PDA

View Full Version : Magglio Ordonez will retire June 3rd


#1swisher
05-29-2012, 02:33 PM
MLB

Magglio Ordo˝ez to announce his retirement in a special
pregame ceremony on June 3 at Comerica Park.

Foxsports
http://www.foxsportsdetroit.com/05/29/12/Ordoez-to-call-it-a-career-Sunday/landing_tigers.html?blockID=737270&feedID=3701

soxinem1
05-29-2012, 02:36 PM
I guess it is screw us then..... :D:

RKMeibalane
05-29-2012, 02:38 PM
When will his statue ceremony take place at the 'Cell?

asindc
05-29-2012, 02:53 PM
I thought he had already announced his retirement.

thomas35forever
05-29-2012, 03:02 PM
When will his statue ceremony take place at the 'Cell?
It was planned, but then, they decided to build a cheaper Jermaine Dye statue. Everyone will turn out happier for it.

asindc
05-29-2012, 03:12 PM
It was planned, but then, they decided to build a cheaper Jermaine Dye statue. Everyone will turn out happier for it.

I once talked to a Tiger fan friend about Maggs' FA saga with the Sox. Most Detroit fans were/are not aware of the nonsense he and his agent tried to pull. He tried to express some consolation to me for the Sox not having signed Maggs, but I told him October 26, 2005 offered all the consolation I needed.:smile:

Lip Man 1
05-29-2012, 03:37 PM
Very, very good player with one of the best looking batting stances / swings in the game.

He had a good career.

Lip

Madvora
05-29-2012, 03:39 PM
Remember all this about him and Canseco?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22813295/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sports/baseball/24canseco.html?_r=1&hp

Seems to be the same reason Roger Clemens got an out-of-nowhere compliment in Canseco's book, having to do with Clemens not cheating on his wife.

Chez
05-29-2012, 03:41 PM
Very, very good player with one of the best looking batting stances / swings in the game.

He had a good career.

Lip

Agreed. Mags was really solid for us. It bothered me that people booed him at the Cell when he returned as a Tiger.

Hitmen77
05-29-2012, 04:29 PM
Does this mean that the Sox won't be able to sign him to a 1-day contract so that he can retire with his original team?

When will his statue ceremony take place at the 'Cell?

The statue will be at Comerica. It'll be right next to Boras's statue.

Lamp81
05-29-2012, 04:54 PM
Agreed. Mags was really solid for us. It bothered me that people booed him at the Cell when he returned as a Tiger.
Sox fans didn't boo him because of his performance, they booed him because he burned the bridge from Chicago to Detroit.

Magglio should have been appreciative the the White Sox gave him the opportunity to leave Venezuela, and likely lifetime poverty, and have the chance to make millions of $ in America.

Golden Sox
05-29-2012, 05:06 PM
You never know how ballplayers are going to perform in the big leagues. The White Sox brought up Mags about the same time they brought up Jeff Abbott. Most of the White Sox Minor League people thought Jeff Abbott was the better ballplayer.

Foulke You
05-29-2012, 05:12 PM
The 3-4-5 of Thomas, Ordonez, and Konerko in the early 2000s was a murderer's row. Might be the best 3-4-5 middle of the order in White Sox history. I have fond memories of Maggs in a White Sox uniform. I hated the way it ended here but in the end, it worked out for both sides. The Sox won it all in 2005 and Magglio ended up hitting a walk off to win the AL Pennant in 2006 and was a big part of the Tigers franchise turnaround.

Frater Perdurabo
05-29-2012, 05:18 PM
The 3-4-5 of Thomas, Ordonez, and Konerko in the early 2000s was a murderer's row. Might be the best 3-4-5 middle of the order in White Sox history. I have fond memories of Maggs in a White Sox uniform. I hated the way it ended here but in the end, it worked out for both sides. The Sox won it all in 2005 and Magglio ended up hitting a walk off to win the AL Pennant in 2006 and was a big part of the Tigers franchise turnaround.

Don't forget Carlos Lee, making it an amazing 3-4-5-6.

It's too bad Maggs was done in by injuries; he was a fearsome hitter in his prime. He also had the best fan chant.

tstrike2000
05-29-2012, 05:24 PM
It was planned, but then, they decided to build a cheaper Jermaine Dye statue. Everyone will turn out happier for it.

The Sox also wanted to build a statue of someone who actually came through in the World Series. :D:

Best of luck to Maggs. Despite the whole knee injury\doctor thing in '04, and subsequent problems between him and the Sox, I have fond memories of his time in a Sox uniform.

Viva Medias B's
05-29-2012, 11:37 PM
Magglio needs to publically apologize to us White Sox fans for his role in leaving us and for his use of PEDs. For him to treat us the way he did on the way to Detroit, after all the love we gave him when he was here, is still a sore subject with me. To me, he is the prodigal son and needs to seek fogiveness from us.

DSpivack
05-29-2012, 11:43 PM
Magglio needs to publically apologize to us White Sox fans for his role in leaving us and for his use of PEDs. For him to treat us the way he did on the way to Detroit, after all the love we gave him when he was here, is still a sore subject with me. To me, he is the prodigal son and needs to seek fogiveness from us.

He doesn't need to do anything. Given his health issues at the time, not re-signing was the right move, no matter what he or his free agent said at the time. I don't need some former White Sox player to apologize for his actions in the offseason after 2004. The following season more than made up for that.

HomeFish
05-30-2012, 12:08 AM
I'm happy that Magglio will retire without a ring. I will be a million times happier when Torii Hunter retires without a ring.

White_Sock
05-30-2012, 12:59 AM
The 3-4-5 of Thomas, Ordonez, and Konerko in the early 2000s was a murderer's row. Might be the best 3-4-5 middle of the order in White Sox history. I have fond memories of Maggs in a White Sox uniform. I hated the way it ended here but in the end, it worked out for both sides. The Sox won it all in 2005 and Magglio ended up hitting a walk off to win the AL Pennant in 2006 and was a big part of the Tigers franchise turnaround.

Ditto here. I loved watching Maggs play when he played for the right team.

Lip Man 1
05-30-2012, 01:04 AM
Viva:

Where did you read that Mags used steroids? :?:

Lip

SoxSpeed22
05-30-2012, 01:18 AM
As far as that offseason goes, I have much more of a problem with Boras (and I'm sure KW agrees with me) than I did with Maggs. He was a great player while he was here.

johnnyg83
05-30-2012, 01:24 AM
Don't forget Carlos Lee, making it an amazing 3-4-5-6.

It's too bad Maggs was done in by injuries; he was a fearsome hitter in his prime. He also had the best fan chant.

That is amazing ... and Valentine ... juts saw that stat about the Texas Rangers being the first team to score 10 runs in 10 of their first 48 games since the 2002 White Sox. That's sick. If only we had some SP>

Madvora
05-30-2012, 08:09 AM
Viva:

Where did you read that Mags used steroids? :?:

Lip

Check out post #8. It comes from Canseco.
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/bse-list-steroid-hgh-users-baseball.html#magglio-ordonez

Also this.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96936

RKMeibalane
05-30-2012, 09:15 AM
That is amazing ... and Valentine ... juts saw that stat about the Texas Rangers being the first team to score 10 runs in 10 of their first 48 games since the 2002 White Sox. That's sick. If only we had some SP>

Who is this Valentine you speak of?

PatK
05-30-2012, 11:57 AM
I remember the first Mullet Night at the Cell in 2005 and was disappointed Magglio wasn't playing that game.

I had my Ordonez Sox jersey with the O, R, and z crossed out and a glorious mullet in honor of his new hairdo.

He was my favorite player when with the Sox. I was sad to see him go, but not about the circumstances or with the results that happened after he left.

Irishsox1
05-30-2012, 12:33 PM
Maggs was so quiet when he was with the Sox. He came to play every day, hit well, ran well, fielded well and did it without flash. He was like the anti-Sosa at the time Sosa was in his full blown clown mode. He fit the Jerry Manual 1999-2003 Sox perfectly...Quiet.

Then Ozzie comes in, Magglio blows out his knee in Cleveland then Magglio blasts the Sox, Ozzie then calls Magglio a "Venezuelan POS" and a huge war of words starts from a guy who never said boo when he was with the Sox but now had a lot to say....It was so weird and seemed to come out of nowhere. Then the Sox replace Maggs with Dye who wins the MVP of the World Series hitting .438 making the decision to dump Maggs look brilliant. Maggs makes it to the 2006 World Series where he hits .105 against a St. Louis team that only won 83 games in a horrible NL central.

Maggs and Jerry Manual to me are so linked, they were both quiet, they both won a lot of games but both needed to leave town for the Sox to win a championship.

#1swisher
05-30-2012, 12:47 PM
Paul Konerko speaks well of Ordonez :smile:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-konerko-lathers-former-sox-teammate-ordonez-with-praise-20120529,0,6519838.story

WSox597
05-30-2012, 07:41 PM
I always liked Maggs as a White Sox player, whatever really happened during that off-season period. A great player, at the time I hated to see him go.

It worked out well, as we all know, but I still liked him as a player.

I

mzh
05-30-2012, 09:13 PM
Also this.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96936
I couldn't help but chuckle while reading us in 2008 debate whether the claim that Alex Rodriguez was dirty was true or not.

Viva Medias B's
05-30-2012, 10:08 PM
Viva:

Where did you read that Mags used steroids? :?:

Lip

It was in Canseco's second book. Not that I admire Canseco becaue I abhor him, but he has usually been accurate about this stuff.

HomeFish
05-31-2012, 01:07 AM
I remember the first Mullet Night at the Cell in 2005 and was disappointed Magglio wasn't playing that game.

I had my Ordonez Sox jersey with the O, R, and z crossed out and a glorious mullet in honor of his new hairdo.

He was my favorite player when with the Sox. I was sad to see him go, but not about the circumstances or with the results that happened after he left.

Magglio Ordonez: booed everytime he played against the Sox

Frank Thomas: hit 2 HRs in his first two ABs against the Sox, received a standing ovation both times

SOX ADDICT '73
05-31-2012, 10:01 PM
I have often said that Magglio Ordonez is the person most responsible for the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005. The Sox took the $12 million an INJURED Maggs turned down and used it to pay:

Jermaine Dye
Tadahito Iguchi
Orlando Hernandez
AJ Pierzynski

Where would that team have been without any ONE of those guys, let alone ALL of them? So, for the best baseball season of my life - thank you, Magglio!

dickallen15
06-01-2012, 07:17 AM
It was in Canseco's second book. Not that I admire Canseco becaue I abhor him, but he has usually been accurate about this stuff.
It also came out Canseco tried asking players for money to keep their names out of the book. Why wasn't he named in book #1?

Madvora
06-01-2012, 08:44 AM
Paul Konerko speaks well of Ordonez :smile:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-konerko-lathers-former-sox-teammate-ordonez-with-praise-20120529,0,6519838.story
I don't remember his defense being anything special. I thought it was average.
One thing for sure is that he was the worst base runner I have ever seen.

Rocky Soprano
06-01-2012, 10:54 AM
Magglio Ordonez: booed everytime he played against the Sox

Frank Thomas: hit 2 HRs in his first two ABs against the Sox, received a standing ovation both times

That is not true, I was at that game and he was booed after the 2nd HR.

Hitmen77
06-01-2012, 02:33 PM
When will his statue ceremony take place at the 'Cell?

I have often said that Magglio Ordonez is the person most responsible for the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005. The Sox took the $12 million an INJURED Maggs turned down and used it to pay:

Jermaine Dye
Tadahito Iguchi
Orlando Hernandez
AJ Pierzynski

Where would that team have been without any ONE of those guys, let alone ALL of them? So, for the best baseball season of my life - thank you, Magglio!

It's settled then. He'll get a statue at the Cell and it'll depict him sitting on his couch in Oct. 2005 watching the World Series on TV. :tongue:

TheVulture
06-01-2012, 03:05 PM
Agreed. Mags was really solid for us. It bothered me that people booed him at the Cell when he returned as a Tiger.

Solid? Maggs was probably one of the best players in White Sox history.

FielderJones
06-01-2012, 03:20 PM
One thing for sure is that he was the worst base runner I have ever seen.


:Lillibridge:
"Mads, how's it goin'?"

soxinem1
06-01-2012, 10:05 PM
That is not true, I was at that game and he was booed after the 2nd HR.

I was there too and I do not recall the booing outdoing the cheering.

HaroMaster87
06-05-2012, 05:34 AM
Solid? Maggs was probably one of the best players in White Sox history.


I think you forgot the teal...at least I hope you did...

Johnny Mostil
06-05-2012, 08:24 AM
Solid? Maggs was probably one of the best players in White Sox history.

I think you forgot the teal...at least I hope you did...

Vulture's statement might be a little strong for my tastes, but I see no need for teal. All-time among Sox players, Ordˇ˝ez ranks ninth in BA, ninth in OPS, fifth in HR, and tenth in RBI. And everybody outranking him in HR or RBI played at least 250 more games here.

Eight years later, I'm also not sure I see cause for bitterness over how Ordˇ˝ez left the Sox. As Sox Addict noted, the team made far better use of the money it would have paid Ordˇ˝ez. Given the makeup of the team the past decade, it might have never gotten to, much less won, the Series with him. Win, win. Meanwhile, Ordˇ˝ez made more money than he would have with the Sox. And he got to go to the World Series, as I doubt he would have with the Sox. Win, win for him, too.

doublem23
06-05-2012, 09:39 AM
White Sox Career oWAR Leaders

Frank Thomas - 71.1
Luke Appling - 65.9
Eddie Collins - 63.4
Minnie Minoso - 37.8
Nellie Fox - 32.2
Paul Konerko - 31.7
Carlton Fisk - 26.9
Robin Ventura - 26.4
Ray Durham - 26.1
Joe Jackson - 25.3
Magglio Ordonez - 23.9
Harold Baines - 22.6
Fielder Jones - 22.2
Luis Aparicio - 21.9
George Davis - 21.5

HomeFish
06-05-2012, 04:07 PM
I was there too and I do not recall the booing outdoing the cheering.

Yeah, I was at this game as well, and while the crowd reaction was more mixed after the second HR, a substantial number of White Sox fans cheered and gave him his second standing O of the night.

I've posted this anecdote on WSI countless times already, but I've been to countless White Sox games, including every game of the '05 playoffs except Game 2 of the series, and there has been only one time that the crowd was so loud that I couldn't hear Gene Honda. And that was when Frank Thomas was introduced to throw out the first pitch of Game 1 of the '05 ALDS.

We didn't always love Frank Thomas when he was here, but we really love him now that he's gone.

DSpivack
06-05-2012, 04:26 PM
White Sox Career oWAR Leaders

Frank Thomas - 71.1
Luke Appling - 65.9
Eddie Collins - 63.4
Minnie Minoso - 37.8
Nellie Fox - 32.2
Paul Konerko - 31.7
Carlton Fisk - 26.9
Robin Ventura - 26.4
Ray Durham - 26.1
Joe Jackson - 25.3
Magglio Ordonez - 23.9
Harold Baines - 22.6
Fielder Jones - 22.2
Luis Aparicio - 21.9
George Davis - 21.5



George Davis? :scratch:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/davisge01.shtml

doublem23
06-05-2012, 04:54 PM
George Davis? :scratch:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/davisge01.shtml

Probably the best player on our first World Champion team

http://baseballhall.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/hof_plaque/hof/plaques/Davis%20George%20Plaque_NBL_0.png

Johnny Mostil
06-06-2012, 09:55 AM
White Sox Career oWAR Leaders

Frank Thomas - 71.1
Luke Appling - 65.9
Eddie Collins - 63.4
Minnie Minoso - 37.8
Nellie Fox - 32.2
Paul Konerko - 31.7
Carlton Fisk - 26.9
Robin Ventura - 26.4
Ray Durham - 26.1
Joe Jackson - 25.3
Magglio Ordonez - 23.9
Harold Baines - 22.6
Fielder Jones - 22.2
Luis Aparicio - 21.9
George Davis - 21.5


Interesting list; thanks for posting it. I hadn't thought to check for such a thing. I see that everybody on it but Jackson and Davis had at least 800 more plate appearances than Ordˇ˝ez.

FielderJones
06-06-2012, 10:54 AM
A stat that ranks Ray Durham ahead of Joe Jackson has me :scratch:

gobears1987
06-06-2012, 11:04 AM
A stat that ranks Ray Durham ahead of Joe Jackson has me :scratch:

It proves sabermetrics is full of ****.

Remember, Shoeless had the 3rd highest batting average in MLB history.

Johnny Mostil
06-06-2012, 11:19 AM
A stat that ranks Ray Durham ahead of Joe Jackson has me :scratch:

Yeah, it confuzzles me, too, but there are two things to note about that.

First, Durham had nearly twice as many plate appearances as Jackson for the Sox. So I suppose it isn't too surprising he ranks ahead of Jackson in some career statistics (or derived career statistics).

Second, Durham's career dWAR (and I think even many sabermetricians think it a horrible stat, but it's amusing here) while here was a -3.7. So for the 26 games he supposedly won above a replacement player for the Sox with his bat over his time here, I guess he gave away four. For what it's worth, Ordˇ˝ez's career dWAR while here was a -4.2, while Jackson's was a -2.5

And for the record, I'm not a sabermetrician at all, though obviously I enjoy looking at stats like this and seeing where they add insight. Or where they might not :wink:.

SephClone89
06-06-2012, 11:53 AM
Yeah, it confuzzles me, too, but there are two things to note about that.

First, Durham had nearly twice as many plate appearances as Jackson for the Sox. So I suppose it isn't too surprising he ranks ahead of Jackson in some career statistics (or derived career statistics).

Second, Durham's career dWAR (and I think even many sabermetricians think it a horrible stat, but it's amusing here) while here was a -3.7. So for the 26 games he supposedly won above a replacement player for the Sox with his bat over his time here, I guess he gave away four. For what it's worth, Ordˇ˝ez's career dWAR while here was a -4.2, while Jackson's was a -2.5

And for the record, I'm not a sabermetrician at all, though obviously I enjoy looking at stats like this and seeing where they add insight. Or where they might not :wink:.

Also remember that Durham played a less offensive-minded position.

And yes, playing more for the Sox helps too. Career WAR is cumulative, which makes sense to help understand how large or significant a player's perfomance was to a franchise.

SephClone89
06-06-2012, 11:54 AM
It proves sabermetrics is full of ****..

No, no it doesn't.

Johnny Mostil
06-06-2012, 12:03 PM
Also remember that Durham played a less offensive-minded position.

Thanks; that's a very good point I overlooked. A replacement 2B would indeed, I assume, be easier to surpass at the plate than a replacement OF . . .

doublem23
06-06-2012, 12:16 PM
It proves sabermetrics is full of ****.

Remember, Shoeless had the 3rd highest batting average in MLB history.

A stat that ranks Ray Durham ahead of Joe Jackson has me :scratch:

You rocket scientists are aware that Shoeless Joe only played for the 6 seasons, one of which he appeared in a grand total of 17 games, right?

This is career WAR accumulated with the Sox only.

Also this demonstrates the value of WAR; when Shoeless Joe hit. 408 in 1911 with Cleveland, the average league BA was almost .280. Today, the average AL BA is .253. WAR, while not perfect, at least strives to take out as much era-induced disparities as possible.

SephClone89
06-06-2012, 12:16 PM
Thanks; that's a very good point I overlooked. A replacement 2B would indeed, I assume, be easier to surpass at the plate than a replacement OF . . .

Yep. It's the same reason Fox and Aparicio make the list.

asindc
06-06-2012, 12:34 PM
You rocket scientists are aware that Shoeless Joe only played for the 6 seasons, one of which he appeared in a grand total of 17 games, right?

This is career WAR accumulated with the Sox only.

Also this demonstrates the value of WAR; when Shoeless Joe hit. 408 in 1911 with Cleveland, the average league BA was almost .280. Today, the average AL BA is .253. WAR, while not perfect, at least strives to take out as much era-induced disparities as possible.

It seems that longevity has a higher value with this stat than maybe it should, unless you want to know someone's value to one particular team relative to other players, which I think is the point of this discussion. If that is not the point being discussed, however, I don't see much need for a stat that seems to place such high emphasis on how long someone played for a team.

doublem23
06-06-2012, 12:41 PM
It seems that longevity has a higher value with this stat than maybe it should, unless you want to know someone's value to one particular team relative to other players, which I think is the point of this discussion. If that is not the point being discussed, however, I don't see much need for a stat that seems to place such high emphasis on how long someone played for a team.

You can make this argument about any cumulative stat (who is the greatest HR hitter in Sox history; Big Frank who holds the franchise mark, Albert Belle who has the single season mark, or Ken Griffey, Jr. who has the highest individual career total?)

Obviously, anyone with a 3rd grade education and a calculator can manipulate the numbers to provide context for playing time, if they like, but when you're talking about "greatest players in franchise history" not taking into account things like longevity would be silly.

Ray Durham didn't accumulate a 26+ WAR because he was a crappy player for 26 years, he accumulated that many wins because for 7 1/2 seasons he was an above average to All-Star quality 2B.

SI1020
06-06-2012, 01:49 PM
WAR is better than the BFW and PW that retrosheet.org uses but I refuse to bow down to it as the Holy Grail. The DWAR part of it now has little or no meaning to me. I can figure out BA, Slugging Pct. and ERA on my own. Also OPS, OPS+ and ERA+. I wish they would use percentiles, as in his BA was in the 98th percentile. I honestly don't know how they compile a lot of the newer stats, and as previously stated I think that they are making a mess out of defensive metrics. Just because you have some or a lot of criticism of sabermetrics doesn't mean you are a ground dragging troglodyte. Much of it has devolved into pure alchemy.

SephClone89
06-06-2012, 03:01 PM
I honestly don't know how they compile a lot of the newer stats, and as previously stated I think that they are making a mess out of defensive metrics. Just because you have some or a lot of criticism of sabermetrics doesn't mean you are a ground dragging troglodyte.


Of course not. Sabermetricians are often the biggest critics of sabermetrics. They're aware of the shortcomings.

But to say "all sabermetrics are complete bull****" as some here do is just plainly incorrect.

beasly213
06-06-2012, 03:05 PM
Of course not. Sabermetricians are often the biggest critics of sabermetrics. They're aware of the shortcomings.

But to say "all sabermetrics are complete bull****" as some here do is just plainly incorrect.


I think a lot of people has issues with Saber because people seem to think everyone who follows Saber takes all of their projections as predictions of 100% will happen. When in reality it tells you what likely will happen based on what has already happened.

That and Sabermetric nerds can come off as a bit snobby.

FielderJones
06-06-2012, 03:07 PM
You rocket scientists are aware that Shoeless Joe only played for the 6 seasons, one of which he appeared in a grand total of 17 games, right?

This is career WAR accumulated with the Sox only.

Also this demonstrates the value of WAR; when Shoeless Joe hit. 408 in 1911 with Cleveland, the average league BA was almost .280. Today, the average AL BA is .253. WAR, while not perfect, at least strives to take out as much era-induced disparities as possible.

I wasn't aware of what oWAR measured until seeing it here. I don't even know how WAR is derived, as there seem to be multiple formulae when I try to research it.

Just because I'm more comfortable with objective stats that I can derive on my own with simple math doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

It still seems odd that 370 extra regular season games of relatively average play overcome 776 regular season and 14 vs 3 postseason games played at the highest level.

TommyJohn
06-06-2012, 03:33 PM
I wasn't aware of what oWAR measured until seeing it here. I don't even know how WAR is derived, as there seem to be multiple formulae when I try to research it.

Just because I'm more comfortable with objective stats that I can derive on my own with simple math doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

I think a lot of people has issues with Saber because people seem to think everyone who follows Saber takes all of their projections as predictions of 100% will happen. When in reality it tells you what likely will happen based on what has already happened.

That and Sabermetric nerds can come off as a bit snobby.

WAR is better than the BFW and PW that retrosheet.org uses but I refuse to bow down to it as the Holy Grail. The DWAR part of it now has little or no meaning to me. I can figure out BA, Slugging Pct. and ERA on my own. Also OPS, OPS+ and ERA+. I wish they would use percentiles, as in his BA was in the 98th percentile. I honestly don't know how they compile a lot of the newer stats, and as previously stated I think that they are making a mess out of defensive metrics. Just because you have some or a lot of criticism of sabermetrics doesn't mean you are a ground dragging troglodyte. Much of it has devolved into pure alchemy.


Thank you. I'm not a big fan of sabermetrics, I think they are way overdone-and the smug arrogance of some sabermaticians drives me nuts.

FielderJones
06-06-2012, 03:38 PM
Thank you. I'm not a big fan of sabermetrics, I think they are way overdone-and the smug arrogance of some sabermaticians drives me nuts.

I could deal with the smugness if someone could convince me that these subjective stats really do tell a better picture than objective stats.

doublem23
06-06-2012, 04:32 PM
WAR is better than the BFW and PW that retrosheet.org uses but I refuse to bow down to it as the Holy Grail. The DWAR part of it now has little or no meaning to me. I can figure out BA, Slugging Pct. and ERA on my own. Also OPS, OPS+ and ERA+. I wish they would use percentiles, as in his BA was in the 98th percentile. I honestly don't know how they compile a lot of the newer stats, and as previously stated I think that they are making a mess out of defensive metrics. Just because you have some or a lot of criticism of sabermetrics doesn't mean you are a ground dragging troglodyte. Much of it has devolved into pure alchemy.

I'm not much of a fan of dWAR either, that's why I only posted oWAR numbers.

doublem23
06-06-2012, 04:39 PM
I could deal with the smugness if someone could convince me that these subjective stats really do tell a better picture than objective stats.

Well, and this isn't aimed at you, but when people start talking about batting average, it's time to just call it a day and agree to disagree. If, at this point in time, you're still paying any attention to BA then you're probably just never going to be convinced of the merit of newfangled stats.

Also, if it makes you feel better, though Durham's oWAR with the Sox is slightly higher than Jackson's (again, owed mostly to the extra 500 games he played for us), career wise, Jackson earned 59.6 wins over replacement while Durham only earned 30.6. So you can rest easy, as it clearly defines Jackson as the superior player.

asindc
06-06-2012, 05:05 PM
You rocket scientists are aware that Shoeless Joe only played for the 6 seasons, one of which he appeared in a grand total of 17 games, right?

This is career WAR accumulated with the Sox only.

Also this demonstrates the value of WAR; when Shoeless Joe hit. 408 in 1911 with Cleveland, the average league BA was almost .280. Today, the average AL BA is .253. WAR, while not perfect, at least strives to take out as much era-induced disparities as possible.

I wasn't aware of what oWAR measured until seeing it here. I don't even know how WAR is derived, as there seem to be multiple formulae when I try to research it.

Just because I'm more comfortable with objective stats that I can derive on my own with simple math doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

It still seems odd that 370 extra regular season games of relatively average play overcome 776 regular season and 14 vs 3 postseason games played at the highest level.

That gets to the point I was alluding to earlier. Based on having watched them play, any stat that would suggest that Ray Durham was a better player for the Sox than Albert Belle is fundamentally flawed in concept.

Of course not. Sabermetricians are often the biggest critics of sabermetrics. They're aware of the shortcomings.

But to say "all sabermetrics are complete bull****" as some here do is just plainly incorrect.

Well, not even two years ago there were quite a few posters here that strongly implied on a regular basis that sabermetrics are infallible.

Well, and this isn't aimed at you, but when people start talking about batting average, it's time to just call it a day and agree to disagree. If, at this point in time, you're still paying any attention to BA then you're probably just never going to be convinced of the merit of newfangled stats.

Also, if it makes you feel better, though Durham's oWAR with the Sox is slightly higher than Jackson's (again, owed mostly to the extra 500 games he played for us), career wise, Jackson earned 59.6 wins over replacement while Durham only earned 30.6. So you can rest easy, as it clearly defines Jackson as the superior player.

oWAR! Hmph! Good God y'all, what is it good for?!

doublem23
06-06-2012, 05:11 PM
That gets to the point I was alluding to earlier. Based on having watched them play, any stat that would suggest that Ray Durham was a better player for the Sox than Albert Belle is fundamentally flawed in concept.


Then, by your logic, the following stats are fundamentally flawed in logic:

Runs, Hits, Doubles, Triples, Home Runs, Runs Batted In, Stolen Bases, Total Bases, Walks

Durham's career totals with the Sox in all those numbers are better than Belle's.

asindc
06-06-2012, 05:46 PM
Then, by your logic, the following stats are fundamentally flawed in logic:

Runs, Hits, Doubles, Triples, Home Runs, Runs Batted In, Stolen Bases, Total Bases, Walks

Durham's career totals with the Sox in all those numbers are better than Belle's.

Yes they are, and it is clear to me that, barring injury, had Belle played the same number of games for the Sox that Durham did, the only category Durham would have bested Belle in is SBs and triples. Look, all I'm saying is if the main point of oWAR is to decide who provided the most value to the Sox as a player, then so be it. If it is to be used to determine something beyond that, then I'm not seeing its usefulness.

doublem23
06-06-2012, 06:00 PM
Yes they are, and it is clear to me that, barring injury, had Belle played the same number of games for the Sox that Durham did, the only category Durham would have bested Belle in is SBs and triples. Look, all I'm saying is if the main point of oWAR is to decide who provided the most value to the Sox as a player, then so be it. If it is to be used to determine something beyond that, then I'm not seeing its usefulness.

No doubt, that's why if you weight their respective WAR earned with the Sox and then weighted the totals to an equal number of games, Belle's is larger than Durham's.

That's the exact purpose of WAR, it is an attempt to aggregate a bunch of different stats, weigh them against league averages, and try and find a relatively unbiased number of value. It's not perfect, but it has its merits, as well.

Huisj
06-07-2012, 12:11 AM
This argument is ridiculous. Looking at cumulative WAR over a time period can be treated in some sense as a counting stat.

All this petty "if this stat says so-and-so was better than so-and-so, then it's hogwash" arguing is missing the point of what the stat is trying to show. Maybe we just need something like a WAR/year stat or something to clear it up. If a guy is figured to have helped to contribute about 3 wins per year for 9 years, his total WAR in that time is 27, and his WAR/year is 3. If a guy contributes about 7 wins per year for 3 years, his total war in that time is 21, and his WAR/year is 7. Who's more valuable to an organization? That depends what you value and what else you need at other times. That argument will never be solved just by shoving numbers down other people throat, whether you're shoving traditional stats or newer mathematical metrics.

If hypothetical player A has a very long 23 year career where he steadily hits pretty good each year and plays decent defense and ends up with well over 3000 hits and maybe 400 homers, is he better or worse overall than hypothetical player B who had 5 or 6 seasons where he was a super star who hit well over .300 and averaged 50 homers but had his career flame out around age 30 because of injuries? Player A will have better counting stats, and his steadiness is remarkable, while player B had a more dramatic peak, but couldn't contribute anything in later years because he wasn't playing anymore. Who's better? Who was more valuable?

doublem23
06-07-2012, 09:27 AM
This argument is ridiculous. Looking at cumulative WAR over a time period can be treated in some sense as a counting stat.

All this petty "if this stat says so-and-so was better than so-and-so, then it's hogwash" arguing is missing the point of what the stat is trying to show. Maybe we just need something like a WAR/year stat or something to clear it up. If a guy is figured to have helped to contribute about 3 wins per year for 9 years, his total WAR in that time is 27, and his WAR/year is 3. If a guy contributes about 7 wins per year for 3 years, his total war in that time is 21, and his WAR/year is 7. Who's more valuable to an organization? That depends what you value and what else you need at other times. That argument will never be solved just by shoving numbers down other people throat, whether you're shoving traditional stats or newer mathematical metrics.

If hypothetical player A has a very long 23 year career where he steadily hits pretty good each year and plays decent defense and ends up with well over 3000 hits and maybe 400 homers, is he better or worse overall than hypothetical player B who had 5 or 6 seasons where he was a super star who hit well over .300 and averaged 50 homers but had his career flame out around age 30 because of injuries? Player A will have better counting stats, and his steadiness is remarkable, while player B had a more dramatic peak, but couldn't contribute anything in later years because he wasn't playing anymore. Who's better? Who was more valuable?

Exactly correct, very thoughtful insight. And again, this was only oWAR accumulated with the Sox. Jackon's career oWAR absolutely trounces Durham's, but Durham played 498 more games with the Sox than Jackson did, ergo he earned the Sox about 1 more win in those 500 games than Jackson did over the course of his career.

Here is the Sox's Top 15 oWAR career leaders reorganized, based on a 162-game spread (Note: This is not the oWAR/162G career leaders, as brilliant players with very short tenures in Chicago would make this list like Dick Allen and Albert Belle... This is just the top 15 oWAR Players in White Sox history, all averaged out over the course of a single, modern season to give it some perspective of tenure in Chicago)

NAME oWAR GMS oWAR/162
Jackson 25.3 648 6.33
Collins 63.4 1670 6.15
Thomas 71.1 1959 5.88
Minoso 37.8 1373 4.46
Appling 65.9 2422 4.41
Davis 21.5 856 4.07
Ordonez 23.9 1001 3.87
Durham 26.1 1146 3.69
Ventura 26.4 1254 3.41
Jones 22.2 1153 3.12
Fisk 26.9 1421 3.07
Konerko 31.7 1967 2.61
Fox 32.2 2115 2.47
Aparacio 21.9 1511 2.35
Baines 22.6 1670 2.19

asindc
06-07-2012, 10:46 AM
Exactly correct, very thoughtful insight. And again, this was only oWAR accumulated with the Sox. Jackon's career oWAR absolutely trounces Durham's, but Durham played 498 more games with the Sox than Jackson did, ergo he earned the Sox about 1 more win in those 500 games than Jackson did over the course of his career.

Here is the Sox's Top 15 oWAR career leaders reorganized, based on a 162-game spread (Note: This is not the oWAR/162G career leaders, as brilliant players with very short tenures in Chicago would make this list like Dick Allen and Albert Belle... This is just the top 15 oWAR Players in White Sox history, all averaged out over the course of a single, modern season to give it some perspective of tenure in Chicago)

NAME oWAR GMS oWAR/162
Jackson 25.3 648 6.33
Collins 63.4 1670 6.15
Thomas 71.1 1959 5.88
Minoso 37.8 1373 4.46
Appling 65.9 2422 4.41
Davis 21.5 856 4.07
Ordonez 23.9 1001 3.87
Durham 26.1 1146 3.69
Ventura 26.4 1254 3.41
Jones 22.2 1153 3.12
Fisk 26.9 1421 3.07
Konerko 31.7 1967 2.61
Fox 32.2 2115 2.47
Aparacio 21.9 1511 2.35
Baines 22.6 1670 2.19



This is a better list, and more to the point, IMO.

doublem23
06-07-2012, 01:56 PM
This is a better list, and more to the point, IMO.

Yeah but then the question is, as it is with all counting stats, where do you draw the line to factor in longevity. Albert Belle's oWAR/162 G with the Sox is 4.45, which would place him 5th on this list... Are people really willing to say Albert Belle was the 5th greatest hitter in Sox history?

Johnny Mostil
06-07-2012, 02:13 PM
This is a better list, and more to the point, IMO.

Which at this, um, point, is what? :wink:

asindc
06-07-2012, 02:16 PM
Which at this, um, point, is what? :wink:

The following post:

Solid? Maggs was probably one of the best players in White Sox history.

Johnny Mostil
06-07-2012, 02:22 PM
The following post:

Yes, I know. But, as much as I do like sabermetrics, here's what amuses me.

Using old-fashioned stats like BA, OPS, HR, and RBI with the Sox, stats which are consistently defined and cover what we might call both production totals and rates, I suggested the claim is at least plausible.

Using career oWAR, a stat which is not consistently defined and to some appears to emphasize production totals, suggests the claim is at least plausible as well.

Has career oWAR added more to the discussion--besides the Ray Durham diversion--that I'm not seeing? Can it even add more for such a vague and general claim?

And again for the record, I'm (obviously) not a sabermetrician, although I do love stats and understand the reasons why sabermetrics is becoming a bigger part of the game. In fact, I make much of my living off gathering and interpreting data. But sometimes sabermetrics feels to me like I do when reading too many academic journals, with a relatively small audience talking only to each other and wondering why nobody else understands, or even tries to understand.

SephClone89
06-07-2012, 04:48 PM
Yes, I know. But, as much as I do like sabermetrics, here's what amuses me.

Using old-fashioned stats like BA, OPS, HR, and RBI with the Sox, stats which are consistently defined and cover what we might call both production totals and rates, I suggested the claim is at least plausible.

Using career oWAR, a stat which is not consistently defined and to some appears to emphasize production totals, suggests the claim is at least plausible as well.

Has career oWAR added more to the discussion--besides the Ray Durham diversion--that I'm not seeing? Can it even add more for such a vague and general claim?

That's the beauty of some of the new stats--while they often challenge our suspicions or beliefs, they often reaffirm them as well.

EDIT: also keep in mind that many don't consider OPS or even OBP to be an "old fashioned stat." OBP doesn't appear in Who's Who in Baseball, for example.

My dad's been buying that every year for decades, though these days it's more about the nostalgia, as Baseball Ref is always a second away. Even when it's next to me I often find myself going to BBRef or Fangraphs because the old fashioned stats often just don't tell me enough these days to be satisfied.

SI1020
06-07-2012, 07:59 PM
Even when it's next to me I often find myself going to BBRef or Fangraphs because the old fashioned stats often just don't tell me enough these days to be satisfied. It helps to have actually watched the games and sometimes I wonder if that counts in the saber world. Some things in life defy making them totally into a predictable science. Do you ever ask your dad about some of these players? It seems like he is quite the fan.

Johnny Mostil
06-07-2012, 08:41 PM
That's the beauty of some of the new stats--while they often challenge our suspicions or beliefs, they often reaffirm them as well.



I agree with this completely.