???? Guy's been out forever! UGH Oh well, the ASG is just a stupid popularity contest anyway....I hope JD continues to play well and shoves it down everyone's throat!:wink:

VenturaFan23
07-07-2009, 10:34 AM
Along with Dye how does Kinsler and Sandoval not make the team?

I think the biggest snub that no one is talking about is Yovani Gallardo from the Brewers. 2.75 ERA 114K in 104 innings. How in the world does he not make it? Better numbers than both Billingsley and Marquis. Less wins, yes, but he gets no run support. He's been involved in a few 1-0 games. If I was a Brewers fan, I'd be livid.

Carolina Kenny
07-07-2009, 10:44 AM
I will not be watching the Bud-Lite All Star Game. Trying to force-feed this crap down my throat by making this game "meaningful" has soured me.

I am glad that no Sox (other than Burls) has made the team or the HR Derby. If CQ was healthy and in the Derby, he would probably win the damn thing and then be screwed up for the rest of the year.

Bud, if you are listening, the heck with you and stupid ideas.

bigdommer
07-07-2009, 12:03 PM
All you need to know about BP is included in my signature.

The problem with numbers/projections/data that is included in BP/Pecota/Moneyball/etc, is that they look at things in a vacuum. Whether it's the 33 age dropoff or the Moneyball draft, it uses a limited amount of data in a limited amount of time to support a thesis. Remember that Moneyball draft? 7 first round and sandwich guys, and only three (Swisher/Teahan/Blanton) are big league guys, and they are all all below average.