PDA

View Full Version : Joe Sheehan addresses White Sox in BP Chat


SouthSide_HitMen
12-15-2004, 08:11 PM
12/9 Chat - Overall about MLB - Here are the three White Sox / White Sox related free agent questions:

Aaron Rowand's 2004 season: fluke or breakout?

Joe Sheehan: 29 unintentional walks against 91 strikeouts screams "fluke" to me. I will say that he's a much better center fielder than I thought he was, so if he settles in at a .275 EqA, he can play.

The White Sox have bigger problems.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Dye to the White Sox for 2 yrs $10.5 mil with a club option for a 3rd year. What are the White Sox thinking????
Joe Sheehan: Man, they're coming fast and furious for two days now.

That's a mediocre signing. After a hot start, Dye was pretty lousy, he hasn't been better than a three-win player since 2001, and he'll be 31 next year.

He also sustains the White Sox' balance problem. Unless I miss my guess, with Valentin gone, they might well have just one left-handed batter (Ross Gload) in their Opening Day lineup.



__________________________________________________ ______________

At this point, who do you see as the Twins' strongest competition next year? Chicago? Cleveland? Detroit?

Joe Sheehan: Themselves. With Radke back and a ridiculous bullpen, the Twins will once again have to make the right decisions when it comes to their hitters. Can they somehow assemble a league-average offense, or will they again run five OBP sinks out there and keep the opposition in the game?
__________________________________________________ _______________

Better signing Clement or Pavano?
Joe Sheehan: Clement, who'll be cheaper and more effective over the life of any deal.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/images/dot_gray.gifMatt Clement (Chicago, for now): Nomar and Todd Walker for a full year? They couldn't pay me enough to throw sinkers in front of those two guys. So where AM I going?

Joe Sheehan: The Cubs have three big-time strikeout guys in the rotation, giving them some leeway to punt defense. I think Greg Maddux may have a very long year ahead of him, though.


__________________________________________________ _______________

Odalis Perez (On the plane to fenway?): If not me, who?

Joe Sheehan: Last question...where is the buzz on this guy? Is the record really driving down his market that badly? He's better than Milton, Wright...he might be better than Pavano and a safer bet than Clement. Some team is going to get a big leg up on the competition by signing you, Odalis...best of luck!
__________________________________________________ _______________

Hopefully the White Sox will wind up with Odalis or Clement - Then the C Lee trade will lose that bitter taste still in my mouth.

tadscout
12-15-2004, 08:19 PM
That guy sounds like a jerk...

soltrain21
12-15-2004, 08:19 PM
He certainly loves to make it sound like every decision we have made this offseason is dumb. Wonder what he would say about the Lee deal...yeesh.

nodiggity59
12-15-2004, 08:24 PM
Rowand just can't get no respect. I for one totally expect him to lower K totals and up BBs next year. Walker has said he's specifically working on it, and Rowand's work ethic speaks for itself at this point.

cleogogo
12-15-2004, 08:54 PM
What the heck is a three-win player?

SpartanSoxFan
12-15-2004, 09:07 PM
What the heck is a three-win player?
Yeah, I was wondering that too. Is that some "buzz word" the media uses to make themselves look important while we sit back and guess at what it really means?

Banix12
12-15-2004, 09:11 PM
I saw this guy on ESPN News earlier today. If you think he sounds like a jerk on paper you should hear his voice. He's a whiny dork who has probably never played a game in his life and prefers analyzing box scores instead of actually watching the game.

munchman33
12-15-2004, 09:17 PM
What the heck is a three-win player?
Win shares. The amount of wins this guy versus a league average player at his position will give you.

jabrch
12-15-2004, 09:18 PM
Sheehan is a statmunching a$$hat. Nothing more - nothing less.

MRKARNO
12-15-2004, 09:21 PM
Sheehan is a very good baseball analyst. It's unfortunate that many here have decided just to call him names and dissmiss him because you dissagree with his opinion.

jabrch
12-15-2004, 09:26 PM
Sheehan is a very good baseball analyst. It's unfortunate that many here have decided just to call him names and dissmiss him because you dissagree with his opinion.


It's not that I disagree with his opinion - I just completely disagree with his methods and I find his wording to be continually nauseating.

kittle42
12-15-2004, 10:05 PM
For a group that complains so much about the Cubbie kool-aid Chicago media, we sure do a lot of shouting down and insulting of media when they say anything negative at all about the Sox.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-15-2004, 10:18 PM
He certainly loves to make it sound like every decision we have made this offseason is dumb. Wonder what he would say about the Lee deal...yeesh.Actually, in order:

1. Aaron Rowand, at his level of production, is a good hitting center fielder who played the position better than Joe expected (and the White Sox have enough worries that Rowand is NOT one of them).

2. He did criticise the Dye deal - One of which I agree with - $10 mil for a declining RF with yet one more right handed bat on the roster / lineup.

3. The Twins competition is managing their roster (which has been the case since 2001).

4. He stated Clement was a better pickup than Pavano and with the terms of the contract expected for Clement even a better deal than the pitcher the Sox passed on.

5. Odalis Perez is even a better free agent than Clement or several other pitchers (Milton, Wright, etc.) the Sox passed on, will pass on.

BP Prospectus is a very good website and their 600 page large book detailing over 30 players for each team is a must read before the season. They do a much better job than what you find in the Tribune / Sun Times.

Just thought I pass along some alternative information. Sorry to offend those who consider anything above and beyond batting average, home runs, RBI and SB some geek stat head concoction. God forbid we review the game beyond the grunts of Cajun offered by Hawk Harrelson and whatever sidekick they sit next to him (or Ed Farmer's complaints regarding the schedule and how he is inconvenienced on get away days).

kempsted
12-15-2004, 10:29 PM
Actually, in order:

1. Aaron Rowand, at his level of production, is a good hitting center fielder who played the position better than Joe expected (and the White Sox have enough worries that Rowand is NOT one of them).

2. He did criticise the Dye deal - One of which I agree with - $10 mil for a declining RF with yet one more right handed bat on the roster / lineup.

3. The Twins competition is managing their roster (which has been the case since 2001).

4. He stated Clement was a better pickup than Pavano and with the terms of the contract expected for Clement even a better deal than the pitcher the Sox passed on.

5. Odalis Perez is even a better free agent than Clement or several other pitchers (Milton, Wright, etc.) the Sox passed on, will pass on.

BP Prospectus is a very good website and their 600 page large book detailing over 30 players for each team is a must read before the season. They do a much better job than what you find in the Tribune / Sun Times.

Just thought I pass along some alternative information. Sorry to offend those who consider anything above and beyond batting average, home runs, RBI and SB some geek stat head concoction. God forbid we review the game beyond the grunts of Cajun offered by Hawk Harrelson and whatever sidekick they sit next to him (or Ed Farmer's complaints regarding the schedule and how he is inconvenienced on get away days).
I can't agree with you more. The real stat heads who throw up meaningless statistics and don't really analyse are the mainstream media not the BP crowd.

He didn't say anything all that negative and certainly nothing that we don't say ourselves around here. Lighten up or become Cubs fans. Yeessh.

kempsted
12-15-2004, 10:31 PM
He certainly loves to make it sound like every decision we have made this offseason is dumb. Wonder what he would say about the Lee deal...yeesh.What moves have we made that were not dumb? :?:

soltrain21
12-15-2004, 11:32 PM
Lighten up or become a Cubs fan? I disagree with his comments on Rowand, and I think Dye was a good pick up and wasn't expensive at all....since I disagree with a writer I should become a Cubs fan? Whatever



What moves have we made that were not dumb? :?:


The dead horse in the corner...go hit it with a stick for a while.

Lip Man 1
12-15-2004, 11:58 PM
Kittle:

EXACTLY on the mark.

Lip

CHISOXFAN13
12-16-2004, 12:33 AM
What moves have we made that were not dumb? :?:
I love everyone who blasts every move before watching one game. Unreal.

Banix12
12-16-2004, 12:40 AM
I read BP from time to time. It's a decent site. I just have problems with analysts who seem to only base their opinions on statistical data. Statistical Data has it's place, no question about that, but there are so many things that it can't convey. You can analyze a deal on paper and say it doesn't make that much sense on paper but one shouldn't deem it a bad deal until the results are actually seen on the field.

Remember, for the last few years the Sox have been deemed the best team in the Central, on paper. Those division championship banners look fantastic on paper too bad the cloth ones are mostly hanging in Minnesota.

The Dye deal, yes it was a money saving deal and it's another right handed power bat but he's cheap power and a good OF. He's pretty good value offense.

The Lee deal. Looks bad on paper. A power guy for a speed guy. Sounds rediculous. As I recall that was what quite a few people were saying when the Marlins traded "5-tool player" and "Future Star" Preston Wilson for Juan Pierre. And that one worked out pretty well for the Marlins whereas the Rockies are now praying to get out of Wilson's contract.

So please, let's just wait and see how it turns out during the season before we let the numbers tell us how "on paper" we have been making a series of idiot deals this offseason.

maurice
12-16-2004, 01:05 PM
His "Ross Gload" comment indicates that he's not very knowledgeable about the Sox. That makes it difficult to take his opinions re. the Sox seriously.

I agree with his assessment of Perez and the Twins, however.

kempsted
12-16-2004, 11:49 PM
I love everyone who blasts every move before watching one game. Unreal.
I have watched plenty of games. In fact I am also an A's fan. Dye was OK. The Sox didn't pay too too much but can you really disagree that he is injury prone and hasn't put up good numbers since 2000. I hope he does great, but Baseball analysts wouldn't be doning their jobs if they called it a good move.

soltrain21
12-16-2004, 11:51 PM
Baseball analysts wouldn't be doning their jobs if they called it a good move.

What if some baseball analysts thought *gasp* it was a good idea?!


Was there a better option out there for that price? No..there wasn't.

kempsted
12-16-2004, 11:58 PM
I read BP from time to time. It's a decent site. I just have problems with analysts who seem to only base their opinions on statistical data. Statistical Data has it's place, no question about that, but there are so many things that it can't convey. You can analyze a deal on paper and say it doesn't make that much sense on paper but one shouldn't deem it a bad deal until the results are actually seen on the field.

Remember, for the last few years the Sox have been deemed the best team in the Central, on paper. Those division championship banners look fantastic on paper too bad the cloth ones are mostly hanging in Minnesota.

The Dye deal, yes it was a money saving deal and it's another right handed power bat but he's cheap power and a good OF. He's pretty good value offense.

The Lee deal. Looks bad on paper. A power guy for a speed guy. Sounds rediculous. As I recall that was what quite a few people were saying when the Marlins traded "5-tool player" and "Future Star" Preston Wilson for Juan Pierre. And that one worked out pretty well for the Marlins whereas the Rockies are now praying to get out of Wilson's contract.

So please, let's just wait and see how it turns out during the season before we let the numbers tell us how "on paper" we have been making a series of idiot deals this offseason.
If you read BP from time to time you would know that they are not statistical data only kind of guys. They often go against what their own numbers say. They just try to have some basis for an opinion.

As far as Sox looking good on paper. Who's paper. BP has predicted them to finish no better the 2nd last year and the year before. In fact I can't think of anyone outside of Chicago that did predict them to win it last year. Street and Smith - good old fashioned baseball writers predicted KC to finish first.

Lee deal - It is not that it is a speed for power trade that bothers me. I have no problem with having more speed but we need guys who can get on base.

And yes I was over stating the case. The deals KW has made have not been horrible. They just haven't been anything all that exciting either.

But look it could be worse. The Yankees have signed Wight and Pavano - two guys who had carrier years to multi year deals. That is worse. Actually several teams have had worse offseasons so far - take a look at the Giants for instance. Yuck.

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 12:03 AM
What if some baseball analysts thought *gasp* it was a good idea?!


Was there a better option out there for that price? No..there wasn't.
Exactly. My issue with BP is that IMO they play some favorites. They've made a career talking about how KW overpays in trades & FA, but they rarely revisit (i.e. where's all the talent that KW gave up in the Everett & Alomar trades? Oh - on the Rule5/likely non-tender list and not even getting taken for the most part). They also don't take into account the other available options (i.e. there weren't any in the Dye scenario).

IMO, they have some good stuff, but it's in their interest to talk down KW moves because they've said that he's a bad GM. And that seems to impact their "analysis" of Sox moves.

Jabroni
12-17-2004, 12:06 AM
Exactly. My issue with BP is that IMO they play some favorites. They've made a career talking about how KW overpays in trades & FA, but they rarely revisit (i.e. where's all the talent that KW gave up in the Everett & Alomar trades? Oh - on the Rule5/likely non-tender list and not even getting taken for the most part). They also don't take into account the other available options (i.e. there weren't any in the Dye scenario).

IMO, they have some good stuff, but it's in their interest to talk down KW moves because they've said that he's a bad GM. And that seems to impact their "analysis" of Sox moves.Good point.

I also never hear about any of KW's good trades like Matt Guerrier for Damaso Marte. Where the hell is Matt Guerrier? And I guess Billy Beane robbed KW when he traded Miguel Olivo for "The Great" Chad Bradford. :rolleyes:

kempsted
12-17-2004, 12:09 AM
What if some baseball analysts thought *gasp* it was a good idea?!


Was there a better option out there for that price? No..there wasn't.
10 million dollars? OK Here is what Joe said

"That's a mediocre signing. After a hot start, Dye was pretty lousy, he hasn't been better than a three-win player since 2001, and he'll be 31 next year.

He also sustains the White Sox' balance problem"

What is untrue about any of that. He was lousy for the second have of the year after a hot start and he does bat from the right.

BTW this was a chat session and the one who asked the question lead into it with - wasn't that a stupid move.

soltrain21
12-17-2004, 12:11 AM
10 million dollars? OK Here is what Joe said

"That's a mediocre signing. After a hot start, Dye was pretty lousy, he hasn't been better than a three-win player since 2001, and he'll be 31 next year.

He also sustains the White Sox' balance problem"

What is untrue about any of that. He was lousy for the second have of the year after a hot start and he does bat from the right.

BTW this was a chat session and the one who asked the question lead into it with - wasn't that a stupid move.

I seen what he said, I can read. I wasn't referring to what he said, I was referring to what YOU said about not doing your job if you think it was a good move.

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 12:15 AM
10 million dollars? OK Here is what Joe said

"That's a mediocre signing. After a hot start, Dye was pretty lousy, he hasn't been better than a three-win player since 2001, and he'll be 31 next year.

He also sustains the White Sox' balance problem"

What is untrue about any of that. He was lousy for the second have of the year after a hot start and he does bat from the right.

BTW this was a chat session and the one who asked the question lead into it with - wasn't that a stupid move.
The point is, what alternatives were there? Hidalgo for a similar price? Stick with Borchard because he's cheaper?

Dye may not be great, but he's solid, and he comes at a decent price. And Joe's comment about Dye tailing off completely ignores the fact that he played with a broken thumb in August (when his #s plummeted). Once he finally took some time off to heal it, he posted 900+OPSs again.

Again - not a great signing, but a decent one with some pretty good upside at a good price. But BP doesn't seem to look past some of the surface #s when examining the Sox moves.

FarWestChicago
12-17-2004, 12:17 AM
10 million dollars?:fobbgod:

I was a genius for paying more than twice that much. It's great to be me!!

Jerome
12-17-2004, 12:21 AM
Just thought I pass along some alternative information. Sorry to offend those who consider anything above and beyond batting average, home runs, RBI and SB some geek stat head concoction. God forbid we review the game beyond the grunts of Cajun offered by Hawk Harrelson and whatever sidekick they sit next to him (or Ed Farmer's complaints regarding the schedule and how he is inconvenienced on get away days).


HAhAhAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jabroni
12-17-2004, 12:23 AM
:fobbgod:

I was a genius for paying more than twice that much. It's great to be me!!MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It's funny cuz it's true! :tongue:

http://img148.exs.cx/img148/5623/jermainedye2ok.jpg

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 12:33 AM
What would be VERY interesting would be to see BP's assessment of Dye going into the '04 season. I don't subscribe (too cheap), but I'll bet they were much more complimentary even though he was a lot more expensive and was less productive (more injured) in 02 & 03.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-17-2004, 12:40 AM
What would be VERY interesting would be to see BP's assessment of Dye going into the '04 season. I don't subscribe (too cheap), but I'll bet they were much more complimentary even though he was a lot more expensive and was less productive (more injured) in 02 & 03.
Here is the 2004 preview:

The contract light's at the end of the tunnel. Dye's never been the same since breaking his leg during that fateful playoff game. He doesn't have the same torque in his swing, he doesn't cover as much ground in the outfield, and he lacks the grace and fluidity he showed before he got hurt. There were no hopeful signs in his performance record: he failed to reach a .200 average during any month of the season (2003), and the only real value he had on the field was in his arm. Hopefully, he'll be at least closer to healthy, since the A's will likely have more than 20% of their payroll - $11 million - going to Dye in 2004. There are rumors of Billy Beane possibly being able to ship Dye's contract out of town; if that occurs, Beane should be immediately inducted into Cooperstown.

Banix12
12-17-2004, 12:40 AM
I have nothing against most statistical analysis. However like everything in baseball analysis it's a crapshoot. They can just as easily be proven right as proven wrong. It can give you an educated guess as to how your season could occur if everything was played in a statistical vaccum where every stat from year to year seems to work as one beautiful mosaic of logic and numbers. You can look for trends in stats, but that's really all they can do and the rest comes down to luck and how the season actually progresses. When you get right down to it they have to play the games, and the constant analysis often can amount to nothing more than some guy saying "I told you so".

And then there are those made up stats like "Pythagorian Wins". Who the hell cares if you team looked better or worse when you take their a bunch of statistical averages throw them in a calculator and come out with a new number. Did it do anything to the win and loss column in reality? Does it really tell you that much more than you can surmise with a simple visual analysis over 162 games? Not really, so put down the calculator and get some sunlight.

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 07:29 AM
Here is the 2004 preview:

The contract light's at the end of the tunnel. Dye's never been the same since breaking his leg during that fateful playoff game. He doesn't have the same torque in his swing, he doesn't cover as much ground in the outfield, and he lacks the grace and fluidity he showed before he got hurt. There were no hopeful signs in his performance record: he failed to reach a .200 average during any month of the season (2003), and the only real value he had on the field was in his arm. Hopefully, he'll be at least closer to healthy, since the A's will likely have more than 20% of their payroll - $11 million - going to Dye in 2004. There are rumors of Billy Beane possibly being able to ship Dye's contract out of town; if that occurs, Beane should be immediately inducted into Cooperstown.
He's still one of Beane's guys: Solid review of the player, no mention of Beane's mistake except "if he can ship him out, he should go to Cooperstown"

Sox sign him cheaply after haveing a better year in 2004: Negative review

This is what I'm referring to when I say they have at least an unconscious bias.

fquaye149
12-17-2004, 09:22 AM
As far as Sox looking good on paper. Who's paper. BP has predicted them to finish no better the 2nd last year and the year before. In fact I can't think of anyone outside of Chicago that did predict them to win it last year.

bill james' paper. And rob neyer's. Perhaps you've heard of them? Bill's pythagorean theorem always "says" that we "should have" beat the twins based on runs scored v. runs given up.

Statistics also says we had a good offense last year because of series like v. the twins when we scored 17 runs one game then 3 or 4 the entire rest of the series. That's 21 runs in three games...seven runs a game...but it won us two games.

Statistics are very valuable but they certainly don't tell the whole story, and if you think you can know about a player or a team without actually watching their games (see Sheehan's ross gload comment) you have no business being a baseball analyst.

benjamin
12-17-2004, 11:07 AM
And then there are those made up stats like "Pythagorian Wins". Who the hell cares if you team looked better or worse when you take their a bunch of statistical averages throw them in a calculator and come out with a new number. Did it do anything to the win and loss column in reality? Does it really tell you that much more than you can surmise with a simple visual analysis over 162 games? Not really, so put down the calculator and get some sunlight.Every team in baseball uses these formulas. Why? Because they work.

Further, Pythagorean Wins is not a "bunch of statistical averages thrown into a calculator", it is a formula with all of two variables: runs scored and runs allowed.

Whether you are playing baseball, football, hockey, basketball or foosball, if you score more points than your opponent over an extended period of time, it would be a reasonable expectation that you've won more than you've lost.

That is what statistical analysis is all about, reasonable expectations. Sure there are extreme situations, but that is not reason to throw out the entire system. It just shows that luck plays a role.

Should I hit on 19 in blackjack? Reasonable expectation is that I would bust. But if the next card is a two does that render the statistical analysis meaningless?

No, it just shows that there are extremes.


Not trusting statistics based on an inability or lack of desire to calculate them is foolish.

Don't be afraid of stats.

The fact that the White Sox have been a study in extremes the past few years doesn't mean the stats don't work, just that there are extreme examples of when they may miss the mark a little. Identifying conditions that lead to extremes is helpful, throwing out the whole system and hitting on 19 is not.

Yes, quite obviously there is a human element, but simple visual analysis is far, far from being efficient. Jermaine Dye batted about .500 against the Sox last year. Someone who only watches Sox games would think him far better than what he really is.

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 11:15 AM
Baseball Prospectus is a bunch of Beane sycophants. I've seen nothing of them for the past few years to suggest that they are any better at predicting baseball performance than any other site. Voodoo statistics if you ask me...

benjamin
12-17-2004, 11:21 AM
Baseball Prospectus is a bunch of Beane sycophants. I've seen nothing of them for the past few years to suggest that they are any better at predicting baseball performance than any other site. Voodoo statistics if you ask me...
Yet while every MLB team exec reads baseball prospectus, I haven't seen many who subscribe to acts of voodoo.

Over By There
12-17-2004, 11:22 AM
I don't know, with that pessimistic attitude the dude sounds like he'd fit right in around here... :wink:

ma-gaga
12-17-2004, 11:29 AM
Well, I haven't seen it posted yet. Here's his quick take on the Podsednik deal.


<LI>The Brewers made their second good deal in a week, picking up Carlos Lee (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/leeca01.shtml) from the White Sox in exchange for spare parts in Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/podsesc01.shtml) and Luis Vizcaino (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/vizcalu01.shtml). I'm not a big Lee fan, but this was something-for-nothing for Doug Melvin, who swapped a fifth outfielder masquerading as a starting center fielder and a serviceable reliever for a player who becomes his team's best hitter. Other than shave money from the payroll, I don't know what this deal does for the White Sox, who added a low-OBP center fielder and a reliever who might be their third-best if Neal Cotts doesn't come around. I've argued that they need to address their balance problems, but doing so by swapping a good player for a bad one--Podsednik is never seeing his 2003 batting average again--isn't what I had in mind. Unless this deal frees up money for someone like Carlos Beltran (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/beltrca01.shtml)--a highly unlikely scenario--it only benefits Twins fans and Jerry Resindorf's bottom line.

Ol' No. 2
12-17-2004, 11:29 AM
Every team in baseball uses these formulas. Why? Because they work.

Further, Pythagorean Wins is not a "bunch of statistical averages thrown into a calculator", it is a formula with all of two variables: runs scored and runs allowed.

Whether you are playing baseball, football, hockey, basketball or foosball, if you score more points than your opponent over an extended period of time, it would be a reasonable expectation that you've won more than you've lost.

That is what statistical analysis is all about, reasonable expectations. Sure there are extreme situations, but that is not reason to throw out the entire system. It just shows that luck plays a role.

Should I hit on 19 in blackjack? Reasonable expectation is that I would bust. But if the next card is a two does that render the statistical analysis meaningless?

No, it just shows that there are extremes.


Not trusting statistics based on an inability or lack of desire to calculate them is foolish.

Don't be afraid of stats.

The fact that the White Sox have been a study in extremes the past few years doesn't mean the stats don't work, just that there are extreme examples of when they may miss the mark a little. Identifying conditions that lead to extremes is helpful, throwing out the whole system and hitting on 19 is not.

Yes, quite obviously there is a human element, but simple visual analysis is far, far from being efficient. Jermaine Dye batted about .500 against the Sox last year. Someone who only watches Sox games would think him far better than what he really is.The biggest problem with many of these statistics is that people throw them around without knowing or understanding what goes into them. Ordonez had very few win shares last year. Does that mean he's lousy? It's only because he was injured and missed a lot of games. But if you're using them to predict what he's going to do NEXT year (assuming he recovers, of course), win shares will be very misleading.

The second problem with some of these statistics is the phenomenon of propagation of error. Every measurement has an error associated with it, especialy when it's used to make predictions about future performance. When several measurements are put together to get one number, the errors in all those individual measurements combine to make a large uncertainty in the resuting number. The more measurements that go into it, the bigger the uncertainty in the resulting number. Player performance is subject to so many variations that if you have to put more than a few numbers into the hopper to generate some other factor, it's likely to be garbage.

The third problem is that they almost always reflect the biases of the person who invented it. For example, if that person thinks OPS is very important, then OPS is likely to get weighted very heavily, and players with high OPS are going to look very good. But who says OPS is more important than any other factor and by how much? That's very subjective, but by enshrining it into some number, it's given the veneer of objectivity that it doesn't deserve.

Stats are useful, but use them carefully. There are an awful lot of them that are complete BS.

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 11:34 AM
Yet while every MLB team exec reads baseball prospectus, I haven't seen many who subscribe to acts of voodoo.
But really, how do you know that? There might be a copy of it floating through every team office, but do you really think any GM bases their decisions on it? Teams rely on their scouts, not a bunch of number crunchers.

Maybe KW reads it on the can....

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 11:42 AM
But really, how do you know that? There might be a copy of it floating through every team office, but do you really think any GM bases their decisions on it? Teams rely on their scouts, not a bunch of number crunchers.

Maybe KW reads it on the can....
And uses it when the roll runs out....

benjamin
12-17-2004, 11:42 AM
But really, how do you know that? There might be a copy of it floating through every team office, but do you really think any GM bases their decisions on it? Teams rely on their scouts, not a bunch of number crunchers.

Maybe KW reads it on the can....
While admittedly being cryptic, I know first-hand that all MLB teams are given free subscriptions to the website, and all use it.

Further, I know first-hand that numerous people in the Sox front office, including the GM, read the site on a consistent/daily basis.

The information available from the site is of value.

MisterB
12-17-2004, 11:43 AM
Yet while every MLB team exec reads baseball prospectus, I haven't seen many who subscribe to acts of voodoo.Hmmm...maybe voodoo would help

http://www.wrightimages.org/Images/Celebrities/Actors/Star%20Dayz/Dennis%20Haysbert.jpg

"Bats, they are sick. I ask Jobu to come, take fear from bats. I offer him cigar, rum. He will come."

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 11:49 AM
While admittedly being cryptic, I know first-hand that all MLB teams are given free subscriptions to the website, and all use it.

Further, I know first-hand that numerous people in the Sox front office, including the GM, read the site on a consistent/daily basis.

The information available from the site is of value.That's cool, and I believe most of that to be true. I think what irked me more than anything else is those using one person's opinion to be gospel. I can see some creedence to Sheehan's opinion, but he's way over the top with his assessment. Can't put too much stock in someone who uses definitive words in his player evaluations. Very dumb and arrogant for him to say that Pods "will never" perform at his 2003 level again.

"Podsednik is never seeing his 2003 batting average again"

Very, very arrogant....

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 11:50 AM
Well, I haven't seen it posted yet. Here's his quick take on the Podsednik deal.The Brewers made their second good deal in a week, picking up Carlos Lee (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/leeca01.shtml) from the White Sox in exchange for spare parts in Scott Podsednik (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/podsesc01.shtml) and Luis Vizcaino (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/vizcalu01.shtml). I'm not a big Lee fan, but this was something-for-nothing for Doug Melvin, who swapped a fifth outfielder masquerading as a starting center fielder and a serviceable reliever for a player who becomes his team's best hitter. Other than shave money from the payroll, I don't know what this deal does for the White Sox, who added a low-OBP center fielder and a reliever who might be their third-best if Neal Cotts doesn't come around. I've argued that they need to address their balance problems, but doing so by swapping a good player for a bad one--Podsednik is never seeing his 2003 batting average again--isn't what I had in mind. Unless this deal frees up money for someone like Carlos Beltran (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/beltrca01.shtml)--a highly unlikely scenario--it only benefits Twins fans and Jerry Resindorf's bottom line.
This is what I mean by bias. Luis Vizcaino - he of the 1.18WHIP, 7.88K/9, 3.75ERA who in the past 3 years has allowed 25% of inherited runners to score (By comparison, Steve Kline - 24%) is basically slammed. If that's your 3d best reliever, then you have a pretty good pen.

As for Podsednik, he doesn't need to hit .314 again, if he hits .270-.280 and gets his OBP up over .350, he's a much better fit for the Sox than Lee, especially if you facotr in the signing of a pitcher (and/or other hitters).

Note the absence of any actual analysis & stats from a group that considers themelves data-driven. This is unfortunately a standard for them when it comes to discussing Sox moves.

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 11:57 AM
Note the absence of any actual analysis & stats from a group that considers themelves data-driven. This is unfortunately a standard for them when it comes to discussing Sox moves.
I agree for the most part. Being a bunch of Beane sycophants, BP probably has a HUGE bias against KW since Moneyball was released.

Dadawg_77
12-17-2004, 12:20 PM
The biggest problem with many of these statistics is that people throw them around without knowing or understanding what goes into them. Ordonez had very few win shares last year. Does that mean he's lousy? It's only because he was injured and missed a lot of games. But if you're using them to predict what he's going to do NEXT year (assuming he recovers, of course), win shares will be very misleading.

The second problem with some of these statistics is the phenomenon of propagation of error. Every measurement has an error associated with it, especialy when it's used to make predictions about future performance. When several measurements are put together to get one number, the errors in all those individual measurements combine to make a large uncertainty in the resuting number. The more measurements that go into it, the bigger the uncertainty in the resulting number. Player performance is subject to so many variations that if you have to put more than a few numbers into the hopper to generate some other factor, it's likely to be garbage.

The third problem is that they almost always reflect the biases of the person who invented it. For example, if that person thinks OPS is very important, then OPS is likely to get weighted very heavily, and players with high OPS are going to look very good. But who says OPS is more important than any other factor and by how much? That's very subjective, but by enshrining it into some number, it's given the veneer of objectivity that it doesn't deserve.

Stats are useful, but use them carefully. There are an awful lot of them that are complete BS.
Win shares are not meant to be a predictive tool but one to explain the value a player brought to a team in one year. This is too give us a better tool to compare Mags with Mantle and other players. Ideally the player with the highest win shares would be the MVP.

Regression analysis can then you what drives what. Do some regression analysis on OPS, BOP, Avg, HR, Hits, Productive Outs, BOP*1.3 + Slg, or what ever else. You will find BOP*1.3 + Slg drives Runs score more then any other measurement.

What the stat work gives you is a range of where a player should end up given his past performance and past performance of similar players. BP's PECOTA is pretty good at this and they actually have reviewed its results vs what other web sites have said about players. PECOTA faired pretty in those comparisons.

Dadawg_77
12-17-2004, 12:42 PM
This is what I mean by bias. Luis Vizcaino - he of the 1.18WHIP, 7.88K/9, 3.75ERA who in the past 3 years has allowed 25% of inherited runners to score (By comparison, Steve Kline - 24%) is basically slammed. If that's your 3d best reliever, then you have a pretty good pen.

As for Podsednik, he doesn't need to hit .314 again, if he hits .270-.280 and gets his OBP up over .350, he's a much better fit for the Sox than Lee, especially if you facotr in the signing of a pitcher (and/or other hitters).

Note the absence of any actual analysis & stats from a group that considers themelves data-driven. This is unfortunately a standard for them when it comes to discussing Sox moves.
First off, you can't factor something in before it actually occurs. It isn't inevitable that Kenny signs a pitcher.

.350 OBP for a leadoff man is average and what the White Sox did last year. Willie Harris could put that up a .350 OBP, without the stolen bases. So the net advantage the Sox have is S-Pod 84% clip in stealing. Is that worth the power and OBP decline from Lee to S-Pod? I don't believe so. Could the freed up money help get a pitcher, yes. But we will have to wait to see who that pitcher is before making any judgements on that. On another note for S-Pod to put a .350 OPB, he needs to hit .280 - .290. His walk contribution to OBP has been between .060 and .070.

Accoding to this http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/rel_winexp2004.html Vizcaino would have been the third best pen pitcher on the Sox last year. But remeber pen pitcher are flukly in nature as Vizcaino ERA in 2002 was 2.99, 2003 6.39 and last year's 3.75.

Dadawg_77
12-17-2004, 12:45 PM
He's still one of Beane's guys: Solid review of the player, no mention of Beane's mistake except "if he can ship him out, he should go to Cooperstown"

Sox sign him cheaply after haveing a better year in 2004: Negative review

This is what I'm referring to when I say they have at least an unconscious bias.
Ok so if Freddy Garcia goes out and blows out his elbow and forever loses the effectiveness he had, we all should hammer Kenny for his mistake of giving 9 million a year to a pitcher with a bum elbow? That is what you are advocating people should do when evaluating Dye's contract.

danimal81
12-17-2004, 12:53 PM
"I saw this guy on ESPN News earlier today. If you think he sounds like a jerk on paper you should hear his voice. He's a whiny dork who has probably never played a game in his life and prefers analyzing box scores instead of actually watching the game."




He's no John Clayton!!

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 12:55 PM
Accoding to this http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/rel_winexp2004.html Vizcaino would have been the third best pen pitcher on the Sox last year. But remeber pen pitcher are flukly in nature as Vizcaino ERA in 2002 was 2.99, 2003 6.39 and last year's 3.75.
I think they're kind of underrating this guy. He's got wicked stuff and if I'm not mistaken he struggled with pitch selection in 2003, thus leading to the drop-off in numbers. He's less dependent on the slider now, using a wicked changeup which got him back on track in 2004. All he needs is to throw his fastball more which is quite a good weapon for him.

JRIG
12-17-2004, 12:58 PM
I think they're kind of underrating this guy. He's got wicked stuff and if I'm not mistaken he struggled with pitch selection in 2003, thus leading to the drop-off in numbers. He's less dependent on the slider now, using a wicked changeup which got him back on track in 2004. All he needs is to throw his fastball more which is quite a good weapon for him.
He needs to stop being a fly ball pitcher and giving up so many home runs, especially now that he's pitching in Coors East.

Flight #24
12-17-2004, 01:00 PM
Ok so if Freddy Garcia goes out and blows out his elbow and forever loses the effectiveness he had, we all should hammer Kenny for his mistake of giving 9 million a year to a pitcher with a bum elbow? That is what you are advocating people should do when evaluating Dye's contract.
No, what I'm saying is that there is a direct contrast in the way in which they discuss & evaluate Dye pre-2004 and Dye now. Now, signing him to a relatively cheap contract when there weren't any realistic other options for any similar or lower price, it's "mediocre".

Meanwhile, Beane gave mucho dinero to a guy with 1 season over .900 OPS, and that guy promptly went out and posted a .792 OPS in 2002. Yes, he broke his leg, but had a whole offseason to recuperate and breaks tend to heal pretty well. So it certainly seems like they overpaid even before the shoulder injury in 2003. But you'll never hear a word about that from BP.

rdivaldi
12-17-2004, 01:02 PM
He needs to stop being a fly ball pitcher and giving up so many home runs, especially now that he's pitching in Coors East.
For sure, but it was his slider that got him in so much trouble with the home run. Now that he's using the split finger change, I expect that number to go down.

SouthSide_HitMen
12-17-2004, 11:15 PM
I agree for the most part. Being a bunch of Beane sycophants, BP probably has a HUGE bias against KW since Moneyball was released.
Final paragraph - 2004 BP Prospectus White Sox Preview

It will be a tough position (replacing Mags after 2004 - previous paragraph) for Kenny Williams to be in, but also a moment of opportunity to dictate the franchise's direction for the balance of the decade, one that will require some serious thought about the team's longer term aspirations and identity. Williams has demonstrated solid growth thus far, and we wish him the best in navigating the storm.

__________________________________________________ ________________

It appears Kenny Williams big decision has been made - Small / Ozzie Ball. In a few years we will see what this decision has produced.