PDA

View Full Version : Have We Been Unfair to Willie Harris?


jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 07:50 PM
I'm not sure you can take anything from his recent stellar play based on the small sample size but after looking at his minor league numbers again, I think Harris should be considered as a possible replacement for Alomar at 2B.

The reason I'd been so brutal to Harris is not because he hit poorly but because what I perceived as a lack of plate discipline. However, looking back at his minor league stats, his plate discipline isn't terrible. He walked 17 times in 117 plate appearances at AAA this season which would project to close to 100 walks over the course of a full season. That's a somewhat small sample size (he walked 19 times in 200 plate appearances in winter league) and major league pitching is obviously more challenging but it seems as though he could walk 40 to 50 times in a season without a great deal of trouble.

So mark it down here, he may not be a great option but Willie Harris is an option at second next season.

Daver
09-27-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1


So mark it down here, he may not be a great option but Willie Harris is an option at second next season.

So what you are saying is that it is OK that he can't bat his weight or play average defense,as long as he can take a walk he is an option?

RichH55
09-27-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Daver
So what you are saying is that it is OK that he can't bat his weight or play average defense,as long as he can take a walk he is an option?

Can he get the .330 OBP that Alomar is good for?

TraderTim
09-27-2003, 07:59 PM
Willie...He's fast but he's bad...

Just give me Robbie's defense at 2nd, his sac bunting...he's value added to the rest of the infield.

Forkit!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-27-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Daver
So what you are saying is that it is OK that he can't bat his weight or play average defense,as long as he can take a walk he is an option?

jeremy is STILL unconvinced the Sox made a poor choice relying on Dan Wright and Mike Porzio to pitch every fifth day, even after Kenny Rogers nailed shut our coffin last week. Consider the source...

RKMeibalane
09-27-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
jeremy is STILL unconvinced the Sox made a poor choice relying on Dan Wright and Mike Porzio to pitch every fifth day, even after Kenny Rogers nailed shut our coffin last week. Consider the source...

He's also the one who went spent the better part of a week on this board completely unaware that a link to article about Frank playing first base had been posted, yet he had the audacity to call you out by name for making certain comments about Manuel, even though you didn't actually say anything.

JRIG
09-27-2003, 08:20 PM
Willie Harris seems to be a AAAA player to me. His numbers in the minors are not bad at all, as has been pointed out. I have a feeling if we sent him back to Charlotte we'd see some pretty good numbers out of him. But when I see him play at the major league level he looks incredibly overmatched. I don't consider him a real option at 2nd base next year.

RKMeibalane
09-27-2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by JRIG
Willie Harris seems to be a AAAA player to me. His numbers in the minors are not bad at all, as has been pointed out. I have a feeling if we sent him back to Charlotte we'd see some pretty good numbers out of him. But when I see him play at the major league level he looks incredibly overmatched. I don't consider him a real option at 2nd base next year.

I agree. Harris hasn't shown enough to be considered for a starting job at the big league level. However, I do think he should be kept around for pinch-running, as well as other situational needs.

Win1ForMe
09-27-2003, 08:27 PM
It's tough because I'm starting to consider Willie as a 2B option myself. I'm pretty sure he could match Roberto's offensive output if given regular playing time. Plus, his speed is just so important because it can put pressure on opposing pitchers and defenses. That is something completely lacking from our lineup.

The downside is that, with losing Robbie, we would lose his defense (although as far as pure range, Willie can match him), his leadership, his great fundamentals, and of course some of those intangibles.

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
He's also the one who went spent the better part of a week on this board completely unaware that a link to article about Frank playing first base had been posted, yet he had the audacity to call you out by name for making certain comments about Manuel, even though you didn't actually say anything.

Ooh. Back with the Ad Hominem attacks. Just to clarify for everyone I did not see a link on the board once which means that I'm a bad person and I'm incappable of ever saying anything halfway intelligent. I apologiezed if I misquoted PaleHoseGeorge and asked him to please clarify his argument to me since I misunderstood and he refused to do so so I guess that also makes me a bad person. Personally, I think the personal attacks are really petty and unnecessary but as I've said in the past, whatever you need to do.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-27-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Ooh. Back with the Ad Hominem attacks. Just to clarify for everyone I did not see a link on the board once which means that I'm a bad person and I'm incappable of ever saying anything halfway intelligent. I apologiezed if I misquoted PaleHoseGeorge and asked him to please clarify his argument to me since I misunderstood and he refused to do so so I guess that also makes me a bad person. Personally, I think the personal attacks are really petty and unnecessary but as I've said in the past, whatever you need to do.

I agree, and you're entitled to your own opinion just like the rest of us. I am NOT rehashing that mess for yours or anybody else's benefit. I have that option.

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
jeremy is STILL unconvinced the Sox made a poor choice relying on Dan Wright and Mike Porzio to pitch every fifth day, even after Kenny Rogers nailed shut our coffin last week. Consider the source...

As I stated in the previous thread I think the personal attacks are unnecessary and I don't see what bearing my thoughts on starting pitching in spring training have on Willie Harris' play. I would prefer that you specifically address the arguments I made in the other thread dealing with this issue such as why do you feel that it was a risk free strategy to deny our young pitchers the opportunity to make the rotation in spring training or why do you feel that risk would've been outweighed by signing Rogers? I make arguments for a reason and if we're going to debate it, it'd be courteous for you to acknowledge what I have to say. It doesn't take a genius to look and see that Rogers was a lot better than Wright this season.

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Daver
So what you are saying is that it is OK that he can't bat his weight or play average defense,as long as he can take a walk he is an option?

I'm of the belief you don't hit .400 in AAA by accident or due solely to park effects and that players sometimes struggle when they move up to a higher level and face more difficult competition.

Daver
09-27-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I'm of the belief you don't hit .400 in AAA by accident or due solely to park effects and that players sometimes struggle when they move up to a higher level and face more difficult competition.

That does not at all answer the question I asked.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-27-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
As I stated in the previous thread I think the personal attacks are unnecessary and I don't see what bearing my thoughts on starting pitching in spring training have on Willie Harris' play. I would prefer that you specifically address the arguments I made in the other thread dealing with this issue such as why do you feel that it was a risk free strategy to deny our young pitchers the opportunity to make the rotation in spring training or why do you feel that risk would've been outweighed by signing Rogers? I make arguments for a reason and if we're going to debate it, it'd be courteous for you to acknowledge what I have to say. It doesn't take a genius to look and see that Rogers was a lot better than Wright this season.

Actually, it has a lot of bearing. You've stated that developing younger ballplayers is important and that getting Rogers would have hurt us even more in the long run--all evidence to the contrary after our fifth starters sucked all season and Rogers himself nailed our coffin shut.

You don't think that has bearing on your opinion of young Willie Harris and his great minor league numbers? I think you're nuts.

Win1ForMe
09-27-2003, 08:58 PM
I think it's pretty funny that the same people who touted John Rauch as "filthy" and a great pitcher on the basis of his minor league numbers, pretty much ignore Willie's impressive minor league numbers. What a joke.

jeremy, don't even waste your energy.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-27-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
I think it's pretty funny that the same people who touted John Rauch as "filthy" and a great pitcher on the basis of his minor league numbers, pretty much ignore Willie's impressive minor league numbers. What a joke.

jeremy, don't even waste your energy.

This is interesting. Who is touting Rauch? I am quite certain I've never attached the word "filthy" in any such manner to anything, least of all an underachieving Sox minor league pitcher. He was hurt, so I'll cut him some slack for that, but...

Hey, whatever... if Aaron Rowand can have a Friends of Crash contingent, why not Willie Harris, too.

:cool:

Daver
09-27-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
I think it's pretty funny that the same people who touted John Rauch as "filthy" and a great pitcher on the basis of his minor league numbers, pretty much ignore Willie's impressive minor league numbers. What a joke.

jeremy, don't even waste your energy.

I base my opinion of Jon Rauch from watching him pitch,I am not fool enough to rely strictly on numbers,because all numbers lie.

I base my opinion of Willie Harris from watching him play,for the same reason.All I have seen so far is a light hitting speedster that plays low average defense as a second baseman,and below average defense in the outfield.

Perhaps your experience and scouting eye as seen something I am overlooking?

FarWestChicago
09-27-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Hey, whatever... if Aaron Rowand can have a Friends of Crash contingent, why not Willie Harris, too.

:cool: Well, the FOC's are an endless source of amusement. I guess the the FOW's will only enhance the fun.

:bandance:

Win1ForMe
09-27-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I base my opinion of Jon Rauch from watching him pitch,I am not fool enough to rely strictly on numbers,because all numbers lie.

I base my opinion of Willie Harris from watching him play,for the same reason.All I have seen so far is a light hitting speedster that plays low average defense as a second baseman,and below average defense in the outfield.

Perhaps your experience and scouting eye as seen something I am overlooking?

Did you have your blinders on when Rauch got his brains beat in last year?

I don't get it... are you "scouting" Rauch against minor league hitters and not major leaguers? Why not have the same criteria for Harris?

Both were good (great in Willie's case) in AAA and both have sucked in the majors. But one is good and the other's not? I don't see the logic.

Daver
09-27-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Did you have your blinders on when Rauch got his brains beat in last year?

I don't get it... are you "scouting" Rauch against minor league hitters and not major leaguers? Why not have the same criteria for Harris?

Both were good (great in Willie's case) in AAA and both have sucked in the majors. But one is good and the other's not? I don't see the logic.

You definitely don't get it,because Rauch was hurt when he pitched at the MLB level last year,anything he did then was meaningless.

I have yet to even see a glimmer of any logic in your debate on this.

Win1ForMe
09-27-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Daver
You definitely don't get it,because Rauch was hurt when he pitched at the MLB level last year,anything he did then was meaningless.

Oh, give me a break!!

So because Willie hasn't gotten regular ABs this year, can we say anything he does is meaningless?

Daver
09-27-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
Oh, give me a break!!

So because Willie hasn't gotten regular ABs this year, can we say anything he does is meaningless?

Based on what he did last year getting playing time,and this year,where his performance mandated that he NOT get regular playing time,I fail to see your point entirely.

How can you compare an injury to sitting on the bench because you derserve to be there?

I think I am done with this debate,when you come up with something valid to say I may think about rejoining,till then it is a waste of my time.

Lip Man 1
09-27-2003, 09:43 PM
If Willie Harris is the Sox 2nd baseman next season the club is in serious, serious trouble.

I just can't get out of my mind the Boston game where after Rowand was thrown out by ten feet, the Sox still had the winning run in scoring position and Harris stood there looking at strike three.

Lip

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Daver
That does not at all answer the question I asked.

No, I don't think its okay if a baseball player can't hit or play defense. Better?

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Actually, it has a lot of bearing. You've stated that developing younger ballplayers is important and that getting Rogers would have hurt us even more in the long run--all evidence to the contrary after our fifth starters sucked all season and Rogers himself nailed our coffin shut.

You don't think that has bearing on your opinion of young Willie Harris and his great minor league numbers? I think you're nuts.

I never argued we should give our young pitchers a chance to start based solely on development purposes. The main part of my claim was that some of our young starters had the potential to outperform Rogers so therefore we didn't want to be in the position where we hurt our won loss record THIS season and hurt our ability to make the playoffs based on a lack of performance from our fifth starter. Also despite Rogers pitching down the stretch, he still finished with just a 4.54 era, one higher than Garland's happens to be a young pitcher and who many have told me is a bust recently. Last time I checked, the games is the first half count too, right?

As far as the importance of our fifth starters numbers' in this conversation, I've already discussed this in detail with Lip in a recent thread. You're relying on hindsight bias. You're assuming that because you now know our fifth starters didn't perform well, that was a certainty prior to the season which is not the case. Just because our fifth starters didn't fare well, that doesn't mean there wasn't a chance or even a good chance they would've. For instance, you never argued prior to spring training we should sign Rogers because Wright would develop elbow tendinitus, right? I believe the example I used in the other thread is that if someone tells you to play the lottery tommorow and you win, that person didn't know beforehand you'd win. They would be wrong to say I knew you were going to win the lottery and I was right.

Finally, as far as me talking up Willie Harris and saying he has "great" numbers, you sure take a lot of liberties with what I said for someone who's upset about being misquoted in the past. I believe I said in the initial post that Harris was probably not a good option for second base. You make it sound like I head up his fan club.

chisoxt
09-27-2003, 10:01 PM
I'm not sure you can take anything from his recent stellar play based on the small sample size but after looking at his minor league numbers again, I think Harris should be considered as a possible replacement for Alomar at 2B.


Sorry, but too many times, GMs are duped by good performances from dog players during garbage time games at the end of the year (much lilke Miguel Oliva and D'Angel Jimenez for us last year). Harris had some chances earlier this year when it counted more and was brutal.

Fool me once, shame on you...............

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I base my opinion of Jon Rauch from watching him pitch,I am not fool enough to rely strictly on numbers,because all numbers lie.

I base my opinion of Willie Harris from watching him play,for the same reason.All I have seen so far is a light hitting speedster that plays low average defense as a second baseman,and below average defense in the outfield.

Perhaps your experience and scouting eye as seen something I am overlooking?

Well this is an entirely different conversation I'd say. I disagree that numbers lie. If a batter is hitting .300 in 10 at bats he has hits that were scored as such by the scorer in three of those at bats. Maybe the official scorer lies and maybe he won't hit in his next ten at bats but the number factually described everything it intended.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-27-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I never argued we should give our young pitchers a chance to start based solely on development purposes. The main part of my claim was that some of our young starters had the potential to outperform Rogers so therefore we didn't want to be in the position where we hurt our won loss record THIS season and hurt our ability to make the playoffs based on a lack of performance from our fifth starter. Also despite Rogers pitching down the stretch, he still finished with just a 4.54 era, one higher than Garland's happens to be a young pitcher and who many have told me is a bust recently. Last time I checked, the games is the first half count too, right?

As far as the importance of our fifth starters numbers' in this conversation, I've already discussed this in detail with Lip in a recent thread. You're relying on hindsight bias. You're assuming that because you now know our fifth starters didn't perform well, that was a certainty prior to the season which is not the case. Just because our fifth starters didn't fare well, that doesn't mean there wasn't a chance or even a good chance they would've. For instance, you never argued prior to spring training we should sign Rogers because Wright would develop elbow tendinitus, right? I believe the example I used in the other thread is that if someone tells you to play the lottery tommorow and you win, that person didn't know beforehand you'd win. They would be wrong to say I knew you were going to win the lottery and I was right.

Finally, as far as me talking up Willie Harris and saying he has "great" numbers, you sure take a lot of liberties with what I said for someone who's upset about being misquoted in the past. I believe I said in the initial post that Harris was probably not a good option for second base. You make it sound like I head up his fan club.

I can't believe you are trying to use hindsight to support your argument. This is insane, and I must be nuts to even engage you. I will point out for you (for about the millionth time) that I have always supported getting more pitchers precisely because you can never have enough of that commodity. It is because pitchers break down that this is true. I didn't need to predict Dan Wright would be hurt to know relying on the entire staff to remain healthy was the pipedream of foolish people who really ought to know better. That was last February and I haven't had to change my position one bit. Why should I? I was right.

Now seven months later you're claiming I'm the one relying on hindsight. Genius... absolute genius.

Look, have your little Friends of Willie thread. This is going to be a terrific off-season because the Friends of Crash and the Friends of Jimenez are still alive and well. With FOW added to the mix, the entertainment value around here will certainly reach record heights.

:gulp:

MRKARNO
09-27-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I can't believe you are trying to use hindsight to support your argument. This is insane, and I must be nuts to even engage you. I will point out for you (for about the millionth time) that I have always supported getting more pitchers precisely because you can never have enough of that commodity. It is because pitchers break down that this is true. I didn't need to predict Dan Wright would be hurt to know relying on the entire staff to remain healthy was the pipedream of foolish people who really ought to know better. That was last February and I haven't had to change my position one bit. Why should I? I was right.

Now seven months later you're claiming I'm the one relying on hindsight. Genius... absolute genius.

Look, have your little Friends of Willie thread. This is going to be a terrific off-season because the Friends of Crash and the Friends of Jimenez are still alive and well. With FOW added to the mix, the entertainment value around here will certainly reach record heights.

:gulp:

Well at least there's no FOJM!

Lip Man 1
09-27-2003, 10:20 PM
Kenny Rogers, 12 wins, winning record, he'll pitch in the playoffs.

Sox 5th starters 4-11 combined.

End of arguement.

Hopefully next season Kenny will realize you need at least four quality starters to compete, five is a luxury that is well worth the price simply because many other clubs won't pay that price.

In my opinion Garland, Wright, Rauch etc are still big question marks.

I and other keep waiting for "breakout" seasons from these guys and never seem to get them.

Lip

MRKARNO
09-27-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In my opinion Garland, Wright, Rauch etc are still big question marks.


My opinion:

Garland: a jerry manuel firing away from being a consistantly good pitcher.

Rauch: Could be great once he finally gets a shot when healthy, but could just be a bust. We saw potential in 2002, but I think in 2004 he will be a regular starter....but we said that for this year.

Wright: Maybe one day he'll be a great closer or set-up man, but this starting thing just isnt for him.

hempsox
09-27-2003, 10:43 PM
Let me get this strait... we are arguing if Harris is better than Alomar and therefore should replace Alomar?. Harris who has a current .190 Batting Average? Do the t-shirts that WSI is selling contain hallucinogens??? If so put me down for 5 in an XXL because I need to lick them all to see an actual ML baseball player in Wee Willie *Frickin'* Harris!

RichH55
09-27-2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kenny Rogers, 12 wins, winning record, he'll pitch in the playoffs.

Sox 5th starters 4-11 combined.

End of arguement.

Hopefully next season Kenny will realize you need at least four quality starters to compete, five is a luxury that is well worth the price simply because many other clubs won't pay that price.

In my opinion Garland, Wright, Rauch etc are still big question marks.

I and other keep waiting for "breakout" seasons from these guys and never seem to get them.

Lip

Lip: What is the Sox record is guys for our 5th starter? And now Rogers is the massiah? No Rick Helling(who was about the same as Rogers before the year)?

I actually am curious to see what Minnesota's record was in games started by their 5th starter

WHarris13
09-28-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Daver
So what you are saying is that it is OK that he can't bat his weight or play average defense,as long as he can take a walk he is an option? Not average defense? Are you kidding me?

bafiarocks03
09-28-2003, 12:12 PM
DDDDUHHHHHH!!! my Willie never plays!! and after what he did yesterday he should definetly play more next year!! Just like we never should of gotten rid of my D'Angelo!! Willie had great range at 2nd and he is great offensively!!

pudge
09-28-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
You're assuming that because you now know our fifth starters didn't perform well, that was a certainty prior to the season which is not the case.

I think a big argument here was that you can never have enough pitching. I was worried about one of our pitchers getting injured in the spring, as usually happens to someone, and sure enough it wound up being Danny Wright. My opinion last spring was, "If we really want to go for it, why not spend a little more and get a veteran #5??" It was a no-brainer IMO, because Rauch clearly needed more minor league time, and nobody knew about Loaiza. Plus, there was the chance Garland or Wright would get torched in the spring, and as it turned out, it wound up being Wright... none of this is in hindsight. I knew we were close to being a great team, but not close enough, and as it turned out, that's exactly what happened...

Anyway, I think some of your points on Willie Harris are fair. I think this guy needed more time at Triple-A, and so yes, I think we have been a bit unfair to him.

akingamongstmen
09-28-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
My opinion:

Garland: a jerry manuel firing away from being a consistantly good pitcher.

Rauch: Could be great once he finally gets a shot when healthy, but could just be a bust. We saw potential in 2002, but I think in 2004 he will be a regular starter....but we said that for this year.

Wright: Maybe one day he'll be a great closer or set-up man, but this starting thing just isnt for him.

Well, this isn't really what this thread is about, but I have to agree with you on all fronts. I think Garland will be much improved next year when Ghandi stops taking him out of games for no apparent reason. Rauch should be completely recovered (finally) from his injury next year, so I think he has a legitimate shot at filling the gaping hole known as the 5th spot in our rotation. As for Wright, I do think he could fit the Gagne mold and convert from a below average starter to a good closer (I'm not saying that Danny will reach Gagne's level of excellence). Wright's got good stuff (great stuff at times), and he could be a huge factor in the bullpen next year.

akingamongstmen
09-28-2003, 12:53 PM
As for Willie Harris...

I like him. I think he could be a decent ballplayer. That being said, the Sox need to do everything in their power to resign Roberto Alomar. Alomar brings sooooo much more to the table than Willie does (outstanding defense, situational hitting, excellent bunting ability, leadership, etc.). I think Willie is a fantastic bench player. He is versatile (playing both the outfield and infield), and exceptionally fast. He just doesn't look like the type of player that could make it through a full season.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I can't believe you are trying to use hindsight to support your argument. This is insane, and I must be nuts to even engage you. I will point out for you (for about the millionth time) that I have always supported getting more pitchers precisely because you can never have enough of that commodity. It is because pitchers break down that this is true. I didn't need to predict Dan Wright would be hurt to know relying on the entire staff to remain healthy was the pipedream of foolish people who really ought to know better. That was last February and I haven't had to change my position one bit. Why should I? I was right.

Now seven months later you're claiming I'm the one relying on hindsight. Genius... absolute genius.

Look, have your little Friends of Willie thread. This is going to be a terrific off-season because the Friends of Crash and the Friends of Jimenez are still alive and well. With FOW added to the mix, the entertainment value around here will certainly reach record heights.

I agree you can never have to much pitching. That's why I praised the Loaiza signing and favored signing more starters to non-guaranteed deals. As far as hindsight goes, look back several posts and you'll see you said we should've signed Rogers because he pitched well this year and listed his numbers. By using information that was not available at the time the decision to sign Rogers was made you're using hindsight. I don't see how you could ever deny that.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Kenny Rogers, 12 wins, winning record, he'll pitch in the playoffs.

Sox 5th starters 4-11 combined.

End of arguement.

Hopefully next season Kenny will realize you need at least four quality starters to compete, five is a luxury that is well worth the price simply because many other clubs won't pay that price.

In my opinion Garland, Wright, Rauch etc are still big question marks.

I and other keep waiting for "breakout" seasons from these guys and never seem to get them.

Lip

Did you skip the part on hindsight bias again, Lip? At least tell me why you think that style of argumentation is legitimate.

Garland is still a big question mark yet at 23 he outpitched the veteran Kenny Rogers this season? How does that work?

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I think a big argument here was that you can never have enough pitching. I was worried about one of our pitchers getting injured in the spring, as usually happens to someone, and sure enough it wound up being Danny Wright. My opinion last spring was, "If we really want to go for it, why not spend a little more and get a veteran #5??" It was a no-brainer IMO, because Rauch clearly needed more minor league time, and nobody knew about Loaiza. Plus, there was the chance Garland or Wright would get torched in the spring, and as it turned out, it wound up being Wright... none of this is in hindsight. I knew we were close to being a great team, but not close enough, and as it turned out, that's exactly what happened...

I disagree that Rauch clearly needed more minor league time. Most thought he was poised to be our fifth starter going into spring training. The life and velocity of his pitches improved throughout the season and he pitched extremely well down the stretch last season. It was no sure thing he could be the number five but he deserved a chance and if you signed another starter it would've been impossible for Rauch to make the rotation since Wright, Garland, Colon, and Buehrle were guaranteed rotation spots.

voodoochile
09-28-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I agree you can never have to much pitching. That's why I praised the Loaiza signing and favored signing more starters to non-guaranteed deals. As far as hindsight goes, look back several posts and you'll see you said we should've signed Rogers because he pitched well this year and listed his numbers. By using information that was not available at the time the decision to sign Rogers was made you're using hindsight. I don't see how you could ever deny that.

I think you are picking some pretty small nits here. PHG was very outspoken last winter about getting more veteran pitching and Rogers was the main name being thrown around. Now he is saying, look at the numbers that man put up this year. That isn't using hindsight to make a judegement, that is using evidence to support a previous position.

Maybe it is me who is nitpicking on this one, but I don't think your line of reasoning is good. For example, that would be like me saying, "I told everyone Frank Thomas would have a good year." and another poster replying, "Hindsight is 20/20."

Lip Man 1
09-28-2003, 02:04 PM
Jeremy:

Only in your world of twisting bizarre meaningless numbers around does Jon Garland outpitch Kenny Rogers and or Jeff Suppan.

In the real world they both had winning records (Suppan is especially impressive considering he spent most of the year with the Pirates) and both are in the playoffs.

Garland is sitting at home (or will be in three hours.)

Both were available on the cheap but the Sox chose to go your route and fill things out with the "can't miss kids." That really worked out well didn't it?

But I'm sure you and your ilk will be informing us throughout this up coming off season how players like Willie Harris, Aaron Rowand, Danny Wright etc. are just the guys to take us to the promised land and show us the numbers to prove it...just like they did in 2003 (and 2002 and 2001...)

"TV is not the only box that has transformed baseball. There is also the computer. The hotshots who run the Oakland A's, according to Moneyball, don't seem to relish watching the game, as such. They regard the players as fungible rather then fun. They patch together lineups from chunks of data ."--Roy Blount Jr. Sports Illustrated Page 87

When the White Sox finally win something tangible your way Jeremy, I'll come over to your side of the computer. Until then all your numbers have proven nothing. Hell, I'd have to at least give your data some real credit if the Oakalnd A's even got to the World Series but I don't think that's ever happened or will happen.

Lip

pudge
09-28-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I disagree that Rauch clearly needed more minor league time. Most thought he was poised to be our fifth starter going into spring training. The life and velocity of his pitches improved throughout the season and he pitched extremely well down the stretch last season. It was no sure thing he could be the number five but he deserved a chance and if you signed another starter it would've been impossible for Rauch to make the rotation since Wright, Garland, Colon, and Buehrle were guaranteed rotation spots.

Well, this indeed was the big debate, and as it turned out, Rauch never even made the MLB club in 2003, so those of us who did not think Rauch was ready were correct. But the point is, if you're going to try to win a title, which I think we should have tried to do after getting Colon, then you don't rely on an unproven rookie like Rauch. You go get someone who will be there all season, like a Rogers or Suppan, and we didn't do that. Hence we're sitting at home watching the Flubs.

JRIG
09-28-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Only in your world of twisting bizarre meaningless numbers around does Jon Garland outpitch Kenny Rogers and or Jeff Suppan.


I'm pretty sure most fans would say ERA is not a "meaningless number." And Jon Garland has the lowest ERA of those three pitchers.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think you are picking some pretty small nits here. PHG was very outspoken last winter about getting more veteran pitching and Rogers was the main name being thrown around. Now he is saying, look at the numbers that man put up this year. That isn't using hindsight to make a judegement, that is using evidence to support a previous position.

Maybe it is me who is nitpicking on this one, but I don't think your line of reasoning is good. For example, that would be like me saying, "I told everyone Frank Thomas would have a good year." and another poster replying, "Hindsight is 20/20."

Well to be perfectly accurate, Rogers doesn't even really fit into this discussion all that well because I'm talking about our decision making process heading into spring training and we considered signing Rogers late in spring training when Rauch had already proved ineffective and I believe Wright had already went down. Therefore we were in a drastically different situation at that point.

As far as hindsight goes, using any information that is only available in retrospect is relying on hindsight. KW didn't know Rogers would post a 4.6 ERA and pitch well in the second half when he had to decide whether or not to sign him so saying "Rogers pitched well we should've signed him" is using hindsight bias. Now you can argue that one could have expected Rogers to do this well prior to spring training and I wouldn't really disagree. Where I strongly take issue with using hindsight is in acting as though it was a forgone conclusion that Rauch would struggle in the spring, Wright would be injured, and then that Wright would be ineffective.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Only in your world of twisting bizarre meaningless numbers around does Jon Garland outpitch Kenny Rogers and or Jeff Suppan.

In the real world they both had winning records (Suppan is especially impressive considering he spent most of the year with the Pirates) and both are in the playoffs.

Garland is sitting at home (or will be in three hours.)

Both were available on the cheap but the Sox chose to go your route and fill things out with the "can't miss kids." That really worked out well didn't it?

But I'm sure you and your ilk will be informing us throughout this up coming off season how players like Willie Harris, Aaron Rowand, Danny Wright etc. are just the guys to take us to the promised land and show us the numbers to prove it...just like they did in 2003 (and 2002 and 2001...)

First of all I don't see how Suppan became involved in this discussion. Even if he was you'd still be relying heavily on hindsight.

As far as Rogers and Garland, Garland outperformed him with almost any measurement except for your analysis that Rogers is in the playoff. By that logic though, Rogers is also better than Loaiza and any other starter on a non playoff team. If Garland's teammates would've played better and we'd made the playoffs he'd be such a better pitcher, right?

voodoochile
09-28-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well to be perfectly accurate, Rogers doesn't even really fit into this discussion all that well because I'm talking about our decision making process heading into spring training and we considered signing Rogers late in spring training when Rauch had already proved ineffective and I believe Wright had already went down. Therefore we were in a drastically different situation at that point.

As far as hindsight goes, using any information that is only available in retrospect is relying on hindsight. KW didn't know Rogers would post a 4.6 ERA and pitch well in the second half when he had to decide whether or not to sign him so saying "Rogers pitched well we should've signed him" is using hindsight bias. Now you can argue that one could have expected Rogers to do this well prior to spring training and I wouldn't really disagree. Where I strongly take issue with using hindsight is in acting as though it was a forgone conclusion that Rauch would struggle in the spring, Wright would be injured, and then that Wright would be ineffective.

You are correct, that you cannot assume that bad things will happen to solid young pitchers and that they will end up underperforming their expectations. However, it doesn's seem logical to argue that having more veteran pitchers is a bad thing on a team expected to challange for a playoff spot when the season began. Now when it turns out that it would have been helpful, those prediction turn out to be correct and the stats back it up.

Hey, I was on your side more than the other last spring, but this argument has been rendered moot by the very performances that the pitchers themselves compiled. I was wrong and obviously many other people who argued for Rauch and Wright to get their shot were also.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-28-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think you are picking some pretty small nits here. PHG was very outspoken last winter about getting more veteran pitching and Rogers was the main name being thrown around. Now he is saying, look at the numbers that man put up this year. That isn't using hindsight to make a judegement, that is using evidence to support a previous position.

Maybe it is me who is nitpicking on this one, but I don't think your line of reasoning is good. For example, that would be like me saying, "I told everyone Frank Thomas would have a good year." and another poster replying, "Hindsight is 20/20."

Actually jeremy is just flat-out wrong, the latest in a series of posters who mistakenly attribute things somebody else said to me. I dunno... they see "webmaster" next to my name and think I do some sort of Jedi mind-meld on other WSI posters or something.

I NEVER quoted numbers about Rogers. I'm sure somebody else did, but it wasn't me. I couldn't quote you numbers because I freely admit I don't know Rogers' numbers. I merely noted that it was Rogers who nailed our coffin last week, and juxtaposed it against the unmitigated disaster Wright, Porzio, and Cotts were. I didn't named jeremy as the person who insisted last February that acquiring Rogers would be a mistake, but the dear lad leaned right into it and freely admitted he was the one because he STILL THINKS he was right! :smile:

LOL! That's why this debate continues from the Danny Wright thread. This was two days ago, and jeremy is still fighting about it:

My complaint was not with the Sox not signing Rogers but with several posters here at WSI last February who were dead-set against adding any starting pitchers to the staff. They were convinced adding somebody like Rogers would hinder the progress of young prospects like Rauch and Cotts. They weren't persuaded by the obvious point that adding a pitcher to the staff--any pitcher-- would knock the worst pitcher off the staff and out of the picture. That pitcher was Porzio, not Rauch or Cotts.

My point last February has remained unchanged every month since then: you can never have enough pitching. Somebody on the staff is bound to underperform or break down and push others into roles they shouldn't be given. Holding open a roster spot is a loser's philosophy and the '03 Sox and jeremy have proven me right. There was nothing hindsight about it. My point would have been proven every bit as much if it had been Loaiza to breakdown and forced to pitch lousy every fifth day (or Garland, or Buehrle, or Colon, too). Sheesh...

Presumably the Sox are smart enough to know they goofed. Unfortunately the jury is still out on jeremy. He is the prosecution's best witness against himself. :D:

Gumshoe
09-28-2003, 05:17 PM
PaleHose, Kenny Rogers sucks. Period. Our guys got squeezed and we also were psyched out in the dome, but the Twins were better anyway (during that stretch).

As for my thought of the day, this guy Miles looks totally legit. Anyone who knows anything has known from square one that Harris is a good guy on the bench, but that's it. Miles has more accomplishments, is a switch hitter, and I think he'll prove to be a gamer. Get rid of Everett, Alomar, play Miles and Rowand, save money, and get some pitching and a manager. Hopefully people will learn from (????? can't believe I'm saying this) the Cubs this year that you don't NEED that much production to win. You need good management, good players and really good pitching.

I know we won't get rid of Thomas, but this is why I think you can see at least my reasoning behind letting him go. If you can't see this as being reasonable, I just can't understand why posting on here is done. Just to ARGUE vehemently without being reasonable?

Gumshoe

Daver
09-28-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe


As for my thought of the day, this guy Miles looks totally legit. Anyone who knows anything has known from square one that Harris is a good guy on the bench, but that's it. Miles has more accomplishments, is a switch hitter, and I think he'll prove to be a gamer.

Aaron Miles is 27 years old,a defensive liability,and has actually hit well in the minors for exactly two out of his eight seasons of being in the minors.

What accomplishments exactly are you refering to?

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You are correct, that you cannot assume that bad things will happen to solid young pitchers and that they will end up underperforming their expectations. However, it doesn's seem logical to argue that having more veteran pitchers is a bad thing on a team expected to challange for a playoff spot when the season began. Now when it turns out that it would have been helpful, those prediction turn out to be correct and the stats back it up.

Hey, I was on your side more than the other last spring, but this argument has been rendered moot by the very performances that the pitchers themselves compiled. I was wrong and obviously many other people who argued for Rauch and Wright to get their shot were also.

I still feel like no one will acknowledge that there's risk involved in signing veteran pitchers. When you sign a pitcher to a guaranteed contract, he's in your rotation for the entire year barring a serious injury or a disasterous performance that forces him to be demoted or waived. If you sign veteran pitchers and prevent young pitchers from competing for rotation spots its entirely possible that you will bury a pitcher who could win you more games in the bullpen. See the Twins this season. They signed Rogers and burried Santana, their best pitcher, in the pen. They didn't get hot until the second half when injuries allowed Santana to start. Imagine if we'd signed one more mediocre veteran pitcher in '01. Buehrle wouldn't have received a shot as early and we would've been deprived of our best pitcher.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Actually jeremy is just flat-out wrong, the latest in a series of posters who mistakenly attribute things somebody else said to me. I dunno... they see "webmaster" next to my name and think I do some sort of Jedi mind-meld on other WSI posters or something.

I NEVER quoted numbers about Rogers. I'm sure somebody else did, but it wasn't me. I couldn't quote you numbers because I freely admit I don't know Rogers' numbers. I merely noted that it was Rogers who nailed our coffin last week, and juxtaposed it against the unmitigated disaster Wright, Porzio, and Cotts were. I didn't named jeremy as the person who insisted last February that acquiring Rogers would be a mistake, but the dear lad leaned right into it and freely admitted he was the one because he STILL THINKS he was right! :smile:

LOL! That's why this debate continues from the Danny Wright thread. This was two days ago, and jeremy is still fighting about it:

My point last February has remained unchanged every month since then: you can never have enough pitching. Somebody on the staff is bound to underperform or break down and push others into roles they shouldn't be given. Holding open a roster spot is a loser's philosophy and the '03 Sox and jeremy have proven me right. There was nothing hindsight about it. My point would have been proven every bit as much if it had been Loaiza to breakdown and forced to pitch lousy every fifth day (or Garland, or Buehrle, or Colon, too). Sheesh...

Presumably the Sox are smart enough to know they goofed. Unfortunately the jury is still out on jeremy. He is the prosecution's best witness against himself. :D:

Are you kidding me?!?! Haha. Ok, you only said that Rogers pitched well down the stretch, you didn't quote his numbers. What's the difference? Either way you're using hindsight of his performance this season to make your argument which is what I'm critiquing.

The best part is that you're pointing out that I still think I'm right despite the fact that Rogers pitched well and our fifth starters' didn't which is my entire point! Its wrong to look at the argument based only on what you now know in hindsight. The decision was made 9 months ago not yesterday so you can't argue it based on what you would've had to look into the future to know before spring training!!!

If you want to make the argument that in general someone breaks down in a starting rotation that's fine. That's a completely different argument than the one you're making elsewhere which is "Kenny Rogers put the nail in our coffin while our 5th starters did poorly." which is relying entirely on hindsight. Personally I disagree that starters always go down for long periods of time or fail to meet expectations. The Angels used the same five starters all season. In many cases if pitchers do break down or are ineffective it takes a large part of the season for this to happen and that can still be detrimental to the team. Again, look at Minnesota where you're correct they were glad to have the depth eventually but it took half a season to get Santana out of the pen which hurt them more than their extra pitching depth helped them.

Additionally, we did have pitching depth. In Spring Training we had Heredia, Loiza, Rauch, and Stewart competing for the final spot in the rotation. You might have guessed one starter would get hurt but not that Rauch would be injured and ineffective, Stewart would struggle some and suffer a serious injury.

RichH55
09-28-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Only in your world of twisting bizarre meaningless numbers around does Jon Garland outpitch Kenny Rogers and or Jeff Suppan.

In the real world they both had winning records (Suppan is especially impressive considering he spent most of the year with the Pirates) and both are in the playoffs.

Garland is sitting at home (or will be in three hours.)

Both were available on the cheap but the Sox chose to go your route and fill things out with the "can't miss kids." That really worked out well didn't it?

But I'm sure you and your ilk will be informing us throughout this up coming off season how players like Willie Harris, Aaron Rowand, Danny Wright etc. are just the guys to take us to the promised land and show us the numbers to prove it...just like they did in 2003 (and 2002 and 2001...)

"TV is not the only box that has transformed baseball. There is also the computer. The hotshots who run the Oakland A's, according to Moneyball, don't seem to relish watching the game, as such. They regard the players as fungible rather then fun. They patch together lineups from chunks of data ."--Roy Blount Jr. Sports Illustrated Page 87

When the White Sox finally win something tangible your way Jeremy, I'll come over to your side of the computer. Until then all your numbers have proven nothing. Hell, I'd have to at least give your data some real credit if the Oakalnd A's even got to the World Series but I don't think that's ever happened or will happen.

Lip

Now Garland was the problem? Geez Lip

C. Lee for Helling would have solved our problems as well?

RichH55
09-28-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think you are picking some pretty small nits here. PHG was very outspoken last winter about getting more veteran pitching and Rogers was the main name being thrown around. Now he is saying, look at the numbers that man put up this year. That isn't using hindsight to make a judegement, that is using evidence to support a previous position.

Maybe it is me who is nitpicking on this one, but I don't think your line of reasoning is good. For example, that would be like me saying, "I told everyone Frank Thomas would have a good year." and another poster replying, "Hindsight is 20/20."

Very true Voodoo......You can never have enough pitching...but you do have to be smart about how you get it

RichH55
09-28-2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Aaron Miles is 27 years old,a defensive liability,and has actually hit well in the minors for exactly two out of his eight seasons of being in the minors.

What accomplishments exactly are you refering to?

Being in the Gumshoe Crappy Player Hall of Fame

But seriously.,...I think his accomplisments were "being a gamer" and not dying on the way to the ballpark day in and day out

Jerko
09-28-2003, 07:58 PM
NO

PaleHoseGeorge
09-28-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Are you kidding me?!?! Haha. Ok, you only said that Rogers pitched well down the stretch, you didn't quote his numbers. What's the difference? Either way you're using hindsight of his performance this season to make your argument which is what I'm critiquing.

Of course you don't see the difference. That's why I started this whole debate when I dismissed your goofy opinions with a simple, "Consider the source."

Thanks for playing.

doublem23
09-28-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

Garland is still a big question mark yet at 23 he outpitched the veteran Kenny Rogers this season? How does that work?

Ssshhh... Don't point out flaws in his arguments... It makes it a lot less funny when you read them.

:smile:

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Of course you don't see the difference. That's why I started this whole debate when I dismissed your goofy opinions with a simple, "Consider the source."

Thanks for playing.

Well then explain the difference to me. I explained to you why I don't think there's a meaningful difference between listing a pitcher's stats as a description of how well he pitched and using mere words instead of numbers to similarly describe the pitcher's performance. If you disagree then explain why I'm wrong don't just call my opinions "goofy".

PaleHoseGeorge
09-28-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well then explain the difference to me. I explained to you why I don't think there's a meaningful difference between listing a pitcher's stats as a description of how well he pitched and using mere words instead of numbers to similarly describe the pitcher's performance. If you disagree then explain why I'm wrong don't just call my opinions "goofy".

Look, this is your thread, jeremy. Enjoy it. Explain to all of us how wronged Willie Harris is. It will be a source of amusement for the rest of us at least as long as the seven months you've already given us stomping your feet on behalf of goofy ideas about how to assemble a winning pitching staff. You haven't gotten it yet, and you never will. I'm a fool for indulging as much as I already have.

Let's burn bandwith on things that are amusing, shall we? So please, without further ado, step up to the plate for your new guy. You can't do much worse than he has at the dish.

:weewillie
"Welcome to winter at WSI!"

:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

Daver
09-28-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Well then explain the difference to me. I explained to you why I don't think there's a meaningful difference between listing a pitcher's stats as a description of how well he pitched and using mere words instead of numbers to similarly describe the pitcher's performance. If you disagree then explain why I'm wrong don't just call my opinions "goofy".

jeremy,all numbers lie,to some extent or another.When you can grasp that you might get an idea of what we are talking about.If you are going to base your judgements based solely on numbers you are going to get your head beaten in by the arguments based on performance,because numbers do not play the game,players do,and their performance cannot be judged by numbers alone.

I thought I had already pointed this out to you once,but I may not have.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, this is your thread, jeremy. Enjoy it. Explain to all of us how wronged Willie Harris is. It will be a source of amusement for the rest of us at least as long as the seven months you've already given us stomping your feet on behalf of goofy ideas about how to assemble a winning pitching staff. You haven't gotten it yet, and you never will. I'm a fool for indulging as much as I already have.

Let's burn bandwith on things that are amusing, shall we? So please, without further ado, step up to the plate for your new guy. You can't do much worse than he has at the dish.

Again I'm the president of the fanclub for a player I said is probably not a good option at 2B next season. That's definitely an interesting interpretation.

I guess I'll take this last post as saying that you don't know what the difference is between using numbers compared to other language to describe Kenny Roger's performance?

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Daver
jeremy,all numbers lie,to some extent or another.When you can grasp that you might get an idea of what we are talking about.If you are going to base your judgements based solely on numbers you are going to get your head beaten in by the arguments based on performance,because numbers do not play the game,players do,and their performance cannot be judged by numbers alone.

I thought I had already pointed this out to you once,but I may not have.

I maintain that numbers don't "lie" they're simply capable of being misinterpreted. Numbers aren't some evil concept, they're simply an objective way of describing performance. Numbers are effective in that they measure results. As I said before if you go one for three you have a hit in one of your three at bats according to the official scorer. That's important because it measures the outcome of the game. Its much more important that how good a hitter looked hitting home run ball that was 5 feet foul because that didn't effect the outcome of the game, at least not to the same extent.

Peoples' observations lie, no? Some players that are scouted look really good but never pan out. People are wrong. Observations can be inaccurate.

Daver
09-28-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I maintain that numbers don't "lie" they're simply capable of being misinterpreted. Numbers aren't some evil concept, they're simply an objective way of describing performance. Numbers are effective in that they measure results. As I said before if you go one for three you have a hit in one of your three at bats according to the official scorer. That's important because it measures the outcome of the game. Its much more important that how good a hitter looked hitting home run ball that was 5 feet foul because that didn't effect the outcome of the game, at least not to the same extent.

Peoples' observations lie, no? Some players that are scouted look really good but never pan out. People are wrong. Observations can be inaccurate.

Never mind,you are incapable of grasping it.

jeremyb1
09-28-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Never mind,you are incapable of grasping it.

Again, restating your point doesn't answer my arguments very well.

jabrch
09-29-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I maintain that numbers don't "lie" they're simply capable of being misinterpreted. Numbers aren't some evil concept, they're simply an objective way of describing performance. Numbers are effective in that they measure results. As I said before if you go one for three you have a hit in one of your three at bats according to the official scorer. That's important because it measures the outcome of the game. Its much more important that how good a hitter looked hitting home run ball that was 5 feet foul because that didn't effect the outcome of the game, at least not to the same extent.

Peoples' observations lie, no? Some players that are scouted look really good but never pan out. People are wrong. Observations can be inaccurate.

Jeremy, the only number that truly measures the outcome of the game is WINS. Any other number is merely a factor in a very complex, and nonexistant algorythm that would determine who wins. If numbers ultimately were a quantifiable way to measure a winner, someone would have discovered this equation by now and we wouldn't have to even play the games. Game are won on the field. They are won by bounces, calls, fractions of inches. They are won by individual moments and guesses made by hitters, pitchers, fielders and managers.

Numbers do not lie. But they do not tell the whole story. The interpretation of numbers can be as inaccurate as the observations made by people about what goes on in the field of play.

jeremyb1
09-29-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Jeremy, the only number that truly measures the outcome of the game is WINS. Any other number is merely a factor in a very complex, and nonexistant algorythm that would determine who wins. If numbers ultimately were a quantifiable way to measure a winner, someone would have discovered this equation by now and we wouldn't have to even play the games. Game are won on the field. They are won by bounces, calls, fractions of inches. They are won by individual moments and guesses made by hitters, pitchers, fielders and managers.

Numbers do not lie. But they do not tell the whole story. The interpretation of numbers can be as inaccurate as the observations made by people about what goes on in the field of play.

So hits, walks, home runs, strikeouts, etc don't influence the outcome of a baseball game? I don't see where I argued that you can predetermine the outcome of the game based on statistics. That would make baseball a pretty boring game. There's always a lot of luck and chance involved. That said, you may not be aware of them but there have been amazing advancements in statistical analysis that use runs scored and runs allowed or even walks, strikeouts, home runs, and other individual statistics to predict teams win loss totals with relatively good accuracy.

WLL1855
10-02-2003, 02:22 AM
You can have a statistically solid team and still fail. Look at those awful Mets teams in the late 80's and early 90's that were built around superstars that didn't pan out. I have to agree with jabrch that the only number that matters is wins. How you get them doesn't really matter. Just win. Everything else (hits, runs, errors) is secondary. It plays a part but it is secondary. Give me an ugly team that finds ways to win ballgames and I'm happy. I'll probably have an ulcer, but I'll be happy.

Great teams rise to the occasion, often despite what the numbers say. Nobody (well, almost nobody) gave the White Sox a chance in 1906 but they still won the World Series.

Chisoxfn
10-02-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
jeremy is STILL unconvinced the Sox made a poor choice relying on Dan Wright and Mike Porzio to pitch every fifth day, even after Kenny Rogers nailed shut our coffin last week. Consider the source...

Remember...Rogers would of been signed to be the 5th and replace Loaiza, not Wright.

Then again Wright was hurt at the beginning anyway, so Loaiza will of still been given his time to shine.

As far as Wee Willie goes, I like Harris. I'd like to see the kid get consistent playing time for a couple week span. Once you see that, then I think you cna more or less evaluate him. Their is no lying that he creams minor league pitching...but so far he hasn't done crap with major league pitching. But like I said, he's never had a situation where he could constantly get at bats.

Of course it isn't a wise idea to throw him out there on a team thats expected to compete and give him all those at bats right off the bat.

jeremyb1
10-02-2003, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by WLL1855
You can have a statistically solid team and still fail. Look at those awful Mets teams in the late 80's and early 90's that were built around superstars that didn't pan out. I have to agree with jabrch that the only number that matters is wins. How you get them doesn't really matter. Just win. Everything else (hits, runs, errors) is secondary. It plays a part but it is secondary. Give me an ugly team that finds ways to win ballgames and I'm happy. I'll probably have an ulcer, but I'll be happy.

Great teams rise to the occasion, often despite what the numbers say. Nobody (well, almost nobody) gave the White Sox a chance in 1906 but they still won the World Series.

I disagree. Statistics measure performance and if you perform well enough you'll win a lot of games. There is always a good degree of luck involved and you can't assume that a player will without a doubt perform a certain way based on his history. However, if you have a team that's near the top of the league in ERA, OBP, and SLG percentage you're going to wind up with a pretty good record.

jabrch
10-02-2003, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
So hits, walks, home runs, strikeouts, etc don't influence the outcome of a baseball game? I don't see where I argued that you can predetermine the outcome of the game based on statistics. That would make baseball a pretty boring game. There's always a lot of luck and chance involved. That said, you may not be aware of them but there have been amazing advancements in statistical analysis that use runs scored and runs allowed or even walks, strikeouts, home runs, and other individual statistics to predict teams win loss totals with relatively good accuracy.

No...I didn't say H, BB, HR and Ks don't INFLUENCE the outcome. I just said that they have a very varying degree of accuracy to predict a game. It goes back to the old saying...about liers, dammned liers and statisticians... Look, don't go pontificating on the concept of statistics. I have taken enough graduate level statistics to understand exactly the value of statistics. They are indicators - nothing more.

Those stats you listed are INPUTS. The do not measure the outcome of a game. Surely when a team outhits its opponent by 40, the likelihood of winning is extremely high - no kidding - but to say that those numbers measure the RESULTS of a game is highly inaccurate. They describe the results of individual plays. But they do not describe the results of a game.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn
Remember...Rogers would of been signed to be the 5th and replace Loaiza, not Wright.


This is patented nonsense. Frankly, par for the course in this thread...