PDA

View Full Version : From a BA survey of MLB execs


Daver
12-28-2002, 06:01 PM
[12] What percent of the waiver rules do you actually understand (0 to 100%)?

"I understand 100 percent of them because I hired a Harvard Law grad to interpret them."
–Kenny Williams, White Sox

[15] What is the most disturbing e-mail you’ve ever gotten from a fan?

"Is this before or after someone called me and said I was the stupidest person in baseball?"
–Bob Fontaine Jr., White Sox

[10] What is the best contract (from the team’s standpoint) among players with six years or more of service?

"Darin Erstad. He would have gotten much more on the open market, and he brings more to the table than you can see with sabermetric analysis."
–Rick Hahn, White Sox

[2] The new CBA will affect my decisions this offseason:

"Little. Just give me the cards–I’ll play with whatever I’m dealt. You don’t concede anything."
–Roland Hemond, White Sox

MarkEdward
12-29-2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by daver

[10] What is the best contract (from the team’s standpoint) among players with six years or more of service?

"Darin Erstad. He would have gotten much more on the open market, and he brings more to the table than you can see with sabermetric analysis."
–Rick Hahn, White Sox



Ugh. It's sad, but I think everyone in our organization has this kind of mindset.

On the other hand, it's nice to know someone in the Sox organization has heard of sabermetrics.

jeremyb1
12-29-2002, 01:49 AM
[10] What is the best contract (from the team’s standpoint) among players with six years or more of service?

"Darin Erstad. He would have gotten much more on the open market, and he brings more to the table than you can see with sabermetric analysis."
–Rick Hahn, White Sox

i don't see how intangibles can make it worth paying that much for a player that's one of the lesser hitters at his position. you can call it "sabermetric analysis" to try to make it sound complicated but in this case its not. he hits .280 without walking or hitting for power. that's not valuable as far as offense goes. he may play good defense, run the bases well, and be a good influence in the clubhouse but there is no way that justifies million and millions of dollars. chris singleton does the same things and we all know how glad we are to be rid of him. he's also making about a million dollars next season.

kermittheefrog
12-29-2002, 03:36 AM
Chris Singleton, Jose Cruz Jr. and Darin Erstad are all very similar with regard to production and one of these contracts is definitely not like the others. Erstad is probably the best of this group but it's not like the difference between him and the others is anything like the difference between Derek Jeter and Omar Vizquel. Where there is another payroll gap.

duke of dorwood
12-29-2002, 03:12 PM
I BET KW SIGNED THE CHEAPEST LAW GRAD HE COULD FIND

kermittheefrog
12-29-2002, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
I BET KW SIGNED THE CHEAPEST LAW GRAD HE COULD FIND

Well said :-)

nut_stock
12-29-2002, 10:38 PM
I suspect that Harvard Law grads are rarely cheap.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-30-2002, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock
I suspect that Harvard Law grads are rarely cheap.

Someone has to graduate at the bottom of the class...

Cheryl
12-30-2002, 08:50 AM
The Harvard guy may have graduated but hasn't passed the bar yet. So s/he could be had for cheap while waiting to take the test again.

longshot7
12-31-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
[b][10] i don't see how intangibles can make it worth paying that much for a player that's one of the lesser hitters at his position. you can call it "sabermetric analysis" to try to make it sound complicated but in this case its not. he hits .280 without walking or hitting for power. that's not valuable as far as offense goes. he may play good defense, run the bases well, and be a good influence in the clubhouse but there is no way that justifies million and millions of dollars. chris singleton does the same things and we all know how glad we are to be rid of him. he's also making about a million dollars next season.

and he has a WS ring - that's one intangible that means something.

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
and he has a WS ring - that's one intangible that means something.

So does Luis Sojo- what's your point?

tbradDPC
01-01-2003, 01:29 PM
Unfortunately, KW probably hired a lawyer out of Harverd because he was confused....like in the Berry/Barry situation.

Daver
01-01-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by tbradDPC
Unfortunately, KW probably hired a lawyer out of Harverd because he was confused....like in the Berry/Barry situation.

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

tbradDPC
01-01-2003, 01:39 PM
Thanks...this is an incredible site. I live in germany so this is the only thing keeping current on the sox.

wassagstdu
01-01-2003, 02:12 PM
"Darin Erstad. He would have gotten much more on the open market, and he brings more to the table than you can see with sabermetric analysis."
–Rick Hahn, White Sox
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Ugh. It's sad, but I think everyone in our organization has this kind of mindset.

On the other hand, it's nice to know someone in the Sox organization has heard of sabermetrics.
That is one of the more hopeful things I have seen recently. I hope that is the mindset of the organization, and IMHO the organization would be better off if nobody ever heard of sabermetrics (That might be a winning edge.)! Does anyone really believe that everything that makes a winner can be measured by any statistics other than W/L? How about the "range factor" for a shortstop, my favorite bogus stat? Royce Clayton for one would have been a better player if he had never heard of sabermetrics.

kermittheefrog
01-01-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by wassagstdu
"Darin Erstad. He would have gotten much more on the open market, and he brings more to the table than you can see with sabermetric analysis."
–Rick Hahn, White Sox

That is one of the more hopeful things I have seen recently. I hope that is the mindset of the organization, and IMHO the organization would be better off if nobody ever heard of sabermetrics (That might be a winning edge.)! Does anyone really believe that everything that makes a winner can be measured by any statistics other than W/L? How about the "range factor" for a shortstop, my favorite bogus stat? Royce Clayton for one would have been a better player if he had never heard of sabermetrics.

I won't even bother being sarcastic here, the A's believe in sabermetrics, they are one of the best teams in baseball. No one makes a big deal of it but Brian Cashman of the Yankees believes in sabermetrics. I'm not saying you can't be good without being a total stathead but you're a total moron if you think sabermetric thought would keep us from winning.

TornLabrum
01-01-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by tbradDPC
Unfortunately, KW probably hired a lawyer out of Harverd because he was confused....like in the Berry/Barry situation.

I heard the lawyer was from Harvard, IL in McHenry Co. Maybe that's where Prof. Chaos got confused.

jeremyb1
01-01-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
and he has a WS ring - that's one intangible that means something.

you can have the team with all the players who are the best in the club house and the have the most world series rings and i'll take the players that have the best stats at their position and we'll see who wins.

Lip Man 1
01-01-2003, 11:50 PM
Jeremy says: you can have the team with all the players who are the best in the club house and the have the most world series rings and i'll take the players that have the best stats at their position and we'll see who wins.

Typical response from a person who thinks sports is nothing but something to help develop a "fantasy league."

You'll have to forgive Jeremy. He never heard of the 67 White Sox, 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox (who's leading home run hitter had in the low 20's and who's leading RBI guy had 75), the 91 worst to first Braves AND Twins or even the 02 Angels.

Stats are nice but stats can't measure heart, guts and chemistry can they?

I'm not bashing stat heads but a good organization (like the A's) seems to have a balance between the two when making player decisions.

Lip

kermittheefrog
01-02-2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says: you can have the team with all the players who are the best in the club house and the have the most world series rings and i'll take the players that have the best stats at their position and we'll see who wins.

You'll have to forgive Jeremy. He never heard of the 67 White Sox, 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox (who's leading home run hitter had in the low 20's and who's leading RBI guy had 75), the 91 worst to first Braves AND Twins or even the 02 Angels.

Stats are nice but stats can't measure heart, guts and chemistry can they?


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at Lip man. The first 3 teams you mentioned all did a great job of keeping runs off the board, finishing first or second in the league. All the teams that win have good stats on either offense or defense. How do those teams prove any of your spiel about hear and chemistry?

And what about the Oakland A's of the mid 70's? They hated eachother and they were still damn good.

jeremyb1
01-02-2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy says: you can have the team with all the players who are the best in the club house and the have the most world series rings and i'll take the players that have the best stats at their position and we'll see who wins.

Typical response from a person who thinks sports is nothing but something to help develop a "fantasy league."

You'll have to forgive Jeremy. He never heard of the 67 White Sox, 69 Mets, the 90 White Sox (who's leading home run hitter had in the low 20's and who's leading RBI guy had 75), the 91 worst to first Braves AND Twins or even the 02 Angels.

Stats are nice but stats can't measure heart, guts and chemistry can they?

I'm not bashing stat heads but a good organization (like the A's) seems to have a balance between the two when making player decisions.


thing is though erstads stats aren't really even close to good. i'm not refusing to acknowledge the role of intangibles. i think its important but i still think it has a rather limited effect. if one player is slighly better than another but the lesser player brings a ton of intangibles to the plate i'd take the lesser player. however, when i said the best players statisitcally vs. the players with the most "heart" i was being literal.

would i take erstad and his .702 ops over dave robers and his .718 ops due to his presence in the clubhouse, his defense, and his baserunning? yeah i'd do it in a heart beat. however, anyone who would spend even a second contemplating whether they'd rather have lance berkman and his .982 ops or even steve finley and his .869 ops instead of erstad's "heart" should be committed or at least give up baseball.

a good presence in the club house and other intangibles are important but as kermit said, no team has ever won with out pitching, hitting, and/or playing defense quite well.

Dadawg_77
01-02-2003, 08:33 AM
The biggest problem with making a team completely with sabermetrics, is that it still lacks a good way to judge a player's D. That is where a scout's eye is much greater weapon then a stat sheet. Another flaw using it to evaluate minor league pitchers, the correlation between a pitcher's minor league stats and his major league stats is very weak when compared to correlation with positional players. That all being said sabermetrics is a great tool in evaluating a position player's offense contributions and major league pitchers. As with any tool no matter how great it is, if the tool is used wrong it will fail.

As for presence in the clubhouse, how much does a newly signed player have? IMHO, a player would need to be in a clubhouse a few years before having a commanding presence, unless that player is a superstar (Barry Bonds, MJ, Marshall Faulk). Unless a player is at that level, they would have to adjust to the veterans all ready in the clubhouse.

MarkEdward
01-02-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
[B]The biggest problem with making a team completely with sabermetrics, is that it still lacks a good way to judge a player's D. That is where a scout's eye is much greater weapon then a stat sheet. Another flaw using it to evaluate minor league pitchers, the correlation between a pitcher's minor league stats and his major league stats is very weak when compared to correlation with positional players. That all being said sabermetrics is a great tool in evaluating a position player's offense contributions and major league pitchers. As with any tool no matter how great it is, if the tool is used wrong it will fail.

Well, many advocates of sabermetrics also understand the upside of using scouts' opinions.

And rate stats like K/BB and K/9ip are a pretty good judge of how a pitcher will do in the future.

Lip Man 1
01-02-2003, 12:32 PM
Andrew:

I've had the good fortune through the years to meet, and interview a number of former players. Many of them have personally told me that there is no substitute for good clubhouse chemistry. I infer from that, that a "happy" clubhouse equals a good team (or at least increases the chances of same.)

I think it's even possible that a good clubhouse, helps create better stats on the field since players are comfortable and releaxed.

My point in retorting to Jeremy is that you breakdown those teams that I mentioned and all of them didn't have a whole lot individually to brag about statistically, yet somehow they shocked everyone and either won outright or had a fantanstic and totally unexpected season.

Nobody thought the 67 or 90 Sox would be worth a damn yet look what happened? There had to be something that caused it and it doesn't appear to be numbers. What else could it be? I suggest it was "intangibles." As far as the A's teams of the 70's. Those guys had a ton of talent and while they didn't particularly get along with each other that well they did have one uniting factor...a complete, utter, mutual hatred (yes that's the right word) of owner Charlie Finley. I suggest you read Heylar's chapter on the A's in the Lords Of The Realm book.

Lip

Clarkdog
01-02-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by tbradDPC
Unfortunately, KW probably hired a lawyer out of Harverd because he was confused....like in the Berry/Barry situation.

Or a lawyer from Harvard, Illinois.

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Clarkdog
Or a lawyer from Harvard, Illinois.

Too late. I already used that one.

jeremyb1
01-02-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The biggest problem with making a team completely with sabermetrics, is that it still lacks a good way to judge a player's D. That is where a scout's eye is much greater weapon then a stat sheet. Another flaw using it to evaluate minor league pitchers, the correlation between a pitcher's minor league stats and his major league stats is very weak when compared to correlation with positional players. That all being said sabermetrics is a great tool in evaluating a position player's offense contributions and major league pitchers. As with any tool no matter how great it is, if the tool is used wrong it will fail.


as was said elsewhere in the thread, no one is suggesting that front offices rely on sabermetrics alone. also, it should be noted that some sabermatricians have developed formulas which measure fielding much better than range and fielding percentage.

Dadawg_77
01-02-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, many advocates of sabermetrics also understand the upside of using scouts' opinions.

And rate stats like K/BB and K/9ip are a pretty good judge of how a pitcher will do in the future.

Bill James did a study, I think it was him, in which he compared major league stats and minor league stats of pitchers and position players. He found a much higher correlation between the two sets of stats between position players.

Dadawg_77
01-02-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Andrew:

I've had the good fortune through the years to meet, and interview a number of former players. Many of them have personally told me that there is no substitute for good clubhouse chemistry. I infer from that, that a "happy" clubhouse equals a good team (or at least increases the chances of same.)

I think it's even possible that a good clubhouse, helps create better stats on the field since players are comfortable and releaxed.

My point in retorting to Jeremy is that you breakdown those teams that I mentioned and all of them didn't have a whole lot individually to brag about statistically, yet somehow they shocked everyone and either won outright or had a fantanstic and totally unexpected season.

Nobody thought the 67 or 90 Sox would be worth a damn yet look what happened? There had to be something that caused it and it doesn't appear to be numbers. What else could it be? I suggest it was "intangibles." As far as the A's teams of the 70's. Those guys had a ton of talent and while they didn't particularly get along with each other that well they did have one uniting factor...a complete, utter, mutual hatred (yes that's the right word) of owner Charlie Finley. I suggest you read Heylar's chapter on the A's in the Lords Of The Realm book.

Lip

The best way to get chemistry is to build within and then bring in a hired gun when your guys are ready. Then keep your core together, while shuffling the role players. When it comes to UFAs/veterans, teams should look at what the guy can do on the field since they built a strong enough clubhouse to withstand an jerk coming in to produce. If you build a team entirly on FAs it usally fails, see the O's for an example. But if you build a core from within and then add, it works a lot more then just hiring guns. This thread tagent started when talking about the Sox trading for Erstad and I don't think you should go and get your chemistry/intangibles from the outside, but they should be there already.


While there have been step in bettering D stats, it still isn't at the level O stats.

kermittheefrog
01-02-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Andrew:

I've had the good fortune through the years to meet, and interview a number of former players. Many of them have personally told me that there is no substitute for good clubhouse chemistry. I infer from that, that a "happy" clubhouse equals a good team (or at least increases the chances of same.)

I think it's even possible that a good clubhouse, helps create better stats on the field since players are comfortable and releaxed.

My point in retorting to Jeremy is that you breakdown those teams that I mentioned and all of them didn't have a whole lot individually to brag about statistically, yet somehow they shocked everyone and either won outright or had a fantanstic and totally unexpected season.

Nobody thought the 67 or 90 Sox would be worth a damn yet look what happened? There had to be something that caused it and it doesn't appear to be numbers. What else could it be? I suggest it was "intangibles." As far as the A's teams of the 70's. Those guys had a ton of talent and while they didn't particularly get along with each other that well they did have one uniting factor...a complete, utter, mutual hatred (yes that's the right word) of owner Charlie Finley. I suggest you read Heylar's chapter on the A's in the Lords Of The Realm book.

Lip

Here's the thing Lip. The players don't know what best builds a team. If they did know, they'd all be general managers. I'm sure clubhouse chemistry is great if you're a player. It makes you happy, there are people on your team that you want to be around. There is some importance to that and really being happy is probably more important than winning to a player. Why? Only one team wins it all every year so it's not reasonable to expect to win the series every year but it is reasonable to expect good clubhouse chemistry.

Good clubhouse chemistry does not win many games though. Just becasue a team doesn't come into a season looking like a contender doesn't mean they won with intangibles. For example myself and many others thought the Angels were a lock for last place in the West. However they won the series. They didn't win with intangibles, they won with guys who performed better than what many people would have expected. Thats notintangible that just shows we don't have perfect tools to predict player performances. And we shouldn't that would take the fun out of things.

I wish you could make secret little notes in your post and then choose to reveal them later because I KNEW you were going to use that argument about that A's team. I've heard it before.

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Here's the thing Lip. The players don't know what best builds a team. If they did know, they'd all be general managers. I'm sure clubhouse chemistry is great if you're a player. It makes you happy, there are people on your team that you want to be around. There is some importance to that and really being happy is probably more important than winning to a player. Why? Only one team wins it all every year so it's not reasonable to expect to win the series every year but it is reasonable to expect good clubhouse chemistry.

Good clubhouse chemistry does not win many games though. Just becasue a team doesn't come into a season looking like a contender doesn't mean they won with intangibles. For example myself and many others thought the Angels were a lock for last place in the West. However they won the series. They didn't win with intangibles, they won with guys who performed better than what many people would have expected. Thats notintangible that just shows we don't have perfect tools to predict player performances. And we shouldn't that would take the fun out of things.

I wish you could make secret little notes in your post and then choose to reveal them later because I KNEW you were going to use that argument about that A's team. I've heard it before.

One of the things the things some of people have...okay, Dave Wills...pointed out is that the 2000 Sox had great chemistry. Many of those guys had come up through the system together and they seemed to genuinely like each other. The addition of guys like Herbert Perry simply added to the chemistry.

Then in 2001, the addition of Wells and Clayton and the removal of Sirotka from the mix supposedly spoiled a lot of the chemistry that was there. The clubhouse began to break up into cliques, something that might have happened anyway, but the process seemed to accelerate.

One thing Wills pointed out is that this process may be inevitable. As some guys begin making higher salaries, this tends to separate them from those who don't.

MarkEdward
01-03-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
One of the things the things some of people have...okay, Dave Wills...pointed out is that the 2000 Sox had great chemistry. Many of those guys had come up through the system together and they seemed to genuinely like each other. The addition of guys like Herbert Perry simply added to the chemistry.

Then in 2001, the addition of Wells and Clayton and the removal of Sirotka from the mix supposedly spoiled a lot of the chemistry that was there. The clubhouse began to break up into cliques, something that might have happened anyway, but the process seemed to accelerate.

One thing Wills pointed out is that this process may be inevitable. As some guys begin making higher salaries, this tends to separate them from those who don't.

I can't buy that. We just had worse players in 2001. In 2001, OPS was down at catcher, second base, shortstop, third base, left field, right field, and DH. Although starters' ERA was higher in 2000, relievers' ERA was lower in 2000.

TornLabrum
01-03-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I can't buy that. We just had worse players in 2001. In 2001, OPS was down at catcher, second base, shortstop, third base, left field, right field, and DH. Although starters' ERA was higher in 2000, relievers' ERA was lower in 2000.

And how many of those moves soured players?

Catcher: Alomar brought in replacing Fordyce/C. Johnson. Backup was still M. Johnson. Probably a wash in terms of attitude in the clubhouse, although the Sox had a higher W-L pct. with Fordyce than either of the hired guns.

Second base: Same guy, more money.

Shortstop: Exhibit A in Wills' theory.

Third Base: Because of Clayton, Perry ends up on the bench after Valentin shows he's not a CF.

LF/RF: Same guys, worse years, especially in LF.

SP: Wells for Sirotka. Wells not only had a big mouth, but he also didn't back it up.

I don't entirely buy the Wills hypothesis, either, but two of the guys they brought in were reported to be clubhouse cancers. I think the biggest porblem in 2001 was the injuries to the pitching staff. That really hurt, as did the terrible injury to Big Frank.

However, even last year there was more conflict in the clubhouse than there was in 2000. Konerko vs. Thomas comes to mind immediately. Then there was the story of Gary Pettis, secret agent, that Durham complained about. Certainly that doesn't help the clubhouse atmosphere.

I'm of the opinion that whenever you see a rapid deterioration from 95 wins one season to around .500 the next two seasons, there is probably more than one cause. You can't rule out changes in the chemistry as one of them, but I don't think you can say it's the only cause, either.

Lip Man 1
01-03-2003, 11:15 AM
Actually the record shows four players connected with the White Sox made comments since the end of the season about how bad the clubhouse was. Those four were Durham, Thomas, Foulke and Leifer.

Four out of 25 is a decnt percentage. How many more felt the same way but weren't secure enough to comment about it?

Lip

jeremyb1
01-03-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

However, even last year there was more conflict in the clubhouse than there was in 2000. Konerko vs. Thomas comes to mind immediately. Then there was the story of Gary Pettis, secret agent, that Durham complained about. Certainly that doesn't help the clubhouse atmosphere.


i don't get the impression lofton was a very good addition to the clubhouse. i think he was involved when kenny yelled at players for missing bp. once alomar, clayton, durham, and alomar left last year we were a lot better. i'm not sure that a lot of that had to do with chemistry but i'm guessing some of it did. assuming alomar isn't a problem i think our chemistry will be much better this year.

MarkEdward
01-03-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And how many of those moves soured players?

How many of these moves just made our team worse?

Catcher: Alomar brought in replacing Fordyce/C. Johnson. Backup was still M. Johnson. Probably a wash in terms of attitude in the clubhouse, although the Sox had a higher W-L pct. with Fordyce than either of the hired guns.

Are you suggesting we bring Brook Fordyce back?

Second base: Same guy, more money.

Durham also hit worse in 2001.

Shortstop: Exhibit A in Wills' theory.

No, Clayton in 2001 played worse than Valentin did in 2000. It had nothing to do with chemistry.

Third Base: Because of Clayton, Perry ends up on the bench after Valentin shows he's not a CF.

Yes, and Perry hit better in 2000 than Valentin did in 2001.

LF/RF: Same guys, worse years, especially in LF.

Yes, that's my point. Many players just had worse years in 2001.

SP: Wells for Sirotka. Wells not only had a big mouth, but he also didn't back it up.

Also, David Wells sucked in 2001, whereas Mike Sirotka didn't in 2000.

I don't entirely buy the Wills hypothesis, either, but two of the guys they brought in were reported to be clubhouse cancers. I think the biggest porblem in 2001 was the injuries to the pitching staff. That really hurt, as did the terrible injury to Big Frank.

Agree. We lost a lot of production at DH.

On that topic, Canseco was a really good pick-up in 2001. Kenny doesn't get a lot of credit for that.

I'm of the opinion that whenever you see a rapid deterioration from 95 wins one season to around .500 the next two seasons, there is probably more than one cause. You can't rule out changes in the chemistry as one of them, but I don't think you can say it's the only cause, either.

Here's my theory:
Winning team= good clubhouse.
Losing team= bad clubhouse.

kermittheefrog
01-03-2003, 07:07 PM
On that topic, Canseco was a really good pick-up in 2001. Kenny doesn't get a lot of credit for that.

I think by the time we acquired Canseco in 2001 we were too far out of contention for it to matter. Thats what makes it hard for me to praise Kenny for the move. We were already missing Thomas for almost two months at that point. We were already 8.5 games behind Minnesota and 8 games behind Cleveland.