PDA

View Full Version : Next Year .. Clayton vs Valentin


idseer
09-06-2001, 09:26 PM
i've seen it stated at various times about jose being a better ss cause of his arm and range.
now, i know over a short period of time some stats don't mean much. but i looked at the 4 years prior to this one and this is what i found:

valentin -
total chances / games
612 / 132 - '97
564 / 139 - '98
348 / 85 - '99
726 / 142 - '00
2214 / 500 total = 4.43 total chances per game

clayton -
698 / 145 - '97
688 / 141 - '98
636 / 133 - '99
690 / 144 - '00
2712 / 563 total = 4.82 total chances per game

add in valintin's .956 lifetime fldg. avg at ss
compared to clayton's .971

it's obvious to me that in FACT, clayton makes MORE plays and covers MORE ground than valentin!

also, espn defines range factor as being putouts + assists divided by innings.
they also show jose's number is 4.877 and royce's is 4.765. frankly, jose has been involved in a higher percentage of dp's which skews that figure a bit imo. looks to me like royce can 'range' (get to) as many balls or more than jose.
let me add ... their figures don't seem to jibe.
clearly jose has (at ss) 1345 po's and 2662 assts in 7394 innings (according to espn figures). if you add the po's & assts you get 4007 which when divided by innings you get .54 and with royce's figures you get .53.
anyway there is another factor they call zone-rating (The percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical defensive "zone," as measured by STATS, Inc). claton's is higher. .938 to .921.

i think this all shows clayton should be our man, considering how weak our fielding already is.

FarWestChicago
09-06-2001, 09:33 PM
So what do you propose we do with Manos? He is the heart and soul of the team and perhaps the best clutch hitter. And, while our defense has left much to be desired, we have had a huge problem scoring runs, too.

idseer
09-06-2001, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
So what do you propose we do with Manos? He is the heart and soul of the team and perhaps the best clutch hitter. And, while our defense has left much to be desired, we have had a huge problem scoring runs, too.

good question! i don't have a good answer. i've always felt he's a man without a position. maybe he'd be decent at first. maybe he should go, as all players do eventually. i'm sure the sox can win with a different heart and soul!

i was really just trying to make a point about royce. i think he's been given a bum rap on his fielding/

FarWestChicago
09-06-2001, 09:41 PM
good question! i don't have a good answer. i've always felt he's a man without a position. maybe he'd be decent at first. maybe he should go, as all players do eventually. i'm sure the sox can win with a different heart and soul!

I wouldn't be so sure about the heart transplant. Sometimes they don't work. How about second for a position?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 09:43 PM
Well I guess id has proven his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Sox should have had Clayton rather than Valentin back in '97.

Next question.

idseer
09-06-2001, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


I wouldn't be so sure about the heart transplant. Sometimes they don't work. How about second for a position?

well he's been tried everywhere else and been found wanting. i see no reason why he'd suddenly find a home at 2nd.
i was serious about first tho. he'd scoop well, wouldn't have to throw much ....
of course that leaves someone else without a position. somewhere some trades need to be made. i hate to trade away konerko and yet if you expect to get anything you have to give something up.

i say trade jose, play him at 1st or dh! deal with the ramifications.

FarWestChicago
09-06-2001, 09:49 PM
well he's been tried everywhere else and been found wanting. i see no reason why he'd suddenly find a home at 2nd.

Well we won '95 games, and I believe led the league in DP's with him at short last year. That's not too bad. If he was at second he wouldn't have as many long throws. He's got a gun, but sometimes the aim is a little off from a distance.

idseer
09-06-2001, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well I guess id has proven his point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Sox should have had Clayton rather than Valentin back in '97.

Next question.

ok phg. very nice reply. ignore my point and be sarcastic.
you bitch about someone arguing and not backing up what they say. when someone DOES point to some facts & figures, you belittle. go figure.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i say trade jose, play him at 1st or dh! deal with the ramifications.

Look, Jose doesn't have the numbers to even remotely be considered for the DH or 1B position. That's where guys like the Lumbering Ox set the standard.

One reason I say Konerko should be dealt is because his offensive production for that position (1B) are very mediocre. The most we can hope for is future improvement, but he's already been given two years to get his act together. Time to pull the plug.

Given that Clayton doesn't have the numbers to be considered for even the SS position, he ought to be the one shown the door(with apologies to his superior defensive numbers from the late-90's).

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by idseer
ok phg. very nice reply. ignore my point and be sarcastic.
you bitch about someone arguing and not backing up what they say. when someone DOES point to some facts & figures, you belittle. go figure.

You made your point and over the past few days George has made his point that he would rather have Jose at short. There is no point in him going over what he has already said time and time again.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by idseer


ok phg. very nice reply. ignore my point and be sarcastic.
you bitch about someone arguing and not backing up what they say. when someone DOES point to some facts & figures, you belittle. go figure.

Ignore the facts? 1997 occurred four years ago. You have plenty of statistical data just from the past two seasons to draw conclusions -- over 400 chances per season. That's basic statistical modeling.

The average ballplayers entire career lasts less than four seasons. Is it possible things have changed a bit since then?

How is that ignoring your point?

idseer
09-06-2001, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


Well we won '95 games, and I believe led the league in DP's with him at short last year. That's not too bad. If he was at second he wouldn't have as many long throws. He's got a gun, but sometimes the aim is a little off from a distance.

true, but i assume the reason they brought in royce was because they felt that position should be manned by a more classic fielder. so i'm not alone in my thinking here.
as for second ... maybe he could. he's played a few games there without any disaster that i know of.

idseer
09-06-2001, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Ignore the facts? 1997 occurred four years ago. You have plenty of statistical data just from the past two seasons to draw conclusions -- over 400 chances per season. That's basic statistical modeling.

The average ballplayers entire career lasts less than four seasons. Is it possible things have changed a bit since then?

How is that ignoring your point?

perhaps you should read my initial post again. those state were from '97 to '00. i was attempting to show a little history to make my point

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by idseer
as for second ... maybe he could. he's played a few games there without any disaster that i know of.

No dice Durham isn't going anywhere unless he leaves via free agency. Williams has already turned his attention towards locking him up for a few more years.

FarWestChicago
09-06-2001, 10:01 PM
true, but i assume the reason they brought in royce was because they felt that position should be manned by a more classic fielder. so i'm not alone in my thinking here.

Actually, I heard KW got Royce to use as trade bait and was subsequently shut out. Royce playing short for us this year was an accident if this is true. I'm not certain that story is a fact, though.

idseer
09-06-2001, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


You made your point and over the past few days George has made his point that he would rather have Jose at short. There is no point in him going over what he has already said time and time again.

ok jerry. i didn't know that as i haven't read that particular thread. i wasn't trying to throw anything in anyone's face. maybe he should have ignored mine?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by idseer


true, but i assume the reason they brought in royce was because they felt that position should be manned by a more classic fielder. so i'm not alone in my thinking here.
as for second ... maybe he could. he's played a few games there without any disaster that i know of.

Well, you're definitely not alone. I heard Manuel talking up Royce again just yesterday. His slow lazy flip to Durham cost the Sox yet another double-play late in today's game but that doesn't go down as bad defense in Jerry's book.

I'm really beginning to wonder about the smarts of our manager and general manager. One has gotten awfully dumb and I'm not sure the other one was ever very bright to begin with.

idseer
09-06-2001, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm really beginning to wonder about the smarts of our manager and general manager. One has gotten awfully dumb and I'm not sure the other one was ever very bright to begin with.

good we agree there. i've never been a jm fan and i think kw is fast proving unequal to the job.

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by idseer
ok jerry. i didn't know that as i haven't read that particular thread. i wasn't trying to throw anything in anyone's face. maybe he should have ignored mine?

Whenever the Clayton/Valentin debate is brought up George will say something. He wasn't trying to be rude he just doesn't like Clayton and having him here does more harm then it does good.
Sure he plays good defense, but him being on the team forces all of these crazy lineups that Manuel has. Also if he is on the team next year I would assume Valentin would play 3rd base. Which is a bad decision in my mind because I want to see Joe Crede play. In the American League you win games with offense just look at the 2000 Sox. I understand the point of having good defense up the middle but Valentin is a natural SS he is not a 3rd basemen.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by idseer
perhaps you should read my initial post again. those state were from '97 to '00. i was attempting to show a little history to make my point

But why look at unreliable data if you have plenty of newer, more reliable data to draw your conclusions from? The fact Clayton was superior in 1997 or 1998 most certainly isn't relevant if he has been inferior for a statistically significant measurement in the time since then.

Of course it's possible you're saying Clayton was superior back in the late-90's and has suddenly recaptured something to make him superior again. However defensive ability tends to wane with age--not improve. Ask Cal.

idseer
09-06-2001, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Sure he plays good defense, but him being on the team forces all of these crazy lineups that Manuel has. Also if he is on the team next year I would assume Valentin would play 3rd base. Which is a bad decision in my mind because I want to see Joe Crede play. In the American League you win games with offense just look at the 2000 Sox. I understand the point of having good defense up the middle but Valentin is a natural SS he is not a 3rd basemen.

for a good portion of the year it was crazy keeping royce in there. i complained about that as much as anyone else. but you must admit there's a twist now that his avg is back up to .260. they'll feel his horrendous slump was an anomaly and he's back to his normal self. frankly, i do too. he's never done that before.

as for crede, maybe he'll be ready maybe not. he still hasn't shown anything here.
valentin is a problem no matter how you use him. probably why the brewers finally dumped him.

FarWestChicago
09-06-2001, 10:21 PM
probably why the brewers finally dumped him.

Uhhh, the Brewers didn't dump him. They got killed in a trade.

idseer
09-06-2001, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


But why look at unreliable data if you have plenty of newer, more reliable data to draw your conclusions from? The fact Clayton was superior in 1997 or 1998 most certainly isn't relevant if he has been inferior for a statistically significant measurement in the time since then.

Of course it's possible you're saying Clayton was superior back in the late-90's and has suddenly recaptured something to make him superior again. However defensive ability tends to wane with age--not improve. Ask Cal.

what's unreliable? clayton was MORE superior in '99 and '00!
realize i'm talking about fielding and range. so i think it's very significant. another thing. they've played the same amount of years, but royce is younger and been injury-free. can you say the same for jose? if anything your last sentence is more appropo to jose.

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by idseer
as for crede, maybe he'll be ready maybe not. he still hasn't shown anything here.


Crede hasn't gotten a shot up here. This playing one a week in September crap is not enough time to judge his progress. Play him at 3rd 3 to 4 times a week and see how he does.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Actually, I heard KW got Royce to use as trade bait and was subsequently shut out. Royce playing short for us this year was an accident if this is true. I'm not certain that story is a fact, though.

KW was quoted saying that though I'm not sure who was the original media source. The official site?

It's a shame everyone in the Sox organization was focusing on strengthening the team for a championship run in 2001 while our GM took his eye off the goal, charging off in some vain attempt to out-fox his fellow GM's. The fact he got caught up in his own underwear ought to be obvious to everyone.

This train wreck is Kenny's fault.

"Mea culpa."
:KW

"Don't worry. I gave the last guy ten years to reach 'point C' and he never delivered either. Now, about our lockout strategy. You be sure to tell Borchard's agent..."
:reinsy

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Uhhh, the Brewers didn't dump him. They got killed in a trade.

John Synder and Jaime Navarro for Cal Eldred and Jose Valentin isn't looking to good for the Brewers now is it?

idseer
09-06-2001, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


Uhhh, the Brewers didn't dump him. They got killed in a trade.

:) that's my point! they dumped him. they couldn't decide what to do with him either. so they bit the bullet.

KempersRS
09-06-2001, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Crede hasn't gotten a shot up here. This playing one a week in September crap is not enough time to judge his progress. Play him at 3rd 3 to 4 times a week and see how he does.

Amen to that.

Jerry_Manuel
09-06-2001, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
KW was quoted saying that though I'm not sure who was the original media source. The official site?


That story came from Chris Deluca of the Sun Times.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 10:58 PM
Okay ID, let's see if we can bridge the gap here.

I agree Royce has demonstrated superior numbers across a four-year average (1997-2000) to Jose Valentin for Total Chances per game.

Can we agree that Jose Valentin had at least as good a 2000 to Royce's 2000? Here are the numbers (from the Sox media guide):

Games. 148 for Clayton, 141 for Valentin.
Putouts. 265 for Clayton, 233 for Valentin.
Assists. 411 for Clayton, 456 for Valentin.
Errors. 16 for Clayton. 36 for Valentin.
Total Chances. 692 for Clayton. 725 for Valentin.
Double-plays. 94 for Clayton. 117 for Valentin.

Now consider the 2001 Sox have seen a defensive slip at shortstop in putouts, assists, total chances, and double-plays while improving only in errors. I've gone to great lengths disproving the notion that the value of run production can ever be erased by errors committed. (See the thread "Royce's average is still climbing").

If the Sox had a problem with defense at shortstop, Royce Clayton most-definitely was not the solution. Meanwhile his OPS is one of the worst in the league.

We aren't getting much with this guy besides warm fuzzy feelings whenever the ball is hit to the right of the pitcher.

doublem23
09-06-2001, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by idseer


true, but i assume the reason they brought in royce was because they felt that position should be manned by a more classic fielder. so i'm not alone in my thinking here.
as for second ... maybe he could. he's played a few games there without any disaster that i know of.

Big deal. So Jose isn't the classic shortstop. Neither is Payrod or Ripken, but they're still REALLY damn good...

You can dig up all sorts of facts or stats, but the fact of the matter is last season, with Jose Valentin at short, we were the most potent offense in the league. We won 95 games. Personally, I don't see any argument here. Clayton has a reputation of being a surly clubhouse cancer whose Little League coach obviously never taught him how to use the bat.]

I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

doublem23
09-06-2001, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by idseer
for a good portion of the year it was crazy keeping royce in there. i complained about that as much as anyone else. but you must admit there's a twist now that his avg is back up to .260. they'll feel his horrendous slump was an anomaly and he's back to his normal self. frankly, i do too. he's never done that before.

It's pretty sick that "back to your old self" is a .259 batting average. If this was the '20s, well, maybe he'd have a shot at the HOF.

Originally posted by idseer
valentin is a problem no matter how you use him. probably why the brewers finally dumped him.

Clayton is a problem, too. Probably why's he's been dumped by the Giants, Cardinals, and Rangers.

I dunno. I don't really have any beef with a shortstop who puts up these kind of numbers:
HOME RUNS - 25 - 3rd hightest in AL (amongst SS's)
RUNS SCORED - 107 - 3rd highest in AL
RUNS BATTED IN - 92 - 4th highest in AL
TOTAL BASES - 279 - 5th highest in AL

Whatever. If we want to start rebuilding to make this team win with defense, that's your perogative, but the fact of the matter is we won last year cuz we mashed teams, not cuz we got them out all the time. Welcome to baseball's 21st century. But maybe I just think this way 'cuz I'm only 18...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Valentin wins more games with his bat than he loses with his glove. And Clayton helps blow more games than he saves with his mitt.

Kilroy
09-06-2001, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
...the fact of the matter is last season, with Jose Valentin at short, we were the most potent offense in the league. We won 95 games. Personally, I don't see any argument here. Clayton has a reputation of being a surly clubhouse cancer whose Little League coach obviously never taught him how to use the bat.]

I'd rather win ugly than lose pretty.

You know, how come no one ever says "we won 95 games last year w/ Josh Paul and Mark Johnson spliting catching duty for most of the season"? Or "we won 95 games last year with only 4 real starting pitchers"? Or even "we won 95 games with Chris Singleton barely hitting .250 in center field"? Its always "with Jose at ss." As if Jose at short was the puzzle piece that brought it all together and made the Sox win last year.

Granted, Jose made huge contribute to the team last season both on the field and with the intangibles. But the fact is, his defense was one of the many things the 2000 Sox overcame in winning 95 games and the division last season.

And the fact that the Sox AREN'T the team they were last season is mostly due to the people that aren't here and haven't been for most of the season. If the Sox had certain players in the dugout instead of on the DL, you would have seem them turn this season around just like Oakland did. No matter where Jose played.

doublem23
09-06-2001, 11:44 PM
Jose is a HUGE part of this team's success. This team is clearly lacking leaders, and Jose is certainly THE man.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2001, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
You know, how come no one ever says "we won 95 games last year w/ Josh Paul and Mark Johnson spliting catching duty for most of the season"? Or "we won 95 games last year with only 4 real starting pitchers"? Or even "we won 95 games with Chris Singleton barely hitting .250 in center field"? Its always "with Jose at ss." As if Jose at short was the puzzle piece that brought it all together and made the Sox win last year.


In fairness, Paul got demoted in May when Fordyce came back from the DL. Then Fordyce got traded at the deadline for Charles Johnson. That's when we found out what a real catcher can do. In fact, CJ's numbers the last two months of the season are what carried us across the finish line. Without his offense, we may have been sunk.

There's that funny "o" word again. Amazing how it makes up for practically everything else in this age of DH's, dinky ballparks, weight room training, muscle-building drugs, and Cy Young candidates with ERA's approaching 4.00.

I miss those days we turned the line up over practically every week. It won us a lot of games.

idseer
09-06-2001, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay ID, let's see if we can bridge the gap here.

I agree Royce has demonstrated superior numbers across a four-year average (1997-2000) to Jose Valentin for Total Chances per game.

Can we agree that Jose Valentin had at least as good a 2000 to Royce's 2000? Here are the numbers (from the Sox media guide):

Games. 148 for Clayton, 141 for Valentin.
Putouts. 265 for Clayton, 233 for Valentin.
Assists. 411 for Clayton, 456 for Valentin.
Errors. 16 for Clayton. 36 for Valentin.
Total Chances. 692 for Clayton. 725 for Valentin.
Double-plays. 94 for Clayton. 117 for Valentin.

Now consider the 2001 Sox have seen a defensive slip at shortstop in putouts, assists, total chances, and double-plays while improving only in errors. I've gone to great lengths disproving the notion that the value of run production can ever be erased by errors committed. (See the thread "Royce's average is still climbing").

If the Sox had a problem with defense at shortstop, Royce Clayton most-definitely was not the solution. Meanwhile his OPS is one of the worst in the league.

We aren't getting much with this guy besides warm fuzzy feelings whenever the ball is hit to the right of the pitcher.

i agree jose had a very good year last year.
as to the slip at ss this year, it's also true for 2nd & 3rd. but i believe clayton has an excuse. not just a new team, but his hitting woes the first half. i believe the sox will believe the way he's come on lately means it was a fluke and not likely to be repeated. and his fielding should return to normal. so i expect to see him there on opening day.

as to your run/error notion ..... i think it may be true but only to a degree. obviously teams don't put only their best bats on the field every day without regard to fielding. both are important. in the sox's case, if they were strong field-wise at 2nd & 3rd and left and catching i could see jose at ss. but as it stands i'll take clayton. he's consistanly a better fielder, hitter (.avg), he's younger, and is more dependable in his role missing over 300 fewer games in the same amount of time. jose has more power, but is inconsistant in the field, a poor baserunner, and his durability is more in question.
they both have pluses and minuses. i just think looking at the team as a whole i'd take clayton next year over jose.

idseer
09-07-2001, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


In fact, CJ's numbers the last two months of the season are what carried us across the finish line. Without his offense, we may have been sunk.



tell me, what was the sox record with cj in the lineup?

it was the first half that carried them to the playoffs, NOT cj's bat at the finishline.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 12:16 AM
muscle-building drugs

:shammy

I have no idea what you are talking about.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by idseer


i agree jose had a very good year last year.
as to the slip at ss this year, it's also true for 2nd & 3rd. but i believe clayton has an excuse. not just a new team, but his hitting woes the first half. i believe the sox will believe the way he's come on lately means it was a fluke and not likely to be repeated. and his fielding should return to normal. so i expect to see him there on opening day.

How can you say it was a fluke? After five months of Manuel sticking him in the line up, Royce Clayton is right back at his career average of .260. This is PRECISELY what we should expect from him. There is nothing fluky about it.

as to your run/error notion ..... i think it may be true but only to a degree. obviously teams don't put only their best bats on the field every day without regard to fielding. both are important. in the sox's case, if they were strong field-wise at 2nd & 3rd and left and catching i could see jose at ss. but as it stands i'll take clayton. he's consistanly a better fielder, hitter (.avg), he's younger, and is more dependable in his role missing over 300 fewer games in the same amount of time. jose has more power, but is inconsistant in the field, a poor baserunner, and his durability is more in question.
they both have pluses and minuses. i just think looking at the team as a whole i'd take clayton next year over jose.

How can you say he's "consistently" a better fielder when you already admitted Clayton's number's last year are no better than Valentin's and his numbers this year are inferior to Valentin's playing the same position a year ago? A bit inconsistent, wouldn't you agree?

I let pass the notion Clayton is younger (by 3 mos. between two men both over 30). But questioning Valentin's baserunning??? Have you ever seen Royce Clayton win a ballgame by how he slides into the bag? I can think of two games Valentin has won for us simply by avoiding the tag at homeplate when he was out by 2+ steps. And please don't tell me anyone can do it because the fact is there isn't anyone else on the team who has even done it once. (Oakland last August, and Anaheim last May).

You're selling Valentin's contributions to this team way short.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 12:18 AM
jose has more power, but is inconsistant in the field, a poor baserunner

Huh? Where do you get this "poor baserunner" stuff? He blew it the other day. But, that was an exception, not the norm.

Jerry_Manuel
09-07-2001, 12:20 AM
:versatile
I'm the only poor baserunner on this team thank you.

Kilroy
09-07-2001, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
...Royce Clayton is right back at his career average of .260. This is PRECISELY what we should expect from him. There is nothing fluky about it...

I guess what could be the fluky part is that he hit .100 for 2 months on his way to .260. He certainly could have gotten there without the *****ty months, don't you think?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by idseer


tell me, what was the sox record with cj in the lineup?

it was the first half that carried them to the playoffs, NOT cj's bat at the finishline.

I never said the May-June wins weren't decisive. I said without CJ we don't cross the finish line first.

In August and September, with the entire rotation short of Parque spending time on the DL, the Sox limped to a 31-26 record. Meanwhile CJ batted .326, slugged .607, and got on base .411. He batted in 36 runs in just 44 games! Royce Clayton only has 45 this entire season, LOL!!!

I'll put it to you this way: if Josh Paul had been our everyday catcher in August and September last year, we don't win the division. And I bet I'm not the only one here who would agree.

Jerry_Manuel
09-07-2001, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I never said the May-June wins weren't decisive. I said without CJ we don't cross the finish line first.

In August and September, with the entire rotation short of Parque spending time on the DL, the Sox limped to a 31-26 record. Meanwhile CJ batted .326, slugged .607, and got on base .411. He batted in 36 runs in just 44 games! Royce Clayton only has 45 this entire season, LOL!!!


Hell in his first game as a member of the Sox he hit a homer to win the game in Texas. I recall it very well as DJ said:

:DJ
Welcome aboard CJ!

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 12:40 AM
I'll put it to you this way: if Josh Paul had been our everyday catcher in August and September last year, we don't win the division. And I bet I'm not the only one here who would agree.

You can count me in. Sure we got a big lead early. But, the 'Toons came on as we ran a M*A*S*H unit and AA pitchers out to the mound. Our offense saved us...until the playoffs...

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I guess what could be the fluky part is that he hit .100 for 2 months on his way to .260. He certainly could have gotten there without the *****ty months, don't you think?

Why don't you trust .260 as his true value? That's precisely what he has batted since the beginning of time. I agree that his *****ty months in April and May are inexcusable since (as it turns out) those were the only games that really mattered this entire season. The Sox were buried by July 1.

The fact Royce slumped in August but got to keep his job is not a pretty reflection on Jerry Manuel. He as much as admitted it makes no difference what Royce does at the plate. I'm of the opinion that KW's little quote about shipping Royce out has had a major effect in lighting a fire under the slug's behind, finally propelling him up to his career average.

Sorry, I can do without that kind of .260 hitter.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 12:52 AM
I'm of the opinion that KW's little quote about shipping Royce out has had a major effect in lighting a fire under the slug's behind, finally propelling him up to his career average.

I suppose you're saying you would prefer a guy who plays every game like it's game 7 in the WS? Well, so would I.

idseer
09-07-2001, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I never said the May-June wins weren't decisive. I said without CJ we don't cross the finish line first.



ok i misunderstood that remark. it was in response to the claim about who was playing when we won 95 games.
i agree cj helped keep our heads above water at that point. i hated that we let him go.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by idseer


ok i misunderstood that remark. it was in response to the claim about who was playing when we won 95 games.
i agree cj helped keep our heads above water at that point. i hated that we let him go.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I was one of those people who though CJ was too expensive to keep and that we could get by with less costly alternatives. Now I realize he's the Big One who got away. After a season of watching Alomar and Paul make outs (and in Paul's case, terrible plays on the basepaths and behind the plate), I think it's almost imperative we upgrade the catching position by opening day.

I wonder if CJ would come back?

idseer
09-07-2001, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


How can you say it was a fluke? After five months of Manuel sticking him in the line up, Royce Clayton is right back at his career average of .260. This is PRECISELY what we should expect from him. There is nothing fluky about it.

i was refering to his .100 batting avg the first half.

How can you say he's "consistently" a better fielder when you already admitted Clayton's number's last year are no better than Valentin's and his numbers this year are inferior to Valentin's playing the same position a year ago? A bit inconsistent, wouldn't you agree? [/QUOTE]

not at all! you're limiting everything to that which proves your point. i'm talking about over their careers.


I let pass the notion Clayton is younger (by 3 mos. between two men both over 30). But questioning Valentin's baserunning??? Have you ever seen Royce Clayton win a ballgame by how he slides into the bag? I can think of two games Valentin has won for us simply by avoiding the tag at homeplate when he was out by 2+ steps. And please don't tell me anyone can do it because the fact is there isn't anyone else on the team who has even done it once. (Oakland last August, and Anaheim last May).

You're selling Valentin's contributions to this team way short. [/QUOTE]

'poor baserunner' was an exaggeration. he's not the baserunner clayton is. you can point out 2 instances of him avoiding a tag. i point out his absurd blunder the other night which may have meant the game. over their careers i can't tell you how many games royce has won w/baserunning ... only to say he has way more stolen bases.
i don't sell valentin short, i just don't think he's the 'god' some make him out to be. it's plain to see what he can and cannot do.

one more thing. i meant this thread to address only that clayton was not being given a fair assessment re his fielding. he's proven, to me anyway, he is better than jose.
the fact that most of you look at him as the 'heart and soul' of the team i think distorts your vision somewhat.
it won't kill me if he's at short next year. i'll just have to hope his hitting does indeed outweigh his errors.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:16 AM
the fact that most of you look at him as the 'heart and soul' of the team i think distorts your vision somewhat.

He is the heart and soul of the team. His manager has said so. The other players obviously look up to him as a leader. I think your dislike of him is distorting your vision.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:20 AM
over their careers i can't tell you how many games royce has won w/baserunning

Of course you can't. The Choice's big baserunning play of the year was getting thrown out by 20 feet at home.

idseer
09-07-2001, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


He is the heart and soul of the team. His manager has said so. The other players obviously look up to him as a leader. I think your dislike of him is distorting your vision.

not so! i don't dislike him. canseco i dislike, our manager i dislike, kw i dislike.
i can honestly say it's only his limitations as a ballplayer i dislike.
he just doesn't have a position!

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:22 AM
not at all! you're limiting everything to that which proves your point. i'm talking about over their careers.

i point out his absurd blunder the other night which may have meant the game.

Pot, Kettle, Black. You also forgot that Jose's blunder came after he got the only big hit in that game. Without him we would have been held to one run. We would not have won.

idseer
09-07-2001, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


Of course you can't. The Choice's big baserunning play of the year was getting thrown out by 20 feet at home.

LOL i don't suppose the third base coach had anything to do with that?

we're just shooting in the dark here about baserunning prowess.
you don't know, i don't know.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by idseer

we're just shooting in the dark here about baserunning prowess.
you don't know, i don't know.

I agree, you are shooting in the dark on this one. I don't think I am.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by idseer
How can you say he's "consistently" a better fielder when you already admitted Clayton's number's last year are no better than Valentin's and his numbers this year are inferior to Valentin's playing the same position a year ago? A bit inconsistent, wouldn't you agree?

not at all! you're limiting everything to that which proves your point. i'm talking about over their careers.

Okay, you think the relevant period is the four years ending last year. I think the relevant period is the last two years including this one. I used to like Ozzie Guillen's defense, too. He won a Gold Glove one year. But that doesn't mean I wanted him on my team in 1997.

'poor baserunner' was an exaggeration. he's not the baserunner clayton is.

LOL, how would you know? Clayton never gets on base! He has 146 total bases all season. I'm sorry, for an everyday player, that's just pathetic.

you can point out 2 instances of him avoiding a tag. i point out his absurd blunder the other night which may have meant the game. over their careers i can't tell you how many games royce has won w/baserunning ... only to say he has way more stolen bases.

Well, we could condemn a lot of ballplayers for boneheaded plays at third base this season, couldn't we? Of course they have to actually make it on base, something Royce does so poorly, even Manuel can't justify slotting him higher than #8.

BTW, do you remember what slot Manuel gave Charles Johnson last year? #8. CJ batted in 36 runs in 44 games batting in the exact same slot that Royce Clayton has turned into a sinkhole this year.

one more thing. i meant this thread to address only that clayton was not being given a fair assessment re his fielding. he's proven, to me anyway, he is better than jose.
the fact that most of you look at him as the 'heart and soul' of the team i think distorts your vision somewhat.
it won't kill me if he's at short next year. i'll just have to hope his hitting does indeed outweigh his errors.

Hey, no fair! That's my position!!! Get back over on the other side of the fence.

:)

idseer
09-07-2001, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


I agree, you are shooting in the dark on this one. I don't think I am.

oic. ok what can you tell me about claytons 179 steals? how many meant the difference in a game?
i admit i don't know.

if you have an answer, i'll read it tomorrow. it's after 1.30 am and i'm tired. 'nite!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by idseer
if you have an answer, i'll read it tomorrow. it's after 1.30 am and i'm tired. 'nite!


Hey you get back here!

Aw, crap. He's gone.

:)

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:38 AM
oic. ok what can you tell me about claytons 179 steals? how many meant the difference in a game?

Who cares about his steals in the past? What has he done on the basepaths this year? You can't point out anything. You are the one who made the assertion he is a better baserunner than Manos. You have no evidence. Come up with something pertaining to this year or you're just dissing Manos for no reason.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:40 AM
Hey you get back here!

I'll give him credit for one thing. I almost never debate with people here. But, he actually got me into one with that Choice rules Manos on the basepaths thing. :)

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago


Who cares about his steals in the past? What has he done on the basepaths this year? You can't point out anything. You are the one who made the assertion he is a better baserunner than Manos. You have no evidence. Come up with something pertaining to this year or you're just dissing Manos for no reason.

That's right. He's the one who asserted (with no evidence) that Royce was a superior baserunner. Now it's the other person's obligation to disprove? Fish ain't bitin' on that one Id.

Clayton has a grand total of 31 stolen bases the last four years COMBINED. He has a pathetic seven this year.

Disprove this: Clayton is getting older and slower. The drop-off in his stolen base production is plain evidence of such.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2001, 01:54 AM
Clayton has a grand total of 31 stolen bases the last four years COMBINED. He has a pathetic seven this year. Manos also has 66 runs scored to 48 for the Choice despite the bad hammy and playing in 7 less games. The numbers for the Choice just aren't there.

idseer
09-07-2001, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


That's right. He's the one who asserted (with no evidence) that Royce was a superior baserunner. Now it's the other person's obligation to disprove? Fish ain't bitin' on that one Id.

Clayton has a grand total of 31 stolen bases the last four years COMBINED. He has a pathetic seven this year.

Disprove this: Clayton is getting older and slower. The drop-off in his stolen base production is plain evidence of such.

i'm ba-a-a-ack!
first off thats get the facts straight. he does not have only 31 sb's these past 4 years. he has 50! onyl ordonez, durham and singleton have more over this period. valentin has 41.
and THIS is what i use as my proof of better baserunnershipness.
now YOU disprove!

i can't disprove clayton is getting older and slower. i have firsthand knowledge that that's what happens to us all. but so is valentin.
here's the difference in our argument. i have tried to use the history of both these players to compare them. the good thing about that is it takes into account fluctuations over a longer period of time. you want to take a period, more recent, and draw conclusions from that. i find the problem with that is it's a more narrow and linear way to look at things. in real life things don't happen linearly. if they did, barry bonds wouldn't have 60 homeruns this year etc etc etc.
i don't know what will happen with these 2 guys next year. clayton may crumble and be out of baseball at years end. and jose may be an all-star ss! BUT! it may happen the other way around too.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i'm ba-a-a-ack!
first off thats get the facts straight. he does not have only 31 sb's these past 4 years. he has 50! onyl ordonez, durham and singleton have more over this period. valentin has 41.
and THIS is what i use as my proof of better baserunnershipness.
now YOU disprove!

Is it any surprise you left out the real trend for Clayton's SB's the last four years? More damning evidence you left out of your analysis, yes?

I submit Clayton isn't near as good a player today as you want to claim he was once upon a time. Look for yourself:

1994: 23
1995: 24
1996: 33
1997: 30
1998: 24
1999: 8
2000: 11
2001: 7

Face it, Id. His value is declining and not just last year either. At this rate, he ought to be contemplating a new line of work in 6-12 months.

BTW, Clayton knows this, too. KW's quote to the media has Royce scared for his very livelihood. Nobody wants this pile of dung.


i have tried to use the history of both these players to compare them. the good thing about that is it takes into account fluctuations over a longer period of time. you want to take a period, more recent, and draw conclusions from that. i find the problem with that is it's a more narrow and linear way to look at things. in real life things don't happen linearly. if they did, barry bonds wouldn't have 60 homeruns this year etc etc etc.
i don't know what will happen with these 2 guys next year. clayton may crumble and be out of baseball at years end. and jose may be an all-star ss! BUT! it may happen the other way around too.

Actually, what you've done is prop up Clayton's value by using old statistics from 4+ years ago to cover up the declining output (both offensively and defensively) Royce has experienced the past two seasons. The misleading stats you summarized above on stolen bases is a classic example. You've been awfully stubborn about acknowledging that decline, only grudgingly agreeing that Valentin's defense was at least as good as Clayton's falling output last year. I had to drag it out of you.

That's okay. It's frustrating trying to ride a horse to victory when the damn nag has short legs. Like a good jockey, you need to change horses.

idseer
09-07-2001, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Actually, what you've done is prop up Clayton's value by using old statistics from 4+ years ago to cover up the declining output (both offensively and defensively) Royce has experienced the past two seasons. The misleading stats you summarized above on stolen bases is a classic example.


i didn't mislead ANYthing. YOU mislead when you said he totalled 31 sb you were off by almost half!

PLUS, i'm not saying he's not declining. i'm saying his sb stats are better than jose's in this instance. and they are. as to whether he declines more than jose next year remains to be seen. both running and fielding.

but i don't want to keep going over the same thing. let's let this thread die peacefully. :)

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i didn't mislead ANYthing. YOU mislead when you said he totalled 31 sb you were off by almost half!

I honestly missed the fact that Choice split the 1998 season between St. Louis and Texas. Obviously the Cardinals gave up on him.

:)


PLUS, i'm not saying he's not declining. i'm saying his sb stats are better than jose's in this instance. and they are. as to whether he declines more than jose next year remains to be seen. both running and fielding.

So you're admitting he's not a better baserunner as you asserted earlier?

but i don't want to keep going over the same thing. let's let this thread die peacefully.

I'm all for peaceful disagreements. Perhaps this has been enlightening to those who have followed it so far.

"Zzzz... Zzzzz... Zzzzz... Zzzz..."
:ohno

ode to veeck
09-07-2001, 04:17 PM
comparing roids clayton on the basepaths to jose valentin: preposterous!!
--jose's the smartest baserunner on the sox! he's on second every time the pitch even touches the dirt or the catcher bobbles the throw, even right in front of him, comparing royce's last 4 years makes no sense especially as he's changing for the worse (as PHG's number show): try royce's last two years as a better meter of his basestealing abilities, in truth, maybe slightly better than canseco, and that's generous

the real meat here is with a stick: Royce always has and even more this year, basically sucks, he is a lifer (like liefer) 260 hitter at best, but even more problematic is poor obp (the key stat for run production) and a relatively poor clutch hitter (when behind or with runners on)

royce is single biggest reason for sox demise this year (yes more than loss of our mvp), precisely because he creates a hole in the lineup, which craters our run production more than his poor ba and obp would indicate by themselves--of course harold and ramirez and mr 298 obp singleton are part of that blaock hole as well--last year singleton was it, but adding more holes make the sox the corspe ball team that they are this year

kw and jm just don't seem to understand how the sox were successfull last year: run production (lead the majors) and some decent pitching, yes they coasted to playoffs, but sox in 2nd half last year were still MUCH better team than the best of this year's squad because they could still produce lots of runs on a nearly daily basis

when you take this into account, royce should never have a place at comiskey and jose v fits right in (and suffer a little along with his D)

bottom line Jose's bat and baserunning far outweighs the gaps in his D in the Sox success chemistry-they certainly didn't lose to seattle in october on defence!!

Soxboyrob
09-07-2001, 04:45 PM
On the bases, Royce is not even in the same league as Valentin. Valentin goes down in my book as not only the best baserunner on the Sox, but possibly one of the best baserunners I've seen in my 35 year lifetime. Prior to his hammy pull, he was becoming quite the basestealing threat and seemed to have virtually no problem stealing 2nd or 3rd on command. Often times, the guy would steal third and not even warrant a throw due to having stolen it so easily.

On the subject of Royce's run production....he fits quite nicely into a decent hitting team's lineup. First two months aside, he's been a nice asset to our '01 offense. Lest we not forget that we happen to be in an age of excellent hitting SS's. It's not totally fair to compare Royce to guys like ARod, Nomar and Jeter. Those guys are freaks and ARod already looks like possibly the best SS in history. Royce's hitting is fine for a SS, especially one that provides consistent defense. I'd still like a better explanation for his clear dropoff in speed and basestealing. Is it a true loss of speed, loss in confidence, or is the coaching staff telling him not to steal? I thought when we acquired the guy that one of the big selling points for Royce was his basestealing ability. He looks truly slow on the basepaths when I watch him. Maybe this sudden loss of speed is having a great deal to do w/ his recent lack of range?

CLR01
09-07-2001, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
mr 298 obp singleton are part of that blaock hole as well



.331 and rising

ode to veeck
09-07-2001, 05:09 PM
hey I know I know Chris is really swinging the bat last few weeks, but most of the year his OBP wasn't there, and he's still like the guy who never met a pitch he didn't like

Soxboyrob
09-07-2001, 05:33 PM
Singleton has been showing marked improvement in all aspects of his offensive game over the last several months. Hell, he even works a few walks now and then. I'm not lobbying for his being made the CF'er of the future for this team, but think he's fairly underrated.

Furthermore, on the subject of Clayton's unproductive bat in our lineup....
Last year's #8 hole produced the following numbers...
AB R HR RBI BA
588 86 12 72 .277

If I give convert Clayton's 2001 numbers to 588 AB's, I get...
R RBi HR BA
76 72 14.5 .261

If given full playing time, Clayton fits quite nicely into the framework of what we did last season in the 8 hole. Not saying he ought to take some of Valentin's AB's, but still feel he isn't all that bad of an offensive threat in the 8spot.

ode to veeck
09-07-2001, 05:51 PM
good point about royce being a match for a #8 slot, but that's the point, at best he's a decent #8 hitter while valentin gives up a few more errors at short but fills a role as one of the key studs/sticks in the heart of the lineup, and his inspirational baserunning adds more run scoring punch,

we already got a #8 hitter, chris, who is swinging the bat much better of late

instead of screwing up the sox chemistry by weaking the run scoring production by adding royce, what if kw had come up with a better hitting and run scoring solution for CF & the #8 sloty? -i.e. actually improve on the sox majors leading run scoring formula from last year?

boy, that woulda been interesting

PaleHoseGeorge
09-07-2001, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Furthermore, on the subject of Clayton's unproductive bat in our lineup....
Last year's #8 hole produced the following numbers...
AB R HR RBI BA
588 86 12 72 .277

If I give convert Clayton's 2001 numbers to 588 AB's, I get...
R RBi HR BA
76 72 14.5 .261



Soxboy, where did you find numbers comparing the #8 slot this year vs. last? Also, how many of those AB's were Clayton's vs. somebody else. Manuel had the Choice shoved in the #9 slot most of the first-half. (Can't imagine why).

KempersRS
09-07-2001, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Soxboy, where did you find numbers comparing the #8 slot this year vs. last? Also, how many of those AB's were Clayton's vs. somebody else. Manuel had the Choice shoved in the #9 slot most of the first-half. (Can't imagine why).

You can find all sorts of stats from the Stats Co. They have every player's stats for all sorts of situations. Where they hit in the lineup, how they hit in certain innings of the game, and all the runners on/off situations you can have.

Soxboyrob
09-08-2001, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Soxboy, where did you find numbers comparing the #8 slot this year vs. last? Also, how many of those AB's were Clayton's vs. somebody else. Manuel had the Choice shoved in the #9 slot most of the first-half. (Can't imagine why).

I went to ESPN's stats site and clicked on White Sox and then batting stats. Once there, you have the option of choosing the year 2000 and splitting the stats off into each position in the order. I didn't look up any stats for 2001 in the 8 spot. I just converted Royces current stats into the number of AB's given to the 8-hole in 2000. Had to make a reasonable guess about whether to use the 8 or the 9 spot, but w/ our two current catchers, Royce is clearly an 8 hitter and not a 9.

ode to veeck
09-08-2001, 12:40 AM
I dunno about that, Alomar had him beat by 100 ba points throughout the 1st half, royce hadda be batting dishwasher (#9) for a good part of the lineups before the break (the trauma of watching him in the first half has permanently blotted my memory-I can't recall if he batted more in 8 or 9 ...)

FarWestChicago
09-08-2001, 12:42 AM
:payrod

I wish I was one tenth the player the Choice is! Who knows how much money I could demand!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-08-2001, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
I dunno about that, Alomar had him beat by 100 ba points throughout the 1st half, royce hadda be batting dishwasher (#9) for a good part of the lineups before the break (the trauma of watching him in the first half has permanently blotted my memory-I can't recall if he batted more in 8 or 9 ...)

The guy was batting a buck and a quarter. Where else could Manuel have possibly stuck Choice besides 9?

"The season hasn't been a total failure. After five months we finally got Royce back to his snappy .259 career batting average."
:jerry

ode to veeck
09-08-2001, 12:22 PM
my point exactly George, so the #8 hitter last year vs #8 '01 stats comparison can be thrown out the window all together, let alone because you just replaced a key clutch hitter, smartest baserunner in the heart of the lineup with another #8, #9 hitter

(I'm still looking for the photo from critical early season series I took of A's scoreboard showing Sox at bat and on deck guys of Ramirez at like .089 and Royce at .100-that 8 game streak on the west coast we lost was as much a definitive placement of the Sox to being all but out of the race as any other events-including the twinks choke a couple of weeks later).

FarWestChicago
09-08-2001, 01:46 PM
(I'm still looking for the photo from critical early season series I took of A's scoreboard showing Sox at bat and on deck guys of Ramirez at like .089 and Royce at .100-that 8 game streak on the west coast we lost was as much a definitive placement of the Sox to being all but out of the race as any other events-including the twinks choke a couple of weeks later).

I thought it was really nice of the A's fans around us to not laugh us out of the park at that moment. Of course, I now know the Choice was actually at .400 at that point.

ode to veeck
09-08-2001, 07:02 PM
I think the As fans just assumed the scoreboard musta been wrong: no one would have two batters on a hitters team line up with less than .100 ba!

ode to veeck
09-09-2001, 02:26 PM
how about those three walks and two runs (already) by manos today-this is how to score runs-and in spite of choice's improved ba, his obp is still the pitts and a major hole in the sox offense all season

ode to veeck
09-09-2001, 02:29 PM
ugh make that three walks and three runs, oo-ee-oo MA-GLEE-OO

ode to veeck
09-09-2001, 02:53 PM
more clutch hitting by choice, man on two outs and a K for Roidds Clayton