PDA

View Full Version : Prospectus Triple Play: White Sox


jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 01:20 AM
Wait Till Next Year: For the third straight year, it looks like the White Sox will finish second behind the Twins, once again out of the race well before the season wraps up Is 2005 the year that the Sox finally get over the Twin Cities hump? Looking ahead to the likely starting roster is a good way to find out.

C: Having swapped out young and developing Miguel Olivo in the Freddy Garcia deal, the White Sox are left to choose between the not-as-young and inadequate Ben Davis and picking up the old and inadequate Sandy Alomar’s option for 2005. Neither choice is terribly appealing and, aside from passable options Jason Varitek and Damian Miller, nor is the free-agent market. With no players in the farm system who could reasonably be considered, the Sox should consider making a small trade for a high-risk, high-reward player or letting capable backup Jamie Burke take the full-time job.

1B: Paul Konerko has been the best first baseman in the AL this year and, despite concerns over his slump last year, there’s no reason to think he won’t be very good next year as well. Given the size of the checks he’ll be cashing, that’s a good thing.

2B: Some might call Juan Uribe a revelation. Some might call him a fluke. The truth lies, as it does so often, in between. Uribe’s .274/.319/.491 season has been highlighted by 19 home runs and 34 doubles and triples, but his walk rate is still very low and he’s cooled significantly after his hot start to the season. With four years' experience, he’ll head to arbitration where his power output will massively inflate his bargain basement $350,000 salary. With very few better options available to the White Sox (Roberto Alomar notwithstanding), bringing Uribe back for another year to see if he can prove he’s not a fluke is a risk worth taking. He’s still just 25 years old.

SS: Here at Baseball Prospectus, we often point out players whose value is largely tied to their batting average; we also like to point to the high volatility of batting average from year to year. In Jose Valentin’s case, however, these lessons do not apply. While Valentin may look somewhat unlucky, posting a .214/.284/.464 line with a solid .250 isolated power, his batting average has declined every year he’s been with the White Sox, and it didn’t start out all that high. A career .244 hitter with a .321 OBP, Valentin’s value is entirely tied up in his power numbers, and at a month shy of 35, he is likely at the tail end of his career. A free agent, the White Sox would be wise to let him sign elsewhere, perhaps picking up one of the many younger options on the market. We would have recommended a one-year stopgap solution while prospect Michael Morse develops, but he was dealt to Seattle in the Garcia deal. Stop us when you sense a pattern.

3B: Third base has become one of the most talent-rich positions in the AL over the past few years. With players like Alex Rodriguez, Eric Chavez, Melvin Mora, Hank Blalock, Bill Mueller and what’s left of Troy Glaus manning hot corners around the league, the standard for third basemen has risen. Joe Crede has not. The owner of a .303 career OBP and lacking much power, Crede will be heading to arbitration. His service time and lack of performance will likely keep his salary low, but that still doesn’t solve the problem of his being a player who can’t hit.

LF: Carlos Lee is currently third in VORP for AL left fielders after being fourth and fifth the previous two years. He’s locked up for next year at $8 million; while that’s not a bargain, it’s certainly a good investment in a younger player who’s proved himself for several years.

CF: Aaron Rowand has been a pleasant surprise for the Sox this season, hitting a robust .320/.373/.559 in his age-27 season. Headed to arbitration, he’ll likely command a passable salary that will accommodate both him and Sox. Though a slight downturn from his batting average-induced stardom is likely, Rowand will be a good player in center field next year.

RF: With Carl Everett signed for next year at $4 million, the Sox already have a solid option in right as well as capable backups in Joe Borchard and Ross Gload. However, this is another position in which the Sox had a solid in-house option in BP’s #2 prospect Jeremy Reed. While much of Reed’s value in 2003 was in his ridiculous batting average, he was still a cheap, legitimate option in right that would have given the Sox $4 million to use elsewhere.

DH: Frank Thomas is still one of the best pure hitters in the game and still virtually the definition of designated hitter.

The Sox’s biggest questions, at least in the hitting department, are shortstop, second base and catcher. While the pickings are slim at catcher for free agents, the Sox should be able to scrape up a decent shortstop and wouldn’t be terribly ill-advised to stick with Uribe at second base for one more well-priced year. Could picking up a free-agent catcher like Varitek finally put the Sox over the top? Given how little production they've gotten from the position the past three years, that seems like one good way to improve the offense.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3459

balke
09-15-2004, 01:46 AM
THe sox really have to put their money where their mouth is if anything is going to be done this offseason. Boring baseball is in our future.

A. Cavatica
09-15-2004, 02:50 AM
While I respect BP, calling Joe Borchard a "capable backup" discredits the entire article.

Nard
09-15-2004, 03:14 AM
Give Burke the full time job.

Also, what about Willie?!

soxtalker
09-15-2004, 07:54 AM
While I respect BP, calling Joe Borchard a "capable backup" discredits the entire article. No it doesn't.

These outside reviews are useful. They come from people who haven't been as focused on the White Sox all season as we (or even the Chicago media) have been. They may miss a few things, but we do also because of our closeness to the situation. Of course, each of these publications/reviewers has his own biases in terms of types of players they like.

It is interesting that the review doesn't think much of Ben Davis, and there is no mention of Willie Harris. I wonder if the comment on Borchard may imply that his upside is still viewed to be high by the outside world.

cornball
09-15-2004, 09:08 AM
No it doesn't.

These outside reviews are useful. They come from people who haven't been as focused on the White Sox all season as we (or even the Chicago media) have been. They may miss a few things, but we do also because of our closeness to the situation. Of course, each of these publications/reviewers has his own biases in terms of types of players they like.

It is interesting that the review doesn't think much of Ben Davis, and there is no mention of Willie Harris. I wonder if the comment on Borchard may imply that his upside is still viewed to be high by the outside world.
Calling Bourchard a capable backup does discredit this article.

Knowledgeable reviews are useful, this is not one of them. What kind of a review do you expect on a team hovering around .500

The fact that Bourchard is .153/4/8/0, striking out 30% of the time, with no improvement insight....is by no means capable in 137 AB's.

Davis has been good with the Sox, while his future is unknown, his past numbers are bad. Based on what he has done here, a terrific start. I believe an upgrade is needed, but the insite of this report is nil.

Soxzilla
09-15-2004, 09:45 AM
That article sucked. Have they even been watching the season, or do they just look at the statlines? Hell, I could even do that, pay me the money...

Then again, calling someone that is hitting sub .200 a capable back up is a joke. Joe borchard is a joke.

JRIG
09-15-2004, 09:54 AM
That article sucked. Have they even been watching the season, or do they just look at the statlines? Hell, I could even do that, pay me the money...

Then again, calling someone that is hitting sub .200 a capable back up is a joke. Joe borchard is a joke.
OK. I'll bite. Other than the Borchard comment, what in that article ticked you off so much as to say it "sucked"? Honestly, I don't see a thing. Were you hoping they would say Willie Harris is the answer at 2B? That Joe Crede will become a superstar next year?

doublem23
09-15-2004, 10:08 AM
Also, what about Willie?!
He blows.

kittle42
09-15-2004, 10:38 AM
OK. I'll bite. Other than the Borchard comment, what in that article ticked you off so much as to say it "sucked"? Honestly, I don't see a thing. Were you hoping they would say Willie Harris is the answer at 2B? That Joe Crede will become a superstar next year?
Agreed. How can you say this article sucked? It was dead on, with the exception of the Borchard comment.

MisterB
09-15-2004, 10:39 AM
My problems with this article:

1) Advocating Burke for full-time catcher instead of Davis. - Davis has put up unimpressive numbers in the majors. Burke has put up unimpressive numbers in triple-A. I thought everyone at BP knew all about small sample size, but apparently not.

2) Bringing up Mike Morse's name - He was a marginal prospect at best, and never had the defensive skills to be considered a legitimate ML shortstop. They just needed to take a poke at the Garcia trade.

3) The aforementioned Borchard reference - So far he's passable defensively, but hasn't done anything remarkable in the field. Offensively, he's a black hole. Plus anyone who's seen (or even heard of) Gload's adventures in the outfield this year should see that he's a firstbaseman, period.

kittle42
09-15-2004, 10:43 AM
My problems with this article:

1) Advocating Burke for full-time catcher instead of Davis. - Davis has put up unimpressive numbers in the majors. Burke has put up unimpressive numbers in triple-A. I thought everyone at BP knew all about small sample size, but apparently not.
Can you please head over to the Ross Gload-worshipping thread and post the same thing?

shagar69
09-15-2004, 11:18 AM
the morse comment was stupid. IMO no way he will be ready in 1-2 yrs! and he probably ISNT a SS in the majors anyway! he will probably move to first. other than that, everything is right on

balke
09-15-2004, 11:33 AM
My problems with this article:

1) Advocating Burke for full-time catcher instead of Davis. - Davis has put up unimpressive numbers in the majors. Burke has put up unimpressive numbers in triple-A. I thought everyone at BP knew all about small sample size, but apparently not.

2) Bringing up Mike Morse's name - He was a marginal prospect at best, and never had the defensive skills to be considered a legitimate ML shortstop. They just needed to take a poke at the Garcia trade.

3) The aforementioned Borchard reference - So far he's passable defensively, but hasn't done anything remarkable in the field. Offensively, he's a black hole. Plus anyone who's seen (or even heard of) Gload's adventures in the outfield this year should see that he's a firstbaseman, period.
This is all dead on MisterB. It's horrifying to think of all the holes this team has to fill next season. This doesn't even take into account our pitching staff.

Kittle, there is no worship page.

soxtalker
09-15-2004, 11:34 AM
OK, let me try this one more time. We're getting a review from someone (or a group) who is presumably outside the Chicago area and doesn't see the Sox very much. It seems like the first reaction of many of us is to check if anything that reviewer writes doesn't make sense from our vantage point of watching the Sox every day. If not, we decide that the reviewer is completely wrong. Instead, I'm suggesting that we look for two things.

1. Is the reviewer seeing something we don't because we're too close. Take the Borchard case. The general consensus on WSI is that he's a bust, though a few are holding out hope. I'd like to have someone who looks dispassionately at all major league teams come in and tell me how he compares to other rookie major leaguers.

2. Can the reviewer give us some insight as to how other teams view our players? Again, in the Borchard case, it would be great if he is perceived by other baseball people to still have lots of promise. That would mean that he'd have value in a trade. I wouldn't know that looking at WSI.

Looking at the comments on Borchard, they were much too brief.

balke
09-15-2004, 11:46 AM
OK, let me try this one more time. We're getting a review from someone (or a group) who is presumably outside the Chicago area and doesn't see the Sox very much. It seems like the first reaction of many of us is to check if anything that reviewer writes doesn't make sense from our vantage point of watching the Sox every day. If not, we decide that the reviewer is completely wrong. Instead, I'm suggesting that we look for two things.

1. Is the reviewer seeing something we don't because we're too close. Take the Borchard case. The general consensus on WSI is that he's a bust, though a few are holding out hope. I'd like to have someone who looks dispassionately at all major league teams come in and tell me how he compares to other rookie major leaguers.

2. Can the reviewer give us some insight as to how other teams view our players? Again, in the Borchard case, it would be great if he is perceived by other baseball people to still have lots of promise. That would mean that he'd have value in a trade. I wouldn't know that looking at WSI.

Looking at the comments on Borchard, they were much too brief.I (being a Borchard hoper) have found very little to justify that hope. I like his power, I like that he's been hustling lately in the field. Everytime he starts making contact and hitting the ball, I say, okay he can turn it around.

Still, all this month he's hitting .170 or something ridiculous like that. Last night, he couldn't even touch the ball against Santana. Santana is great, but at least foul off a pitch before you strike out swinging. Him being young and knowing his whole situation, maybe he could turn it around, but I highly doubt it. I would hope other ML managers would be able to see that, but who knows.

A. Cavatica
09-15-2004, 12:34 PM
Yeah, but he's not that young. He's old for a rookie.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 12:38 PM
While I respect BP, calling Joe Borchard a "capable backup" discredits the entire article.
Actually, IMO, suggesting Jaime Burke be a full-time MLB catcher discredits things FAR FAR more than calling Borchard anything.

Lip Man 1
09-15-2004, 12:46 PM
BP ZZZZZZZZZ......

Lip

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 01:47 PM
My problems with this article:

1) Advocating Burke for full-time catcher instead of Davis. - Davis has put up unimpressive numbers in the majors. Burke has put up unimpressive numbers in triple-A. I thought everyone at BP knew all about small sample size, but apparently not.

Yes. Sample sizes means taking a large number of at bats and looking them. Isolating 134 at bats Burke had with Charlotte this season and 127 at bats Borchard has had in the majors this season would be relying on small sample sizes. Considering the entirety of a player's pro career or at least his past few seasons as the article presumably does in forming it's opinions would be using large sample sizes. So yes, BP does know all about small sample sizes, you seem to have some catching up to do on the other hand.

2) Bringing up Mike Morse's name - He was a marginal prospect at best, and never had the defensive skills to be considered a legitimate ML shortstop. They just needed to take a poke at the Garcia trade.

Morse showed substantial power as a middle infielder at an advances level (AA) while he was still pretty young (22). That's by no means without value. As perusing this board will tell you, fielding is extremely subjective especially in the minor leagues where there are few people who will actually see a player and spread their opinion. People were insistent on calling Rowand a butcher prior to the season but he's seemingly ended some of those doubts. The numbers again suggest he's a well above average center fielder. Certainly some claim Morse's fielding lacks and he will need to be moved and that is a concern. At the same time it's far from a certainty. There are nearly as many people that think he has a solid shot at sticking as opinions are frequently divided on fielding.

AddisonStSox
09-15-2004, 01:51 PM
Calling Bourchard a capable backup does discredit this article.



Joe Borchard = Cade McNown

duke of dorwood
09-15-2004, 02:03 PM
That article does not describe the dire straits this org is in regarding depth. We used to have players like Tim Hulett, Scott Fletcher, always ready in the infield. This org is stripped to the bone.

MisterB
09-15-2004, 02:15 PM
Yes. Sample sizes means taking a large number of at bats and looking them. Isolating 134 at bats Burke had with Charlotte this season and 127 at bats Borchard has had in the majors this season would be relying on small sample sizes. Considering the entirety of a player's pro career or at least his past few seasons as the article presumably does in forming it's opinions would be using large sample sizes. So yes, BP does know all about small sample sizes, you seem to have some catching up to do on the other hand.
I was comparing the 1200+ AB's Burke has had at AAA since '96 and the nearly 1500 AB's Davis has had in the Majors. I know exactly what 'small sample size' means, thank you.

stl_sox_fan
09-15-2004, 02:22 PM
I wonder if the comment on Borchard may imply that his upside is still viewed to be high by the outside world.
Of course Borchard is viewed highly by other teams. Who else would you like to pitch to in any type of situation. Borchard = Instant Defense for the opposing team.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 02:25 PM
you seem to have some catching up to do on the other hand.
Why do you insist on being the resident stat-geek arrogant a-hole?

Randar68
09-15-2004, 02:27 PM
People were insistent on calling Rowand a butcher prior to the season but he's seemingly ended some of those doubts.
He was in the minors, he was the last couple years, and he was the first couple months of this year (resulting in yet another benching). However, he improved dramatically, seemingly overnight.

What are you trying to imply, that he was always that way or that players can't improve? Both are dumb.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 02:31 PM
Morse showed substantial power as a middle infielder at an advances level (AA) while he was still pretty young (22). That's by no means without value. As perusing this board will tell you, fielding is extremely subjective especially in the minor leagues where there are few people who will actually see a player and spread their opinion. People were insistent on calling Rowand a butcher prior to the season but he's seemingly ended some of those doubts. The numbers again suggest he's a well above average center fielder. Certainly some claim Morse's fielding lacks and he will need to be moved and that is a concern. At the same time it's far from a certainty. There are nearly as many people that think he has a solid shot at sticking as opinions are frequently divided on fielding.
Please point me to the last 6'4" SS to be any good (and yes, that height is legit). And no, he's not some sort of athletic freak who can pull it off. Then again, maybe the stats weren't able to shed light on this for you...

Wealz
09-15-2004, 02:31 PM
He was in the minors, he was the last couple years, and he was the first couple months of this year (resulting in yet another benching). However, he improved dramatically, seemingly overnight.

What are you trying to imply, that he was always that way or that players can't improve? Both are dumb.
He's not called a butcher anymore because he's hitting the hell out of the ball plain and simple. His defense hasn't improved from where it was at last year (when he wasn't hitting anywhere close to this.)

shagar69
09-15-2004, 02:59 PM
Please point me to the last 6'4" SS to be any good (and yes, that height is legit). And no, he's not some sort of athletic freak who can pull it off. Then again, maybe the stats weren't able to shed light on this for you... yeah no question about it! people are just ignorant morons if they think that morse would of been the future SS for this team! IMO there is NO WAY that morse is a SS in the majors. more likely a 1b, maybe 3b ive heard

Randar68
09-15-2004, 03:06 PM
He's not called a butcher anymore because he's hitting the hell out of the ball plain and simple. His defense hasn't improved from where it was at last year (when he wasn't hitting anywhere close to this.)
Actually, he's been able to improve his reads a lot on balls hit right at him and he's taken better angles from everything I have heard. He still doesn't always know where the wall is or get his feet set-up properly to make throws, but even those aspects have improved from where he was earlier in the year. At this point in his career, I had little hope he could make improvements in those areas, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't significant improvements.

The Wimperoo
09-15-2004, 03:29 PM
Please point me to the last 6'4" SS to be any good (and yes, that height is legit). And no, he's not some sort of athletic freak who can pull it off. Then again, maybe the stats weren't able to shed light on this for you...
Cal Ripken Jr.
A-Rod
Jeter

shagar69
09-15-2004, 03:33 PM
Cal Ripken Jr.
A-Rod
Jeteryeah, well those guys are three of the most athletic players EVER! morse does not have even close to the amount of athletisism they do

Randar68
09-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Cal Ripken Jr.
A-Rod
Jeter
Jeter: 6'3", questionable defensively although he moves well, and has some of the best "intangibles" of anyone in the last 10-20 years.

A-Rod: 6'3". Best SS in the history of the game all-around. Freak.

Cal: 6'4" one of the top 5 SS's of all time?

So, you're comparing a guy with very limited range and one season of production in the minors to 3 of the best SS's in the history of baseball, all of which were FAR more athletically gifted than Morse is in his wildest imagination?



interesting.

The Wimperoo
09-15-2004, 03:46 PM
yeah, well those guys are three of the most athletic players EVER! morse does not have even close to the amount of athletisism they do
What does that have to do with his question? He asked for someone to point him in the direction of the last 6'4'' SS to be any good. There are 3 from the last 15 years.

The Wimperoo
09-15-2004, 03:49 PM
Jeter: 6'3", questionable defensively although he moves well, and has some of the best "intangibles" of anyone in the last 10-20 years.

A-Rod: 6'3". Best SS in the history of the game all-around. Freak.

Cal: 6'4" one of the top 5 SS's of all time?

So, you're comparing a guy with very limited range and one season of production in the minors to 3 of the best SS's in the history of baseball, all of which were FAR more athletically gifted than Morse is in his wildest imagination?



interesting.Oh I am sorry, if A-Rod and Jeter were 1 inch taller they wouldn't be good. :rolleyes: I am not comparing Morse to those guys. You asked the question when was the last good SS to be 6'4'', like it couldn't happen, so I named 3 of them.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 03:50 PM
Oh I am sorry, if A-Rod and Jeter were 1 inch taller they wouldn't be good. :rolleyes: I am not comparing Morse to those guys. You asked the question when was the last good SS to be 6'4'', like it couldn't happen, so I named 3 of them.2 of those guys were better 3rd basemen than SS's and the other is mediocre defensively, but yes, those are 3 tall SS's.

The Wimperoo
09-15-2004, 03:58 PM
2 of those guys were better 3rd basemen than SS's and the other is mediocre defensively, but yes, those are 3 tall SS's.
Ripken was a better 3rd baseman than SS, but he was still a better SS than 80% of the league when he played. A-Rod is still the best SS in the league even if he plays 3rd base. I don't think you can say he is a better 3rd baseman than he is a SS, he hasn't played 3rd long enough to see. He is a much better SS than Jeter, who is mediocre defensively, but still a good player.

Flight #24
09-15-2004, 04:07 PM
The Sox’s biggest questions, at least in the hitting department, are shortstop, second base and catcher. While the pickings are slim at catcher for free agents, the Sox should be able to scrape up a decent shortstop and wouldn’t be terribly ill-advised to stick with Uribe at second base for one more well-priced year. Could picking up a free-agent catcher like Varitek finally put the Sox over the top? Given how little production they've gotten from the position the past three years, that seems like one good way to improve the offense.
What's hilarious to me is that this is meant to be a BAD review of the Sox, however their conclusion is that the Sox will likely end up with 1 hole (C) and serviceable players at 3 positions: 2B/SS/3B (inferring 3B from their Crede review).

Tell me again how different that is from MOST MLB teams? Pick almost any team and I can find you at least 1 likely hole for next year and at least 2 guys that are considered serviceable.

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 05:06 PM
I was comparing the 1200+ AB's Burke has had at AAA since '96 and the nearly 1500 AB's Davis has had in the Majors. I know exactly what 'small sample size' means, thank you.

Burke is a .267 hitter in his AAA stints. In the only season he had more than 300 at bats he hit .322. I'm not a huge of the fan and I'm not a proponent of naming him the starting catcher but to say he's been unimpressive in AAA just isn't accurate in my opinion. He hasn't been great but he wouldn't have earned three major league promotions if he was thoroughly unimpressive.

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 05:15 PM
He was in the minors, he was the last couple years, and he was the first couple months of this year (resulting in yet another benching). However, he improved dramatically, seemingly overnight.

What are you trying to imply, that he was always that way or that players can't improve? Both are dumb.

I absolutely disagree with the assertions that Rowand has just recently become a strong fielder. I saw a ton of games with both him and Lofton in '02 and Rowand consistently took better routes to the ball whereas the former gold glover frequently looked like he was going in a circle instead of taking direct routes to the ball. His throwing accuracy has seemingly improved some but he's always had a very strong arm. I've seen him misplay balls before but not with the frequency others claim. It's something I've seen only a handful of times. Whenever pressed to cite specific instances of misplays, I feel like critics of his defense have struggled. I can remember one game against the Giants that I was at where he took a step or two in and the ball went over his head but it was unclear whether or not the ball could've been caught anyways. I remember a couple other instances I can't place and that's about it. Suggesting Rowand was benched for his defense is a complete joke. He was benched because he was hitting .220.

While defensive metrics aren't perfect, they're not worthless and the numbers completely contradict any argument that Rowand has been significantly below average at any point in his major league career which is the argument that was repeatedly made in the past. Rowand's fielding comes out as above replacement level in all four of his major league seasons and below average only once, by a slight amount (two runs) last season. He was 8 runs above average in '02 and is 5 above average this season, pretty good numbers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 05:18 PM
Jeter: 6'3", questionable defensively although he moves well, and has some of the best "intangibles" of anyone in the last 10-20 years.

A-Rod: 6'3". Best SS in the history of the game all-around. Freak.

Cal: 6'4" one of the top 5 SS's of all time?

So, you're comparing a guy with very limited range and one season of production in the minors to 3 of the best SS's in the history of baseball, all of which were FAR more athletically gifted than Morse is in his wildest imagination?



interesting.

Haha. Well you weren't talking about his athleticism Randar. You CHALLENGED anyone to name ANY SS at that height that was any good. His height clearly doesn't preclude him from playing the position well. Your opinion based on his reads, athleticism, etc. is that he won't stick. Fine. Others disagree. That was my point. Even if he does move he could end up at 3B where his bat would be almost as valuable.

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 05:28 PM
What's hilarious to me is that this is meant to be a BAD review of the Sox, however their conclusion is that the Sox will likely end up with 1 hole (C) and serviceable players at 3 positions: 2B/SS/3B (inferring 3B from their Crede review).

Tell me again how different that is from MOST MLB teams? Pick almost any team and I can find you at least 1 likely hole for next year and at least 2 guys that are considered serviceable.

People get so defensive around here. How is it meant to be a "BAD" review of the team? That's a pretty extreme term in my opinion. Bad seems to imply bias and emotional dislike. Critical might be a better word. Still though, there are aspects of the team that are praised, it is namely one move, the Garcia trade which is critisized. The world operates in greys, not just black and white. It's not always that someone has a bias against the White Sox and is searching for poor things to write about the team which is the vibe I get from some of the more stringent KW backers sometimes.

While I think it's pointless to go to too much trouble trying to discern any overall conclusion instead of just proving one on your own based on the analysis, it reads to me as though there are significant holes/question marks at 2B, SS, 3B, and C.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 06:31 PM
Haha. Well you weren't talking about his athleticism Randar. You CHALLENGED anyone to name ANY SS at that height that was any good. His height clearly doesn't preclude him from playing the position well. Your opinion based on his reads, athleticism, etc. is that he won't stick. Fine. Others disagree. That was my point. Even if he does move he could end up at 3B where his bat would be almost as valuable.
Except he probably doesn't really have the arm for 3rd. Does he hit enough to play 1st? We'll see.

Randar68
09-15-2004, 06:35 PM
While defensive metrics aren't perfect, they're not worthless and the numbers completely contradict any argument that Rowand has been significantly below average at any point in his major league career which is the argument that was repeatedly made in the past. Rowand's fielding comes out as above replacement level in all four of his major league seasons and below average only once, by a slight amount (two runs) last season. He was 8 runs above average in '02 and is 5 above average this season, pretty good numbers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtmlRowand's been benched multiple times for defense and Ozzie and JM before have speifically cited it as the reason, no matter what he was hitting at the time. However, you can call it what ever you want, but a spade is a spade is a spade is a spade.

Lofton had enough speed and quickness/agility to make up for his bad reads, which was always a problem, and he had no arm. Where has anyone ever said Kenny Lofton was the answer? He hit like gang-busters the first couple months that year and practically carried us before falling off the map. His defense was spectacular at times (over the should catch going up against the CF wall and not knocking himself out doing it) and at other times he struggled to get the ball to his cut-off man...

Rowand had a very difficult time adjusting to CF and was able to overcome some things out there I didn't think he would be able to. Don't overdo it.

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 07:13 PM
Rowand had a very difficult time adjusting to CF and was able to overcome some things out there I didn't think he would be able to. Don't overdo it.

Fair enough. I'm just saying from every avenue I personally have open to judge the situation, Rowand was never a bad CF. The numbers and my observations date back to prior to this season and I certainly made the same arguments in the past.

fuzzy_patters
09-15-2004, 08:32 PM
The article missed one important point. In evaluating right field, they failed to point out the possibility that Magglio Ordoñez might be really cheap this offseason due to the possibility that his injury may have reduced his skills. It is possible that the Sox could resign him to a one year deal while he proves himself.

A. Cavatica
09-15-2004, 08:55 PM
Sample sizes means taking a large number of at bats and looking them. Isolating 134 at bats Burke had with Charlotte this season and 127 at bats Borchard has had in the majors this season would be relying on small sample sizes. Considering the entirety of a player's pro career or at least his past few seasons as the article presumably does in forming it's opinions would be using large sample sizes. So yes, BP does know all about small sample sizes, you seem to have some catching up to do on the other hand.
I don't think you intended this dig at me, and I hope you aren't implying that we should discount Borchard's major-league career because he performed well in the minors. He's had ~1200 ABs at Charlotte over three seasons and posted OPS of .847, .705, and .828 -- not very impressive for a AAA right fielder. You have to go back to 2001 (Birmingham) to find a good season.

jeremyb1
09-15-2004, 10:14 PM
I don't think you intended this dig at me, and I hope you aren't implying that we should discount Borchard's major-league career because he performed well in the minors. He's had ~1200 ABs at Charlotte over three seasons and posted OPS of .847, .705, and .828 -- not very impressive for a AAA right fielder. You have to go back to 2001 (Birmingham) to find a good season.

I agree that Borchard has been dissapointing in the minors as well as the majors. However, I don't think that an OPS around .800 in AAA is equivalent to batting .150 in the majors. So no, I don't think he's a good major leaguer but I think that with his ability to play three positions he would be a solid backup. I'd expect him to hit something like .230/.290/.450 with regular playing time in the near future.