PDA

View Full Version : Harball Times review of the Lee trade


PaleHoseRon
12-23-2004, 10:27 AM
link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-other-trades/

Not a real strong endorsement of the deal...

"This spring, the White Sox will talk about their improved defense and how they are no longer depending on homers to win. Then, once the season starts, they'll start running and bunting like crazy. When September rolls around and they're looking up in the standings -- not only at the Twins again, but at the Indians too -- everyone in Chicago will point to some other random character trait the team has and proclaim that the problem. Then Williams can go out and "fix" it in the offseason, perhaps trading all the shoes in the state of Illinois and Aaron Rowand for two sprinters and the bat from The Natural (http://imdb.com/title/tt0087781/).

At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems. Until then, the Twins will have it a whole lot easier than they should and teams like the Brewers can pick up those icky power hitters for 50 cents on the dollar."

SoxFan48
12-23-2004, 10:56 AM
Thanks for the link. We got to get past the notion on this board that grinders or whatever flavor of the day is running rampant is what wins baseball. The formula--(batting--high OBP, high SLF, low K/BB)--(pitching--low ERA, high K rate, low WHIP). It is all very easy to say, sometimes not so easy to find the right players.

nodiggity59
12-23-2004, 10:58 AM
There's nothing wrong with power hitters.

There is something wrong with Caballo - namely that he swings for the fences on every pitch.
That reveiw is what I would expect from someone not familiar with the situation.

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 11:04 AM
Wow, that was a crap article. Perhaps next time they could back up their opinions with some stats, facts, etc. It's amazing what garbage passes for journalism.

It's also amazing how overrated the Tribe has become. How many times do we have to hear what a great "young" team they've become before someone actually realizes that they're not that great and they're not that young?

SoxFan48
12-23-2004, 11:07 AM
Where are your facts? Where are your arguments?

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 11:11 AM
Where are your facts? Where are your arguments?My fact: The White Sox haven't won the division since the fluke year of 2000. If you need any evidence of how streaky and "all or nothng" this offense was just go to the game logs for the past 4 years. You win baseball with pitching and you'd have a hard time proving that this isn't the best overall staff we've assembled since 1994 (if healthy).

That was a garbage article that sounded like an angry 10 year old fan venting. There was zero substance. How can you take an article seriously that contains this lame quote:

"Then Williams can go out and "fix" it in the offseason, perhaps trading all the shoes in the state of Illinois and Aaron Rowand for two sprinters and the bat from The Natural (http://imdb.com/title/tt0087781/)."

:dtroll:

nodiggity59
12-23-2004, 11:23 AM
Why can't anyone see that the 2004 Indians = 2000 White Sox?

Meaning, all those young hitters are NOT that great and their pitching isn't great. Remember, they still haven't signed a starter and Bob FRICKIN Wickman is their closer. Howry isn't bad, but still this is a .500 team at best with 3 good starters at most.

Because of their SP and bullpen, the Sox are a .500 team at worst.

A. Cavatica
12-23-2004, 11:26 AM
My fact: The White Sox haven't won the division since the fluke year of 2000. If you need any evidence of how streaky and "all or nothng" this offense was just go to the game logs for the past 4 years.
Not picking on you, but has anyone actually run an analysis of all our game logs, and demonstrated that we've really been more "all or nothing" than other teams? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but often the CW and the truth are two different things.

My guess is that a runs-per-game analysis would show the usual bell curve. The way to win more games is to move the peak of the curve to the right, and the peak of the runs-allowed-per-game curve to the left, not to try to change the shapes of the curves.

nodiggity59
12-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Not picking on you, but has anyone actually run an analysis of all our game logs, and demonstrated that we've really been more "all or nothing" than other teams? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but often the CW and the truth are two different things.

My guess is that a runs-per-game analysis would show the usual bell curve. The way to win more games is to move the peak of the curve to the right, and the peak of the runs-allowed-per-game curve to the left, not to try to change the shapes of the curves.
I disagree. Most teams have differences from game to game, but only the Sox can score 30 runs in two games and then lose 7 in a row, scoring 2 or less every time. Those might not be the actual numbers, but the Sox's median, I guarantee, would not be impressive as their #3 runs scored in the league number.

I'm willing to bet their median would rate them much lower, around league average.

ewokpelts
12-23-2004, 11:32 AM
There's nothing wrong with power hitters.

There is something wrong with Caballo - namely that he swings for the fences on every pitch.
That reveiw is what I would expect from someone not familiar with the situation.i belive you have ur opinion of carlos confused with paul konerko.....i point to carlos 28 game hitting streak....i dont think it was a home run streak....
Gene

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 11:32 AM
Not picking on you, but has anyone actually run an analysis of all our game logs, and demonstrated that we've really been more "all or nothing" than other teams? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but often the CW and the truth are two different things.

My guess is that a runs-per-game analysis would show the usual bell curve. The way to win more games is to move the peak of the curve to the right, and the peak of the runs-allowed-per-game curve to the left, not to try to change the shapes of the curves.No prob, without disagreements what fun would this board be?

Based on our overall records vs. our expected records you can extrapolate that this team has not performed at a consistent level over the past 3 years. I'm not a fan of the entire "expected wins" stat, but it does point out a very troubling trend.

The author of this article also neglected to mention anything about our improved pitching staff. What genius doesn't understand that pitching wins championships?

kittle545feet
12-23-2004, 11:33 AM
I agree that the article is poorly written, but it is the contents that make the article. I completely agree with sentiments. I disagree with some saying that Carlos would swing for the fences on every pitch. He did not. In fact, he turned himself into a pretty good situational hitter and I think his numbers kind of show it. As of right now, the trade with the Brewers is not looking good to me. There is money available now since we don't have Carlos so in order to make the trade seem worthwhile, they need to spend the money and plug some other holes. Our lineup sucks as of right now and I said the day the trade was made that we are still a third place team and we will be looking up at the Twins and the Indians if we don't change some things soon.:(:

SoxxoS
12-23-2004, 11:36 AM
There's nothing wrong with power hitters.

There is something wrong with Caballo - namely that he swings for the fences on every pitch.
That reveiw is what I would expect from someone not familiar with the situation.
See my quote in my signature. I will guarantee Lee was who he was talking about.

I will give Lee credit, though, during his 30 (?) game hit streak. He really looked good with the bat during that stage. I will not, however, remember his God awful throwing arm, his swinging for the fences, and his borderline retarded baserunning.

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 11:46 AM
I disagree with some saying that Carlos would swing for the fences on every pitch. He did not. In fact, he turned himself into a pretty good situational hitter and I think his numbers kind of show it.
Actually that's not true at all. CLee's stats are very average if not worse in most clutch situations, most notably:

RISP w/2 outs: .159/.284/.559
Bases loaded: .231/.214/.753

fquaye149
12-23-2004, 11:47 AM
Not picking on you, but has anyone actually run an analysis of all our game logs, and demonstrated that we've really been more "all or nothing" than other teams? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but often the CW and the truth are two different things.

My guess is that a runs-per-game analysis would show the usual bell curve. The way to win more games is to move the peak of the curve to the right, and the peak of the runs-allowed-per-game curve to the left, not to try to change the shapes of the curves. I can go based on memory for the most part -

How many times do you remember hanging 10 or more runs on a team in the first game of a series and then laying an egg for the next two? I can think of vs. Minnesota and vs. Cleveland specifically last year, and given the time for research i'm sure I can find some more...

Or in 2003 when our lineup of Lee, Maggs, and Frank let Loaiza lose two games to the tigers 1-0....

Or how in 2003-2004 if we saw a pitcher from the minors who had never made an MLB start before was pitching against us, we knew we were going to crap our pants

That screams all or nothing to me.

Iwritecode
12-23-2004, 11:47 AM
At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems.

I don't think it's so much the fact that the Sox had a team full of too many sluggers. I think it was the fact that they had a team full of guys that all looked pretty much the same at the plate. Big guy, bats right-handed, hits the ball hard, doesn't run real well. Once the pitcher figured out how to get one guy out, he pretty much had half the team figured out. Thus the all-or-nothing offense.

They really need more guys that can take walks, slap the ball around, take an extra base or two. That's what the Twins have been doing for years and that's the kind of team KW is trying to put together now.

I would also like to see the Sox record in games where they have never faced the opposing starting pitcher. It can't be good...

JRIG
12-23-2004, 12:01 PM
I don't think it's so much the fact that the Sox had a team full of too many sluggers. I think it was the fact that they had a team full of guys that all looked pretty much the same at the plate. Big guy, bats right-handed, hits the ball hard, doesn't run real well. Once the pitcher figured out how to get one guy out, he pretty much had half the team figured out. Thus the all-or-nothing offense.

Too many guys who don't get on base. Those sluggers look a lot better when the solo shots turn into 3-run blasts. This team did not lose because it hit too many home runs.

OurBitchinMinny
12-23-2004, 12:04 PM
There's nothing wrong with power hitters.

There is something wrong with Caballo - namely that he swings for the fences on every pitch.
That reveiw is what I would expect from someone not familiar with the situation.

and yet still hit .300. Go figure. At least we got a guy who almost hit .250 back in return

jabrch
12-23-2004, 12:05 PM
Pardon my continual ignorance, but who the hell is the "Hardball Times" and why should we care?

I mean - it's nice for discussion and all - but this doesn't even have the biased credibility that some of the James/BA/BP type scouting sites have. If my memory serves me correctly, Hardball Times was a B-rated Fantasy Baseball site with no more credibility than Rotoworld.

I think everyone agrees on the Lee trade. We have a good idea what we would have gotten out of Lee. We have no idea what to expect from Podsednik. If hit hits like he did in 2003, this is a great deal - no doubt. If he hits like he did in 2004, it's a bad deal - no doubt. If he hits in the middle, then it is probably no worse than a wash - probably a good deal - right?

The bonus is saving 7mm, part of which was just used to get El Duque, and the other part will be used for????

In any case - I'm not letting the HardballTimes convince me that we should not bother playing the season just cuz they don't like Podsednik based on 2004 vs 2003.

jabrch
12-23-2004, 12:06 PM
and yet still hit .300. Go figure. At least we got a guy who almost hit .250 back in return
or hit .314 in 2003?

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 12:07 PM
and yet still hit .300. Go figure.Unless of course it was a clutch situation, then he batted .200, go figure.

While I do believe that we most likely got the short end of the stick in the trade guys, I think the legend of Carlos Lee is starting to get out of control. He was a nice player and all, but he was no world beater. IMO the addition of El Duque makes this trade worthwhile.

Jabroni
12-23-2004, 12:16 PM
Unless of course it was a clutch situation, then he batted .200, go figure.

While I do believe that we most likely got the short end of the stick in the trade guys, I think the legend of Carlos Lee is starting to get out of control. He was a nice player and all, but he was no world beater. IMO the addition of El Duque makes this trade worthwhile.Agreed. Who have we really gotten from trading Lee?

Scott Podsednik
Luis Vizcaino
PTBNL
El Duque
David Eckstein or Alex Cora?

That's quite a bit of talent to acquire over keeping one free-swinging, weak-fielding LF'er.

JRIG
12-23-2004, 12:19 PM
or hit .314 in 2003?
Or the guy who is a career .265 hitter in nine minor league seasons?

A. Cavatica
12-23-2004, 12:20 PM
I can go based on memory for the most part -

How many times do you remember hanging 10 or more runs on a team in the first game of a series and then laying an egg for the next two? I can think of vs. Minnesota and vs. Cleveland specifically last year, and given the time for research i'm sure I can find some more...

Or in 2003 when our lineup of Lee, Maggs, and Frank let Loaiza lose two games to the tigers 1-0....

Or how in 2003-2004 if we saw a pitcher from the minors who had never made an MLB start before was pitching against us, we knew we were going to crap our pants

That screams all or nothing to me.
You're only helping to prove my point. I can remember a lot of those occasions, too, but they happen to all teams. That's baseball. Until someone actually analyzes the numbers, we don't know if we're looking at a normal pattern or a problem that's unique to the Sox. Memory is not going to cut it.

I'd like to run that analysis myself, but I don't have the numbers and I'm not a statistician.

idseer
12-23-2004, 12:21 PM
i belive you have ur opinion of carlos confused with paul konerko.....i point to carlos 28 game hitting streak....i dont think it was a home run streak....
Gene
and i believe you're also confused if you think konerko just swings for the fences. he drew a heck of a lot more walks than did carlos with about 30 fewer ab's. plus he's one of the few sox big men to 'go the other way' to move runners over.
i believe you have them BOTH confused with jose valentin.

oeo
12-23-2004, 12:25 PM
Good...doubt us, that's what I like to hear!

Now go out there and take this division and more!

Frater Perdurabo
12-23-2004, 12:25 PM
This team did not lose because it hit too many home runs.

You're right. They lost because too many of their homers came with nobody on base, and they struck out or hit into too many double plays, fly outs and pop outs when runners were on base. They lost because their propensity to score 12 runs one night, followed by less than two runs in the next two games was not enough to overcome their poor pitching, particularly at the bottom of the rotation and in the "middle/long relief" portion of the bullpen.

JRIG
12-23-2004, 12:32 PM
Actually that's not true at all. CLee's stats are very average if not worse in most clutch situations, most notably:

RISP w/2 outs: .159/.284/.559
Bases loaded: .231/.214/.753
Nice job of cherry-picking stats to back yor arguement.

Lee 2004 w/ RISP: .299/.366/.510
Lee 2004 w/ close and late: .286/.345/.519
Lee 2004 w/ runner on: .282/.351/.506

Lee 2003 w/ RISP: .346/.378/.654
Lee 2003 w/ RISP + 2 out: .338/.390/.704
Lee 2003 w/ runners on: .303/.339/.554

If you want to include the bad numbers, you have to consider his good numbers too. And did Lee forget how did hit in clutch situations between 2003 and 2004, or is it more likely clutch hitting is more random than people believe?

jabrch
12-23-2004, 12:34 PM
Or the guy who is a career .265 hitter in nine minor league seasons?
If he hits .265 and has an obp of .330 I'll take that. Given his speed, that would be fine for our leadoff hitter. Worlds better than we have had in a while, huh? (the past two years he has had a .065 pt spread between avg and opb, so that's not much a reach to assume it continues.) If he gets that average up to .280, and the obp to .345, then we are really talking.

fquaye149
12-23-2004, 12:35 PM
You're only helping to prove my point. I can remember a lot of those occasions, too, but they happen to all teams. That's baseball. Until someone actually analyzes the numbers, we don't know if we're looking at a normal pattern or a problem that's unique to the Sox. Memory is not going to cut it.

I'd like to run that analysis myself, but I don't have the numbers and I'm not a statistician.
did the twins lose any games 1-0 to the tigers in the past two years?

Good hitting teams don't lose to lousy pitching...

I know it's anecdotal, but I'm confident the statistics will back me up.

You're saying you don't think the sox of the past 3 years were streaky?

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 12:41 PM
Looking at the 2004 results, there were quite a few times where we scored some big runs on the opposing teams, then got cold. Here I think is a prime example of our schitzophrenic offense:

5/7: 4 runs (L)
5/8: 2 runs (L)
5/9: 2 runs (L)
5/11: 15 runs (W)
5/13: 1 run (L)
5/14: 2 runs (L)
5/15: 1 run (L)
5/16: 11 runs (W)
5/17: 2 runs (L)
5/18: 4 runs (W)

During this 10 game stretch we were 3- 7, but yet we scored 44 runs and our opponents scored 36.

Here's another good one:

6/27: 9 runs (W)
6/29: 6 runs (W)
6/30: 9 runs (W)
7/1: 2 runs (W)
7/2: 2 runs (L)
7/3: 2 runs (L)
7/4: 1 run (L)
7/6: 2 runs (L)
7/7: 0 runs (L)
7/8: 9 runs (W)

Look at the wild inconsistency, we scored 9 runs 3 times in a 10 game period, but yet for the 10 game stretch we were only 5- 5.

rdivaldi
12-23-2004, 12:46 PM
Nice job of cherry-picking stats to back yor arguement.

Lee 2004 w/ RISP: .299/.366/.510
Lee 2004 w/ close and late: .286/.345/.519
Lee 2004 w/ runner on: .282/.351/.506

Lee 2003 w/ RISP: .346/.378/.654
Lee 2003 w/ RISP + 2 out: .338/.390/.704
Lee 2003 w/ runners on: .303/.339/.554

If you want to include the bad numbers, you have to consider his good numbers too. And did Lee forget how did hit in clutch situations between 2003 and 2004, or is it more likely clutch hitting is more random than people believe?
I don't think showing a guys stats with bases loaded and hitting with runners in scoring position with 2 outs is "cherry picking". Can you think of a more pressure filled situation? I doubt it. But yeah, he did show some decent numbers in other situations as you've shown above.

I'm not denying that Carlos was a good player, but I'm trying to bring in some perspective here. His legend is getting a bit ridiculous. CLee was an ancillary player on this team, probably the 4th best hitter behind Frank, Maggs and PK.

The Wimperoo
12-23-2004, 12:50 PM
Gleeman is a huge Twins fan, so everything he writes has a Twins slant on it.

Iwritecode
12-23-2004, 12:50 PM
Looking at the 2004 results, there were quite a few times where we scored some big runs on the opposing teams, then got cold. Here I think is a prime example of our schitzophrenic offense:

5/7: 4 runs (L)
5/8: 2 runs (L)
5/9: 2 runs (L)
5/11: 15 runs (W)
5/13: 1 run (L)
5/14: 2 runs (L)
5/15: 1 run (L)
5/16: 11 runs (W)
5/17: 2 runs (L)
5/18: 4 runs (W)

During this 10 game stretch we were 3- 7, but yet we scored 44 runs and our opponents scored 36.

Here's another good one:

6/27: 9 runs (W)
6/29: 6 runs (W)
6/30: 9 runs (W)
7/1: 2 runs (W)
7/2: 2 runs (L)
7/3: 2 runs (L)
7/4: 1 run (L)
7/6: 2 runs (L)
7/7: 0 runs (L)
7/8: 9 runs (W)

Look at the wild inconsistency, we scored 9 runs 3 times in a 10 game period, but yet for the 10 game stretch we were only 5- 5.

I remember those stretches well. Many more just like it also...

I'm curious to know what the Sox average # of RPG is in Wins. Then what is is in loses.

Frater Perdurabo
12-23-2004, 01:05 PM
Looking at the 2004 results, there were quite a few times where we scored some big runs on the opposing teams, then got cold. Here I think is a prime example of our schitzophrenic offense:

5/7: 4 runs (L)
5/8: 2 runs (L)
5/9: 2 runs (L)
5/11: 15 runs (W)
5/13: 1 run (L)
5/14: 2 runs (L)
5/15: 1 run (L)
5/16: 11 runs (W)
5/17: 2 runs (L)
5/18: 4 runs (W)

During this 10 game stretch we were 3- 7, but yet we scored 44 runs and our opponents scored 36.

Here's another good one:

6/27: 9 runs (W)
6/29: 6 runs (W)
6/30: 9 runs (W)
7/1: 2 runs (W)
7/2: 2 runs (L)
7/3: 2 runs (L)
7/4: 1 run (L)
7/6: 2 runs (L)
7/7: 0 runs (L)
7/8: 9 runs (W)

Look at the wild inconsistency, we scored 9 runs 3 times in a 10 game period, but yet for the 10 game stretch we were only 5- 5.

Given those stats, a fundamentally sound team goes 7-3 or 6-4 during each of those stretches.

nodiggity59
12-23-2004, 01:08 PM
Looking at the 2004 results, there were quite a few times where we scored some big runs on the opposing teams, then got cold. Here I think is a prime example of our schitzophrenic offense:

5/7: 4 runs (L)
5/8: 2 runs (L)
5/9: 2 runs (L)
5/11: 15 runs (W)
5/13: 1 run (L)
5/14: 2 runs (L)
5/15: 1 run (L)
5/16: 11 runs (W)
5/17: 2 runs (L)
5/18: 4 runs (W)

During this 10 game stretch we were 3- 7, but yet we scored 44 runs and our opponents scored 36.

Here's another good one:

6/27: 9 runs (W)
6/29: 6 runs (W)
6/30: 9 runs (W)
7/1: 2 runs (W)
7/2: 2 runs (L)
7/3: 2 runs (L)
7/4: 1 run (L)
7/6: 2 runs (L)
7/7: 0 runs (L)
7/8: 9 runs (W)

Look at the wild inconsistency, we scored 9 runs 3 times in a 10 game period, but yet for the 10 game stretch we were only 5- 5.

Exactly. Lee and Valentin were the instigators of this type of pattern.

champagne030
12-23-2004, 01:38 PM
There's nothing wrong with power hitters.

There is something wrong with Caballo - namely that he swings for the fences on every pitch.
That reveiw is what I would expect from someone not familiar with the situation.are you not familiar with the situation? carlos had more tb's, higher ave, more runs, higher obp....he had 20 less k's, 20 more RS....blah, blah, blah (we could trade stats all day, but....). he's not the problem we lost the games that we did.....and neither is PK. the trade to me is a role of the dice. we know what carlos gave in offense and i'll disagree with most on his lack of defense, but it comes down to whether the players we got come up roses for us or has another season that is quite possible.

spod - 2003 vs. 2004
vizcaino - 2002 (very good), 2003 (very bad), 2004 (avg/slightly above average)
el duque - 25+ starts good vs. 18 starts is very bad.
PTBNL = "hitting on 19"
platoon player = the $2M we were going to spend without the trade (which we still do need because willie cannot play anything other than 2b).

i do agree something had to be done regarding the 5th starter spot, leadoff and orlando is a major upgrade over whatever we puked up there, but i would have rather spent the dollars on a better FA SP. clement, perez would have been more of a sure thing (IMO) than a 35-39 year old, still coming off a shoulder injury and not pitching more than 146 innings more than twice in his MLB career (and none in the last 3). maybe i'm wrong, but i think carlos could've gotten us better in return and we could've spent the saved money more wisely.

i think that we really need to see what spod and el duque do the next couple of years to see if this trade helps us......i just see a lot of if's........

MeanFish
12-23-2004, 01:45 PM
Perez is hardly a sure thing. You can't just expect that a guy would dominate at a hitter's park in the AL after spending his career-to-date in a pitcher's park in the NL.

hold2dibber
12-23-2004, 01:55 PM
Obviously, the Sox problem offensively last year was not that that they had too much power (duh), it was that they didn't have anything else BUT power - i.e., little speed and not enough OBP (they were 1st in HRs and 3rd in SLG, but only 8th in OBP, 9th in SBs and 13th in SB%). The question is, to what extent has KW's offseason moves helped in the speed/OBP categories, and at what cost to the power categories? Below is a comparison of some relevant career stats of the starters from last year's opening day line-up that are now gone, versus the guys who have replaced them:

C - Olivo: .286 OBP, .399 SLG, 10 SBs/162 games played
C - Davis: .306, .366, 3 SBs/162

SS - Valentin: .321, .452, 14 SBs/162
SS - Uribe: .307, .438, 10 SBs/162

OF - Lee: .340, .488, 12 SBs/162
OF - Podsednik: .343, .400, 56 SBs/162

OF - Ordonez: .364, .525, 13 SBs/162
OF - Dye: .329, .464, 4 SBs/162

Its clear the Sox offense has changed, but I don't think it's gotten any better. There may be less feast or famine, but they aren't going to be winning many 10-8 or 7-5 games any more, that's for sure. Hopefully the pitching has improved because the Sox now have less power and they haven't addressed the substandard OBP, and that was the biggest problem the Sox had and still will have. Although they're now faster, trading power for speed, standing alone, is just going to make the offense worse overall.

Takatsufan
12-23-2004, 02:11 PM
This guy has no evidence to back up his claim, no reasons, nothing. He's problably an envious, disgruntled cub's fan.

FarWestChicago
12-23-2004, 02:39 PM
Can you think of a more pressure filled situation?Most statheads don't believe humans feel anything when batting. To them there is no difference between batting in the bottom of the ninth of a World Series game or in a spring training game. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

Iwritecode
12-23-2004, 02:51 PM
Obviously, the Sox problem offensively last year was not that that they had too much power (duh), it was that they didn't have anything else BUT power - i.e., little speed and not enough OBP (they were 1st in HRs and 3rd in SLG, but only 8th in OBP, 9th in SBs and 13th in SB%). The question is, to what extent has KW's offseason moves helped in the speed/OBP categories, and at what cost to the power categories? Below is a comparison of some relevant career stats of the starters from last year's opening day line-up that are now gone, versus the guys who have replaced them:

C - Olivo: .286 OBP, .399 SLG, 10 SBs/162 games played
C - Davis: .306, .366, 3 SBs/162

SS - Valentin: .321, .452, 14 SBs/162
SS - Uribe: .307, .438, 10 SBs/162

OF - Lee: .340, .488, 12 SBs/162
OF - Podsednik: .343, .400, 56 SBs/162

OF - Ordonez: .364, .525, 13 SBs/162
OF - Dye: .329, .464, 4 SBs/162

Its clear the Sox offense has changed, but I don't think it's gotten any better. There may be less feast or famine, but they aren't going to be winning many 10-8 or 7-5 games any more, that's for sure. Hopefully the pitching has improved because the Sox now have less power and they haven't addressed the substandard OBP, and that was the biggest problem the Sox had and still will have. Although they're now faster, trading power for speed, standing alone, is just going to make the offense worse overall.

Davis has less power but gets on base more. Any power from the catcher position is a bonus.

Jose Valentin hasn't had a OBP over .321 since 2001. In fact, it has been steadily decreasing for the past 3 years. Uribe had a OBP of .327 last year and still hasn't hit his prime. I think he should get better.

Posidnik is a gamble. He definetly has less power but I think he'll get on base more. He can wreck havoc once he does get on.

Magglio only had .351/.485 in the time he did play last year. That's not a big difference from the .329/.464 Dye had last year.

So honestly, in three of the four comparisons, it looks like we will have more baserunners. It will just be up to the guys like Thomas, Konerko, Everett and Rowand to drive them in.

cburns
12-23-2004, 02:57 PM
Our lineup might not be producing as many runs or hitting as many homers in the past few years, but our pitching staff is the best it's been in a long time, so other teams HOPEFULLY won't be scoring as much off us either.

Iwritecode
12-23-2004, 03:10 PM
Our lineup might not be producing as many runs or hitting as many homers in the past few years, but our pitching staff is the best it's been in a long time, so other teams HOPEFULLY won't be scoring as much off us either.

Another good point.

As long as the pitching staff can stay healthy. *knocks on wood*

ma-gaga
12-23-2004, 03:12 PM
Magglio only had .351/.485 in the time he did play last year. That's not a big difference from the .329/.464 Dye had last year.
...
It will just be up to the guys like Thomas, Konerko, Everett and Rowand to drive them in.I think this is what the article is saying. KW over-compinsated. Bottom line is Maggs is gone, Thomas is hurt and Lee is gone. They will be replaced by Dye, Everett and Podsednik. And that is a serious OPS downgrade.

The thing that really scares me is that this team looks very injury prone. We'll see if the lineup AND the pitching staff can hold up. It looks like KW's idea was to get older veteran players whom never get hurt. This team got a little older and marginally better.

We'll see if it holds up over the 6 month season. I think that is going to decide the 2005 W.Sox's fate; Injuries and depth.

:gulp:

Iwritecode
12-23-2004, 03:17 PM
I think this is what the article is saying. KW over-compinsated. Bottom line is Maggs is gone, Thomas is hurt and Lee is gone. They will be replaced by Dye, Everett and Podsednik. And that is a serious OPS downgrade.

The thing that really scares me is that this team looks very injury prone. We'll see if the lineup AND the pitching staff can hold up. It looks like KW's idea was to get older veteran players whom never get hurt. This team got a little older and marginally better.

Actually, we will be comparing Dye, Everett and Posednik with Lee and half a year of Thomas and Maggs. If they managed to get near the top of the league in runs scored with their two best players gone for half the year last year, I think they can at least equal that production with a full year of "lesser" players this coming year.

I think that is going to decide the 2005 W.Sox's fate; Injuries and depth.

That's what's been deciding their fate the past 4 years, why stop now? :wink:

petekat
12-23-2004, 03:31 PM
why do people feel compelled to quote from "authorities" like Hardball, Rototimes, rotoball, and other fantasy sites. These places are havens for wanna be sabametricians who don't follow the game, other than to look at some SAS-knockoff spreadsheet, and don't have any appreciation of the fundamentals of the game. Why should we waste time hanging on the word of these geeks? The goal is to get to 90 wins or whatever it takes to win the AL Central- not pile up meaningless stats. Please, let's desist from quoting these sites!





link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-other-trades/

Not a real strong endorsement of the deal...

"This spring, the White Sox will talk about their improved defense and how they are no longer depending on homers to win. Then, once the season starts, they'll start running and bunting like crazy. When September rolls around and they're looking up in the standings -- not only at the Twins again, but at the Indians too -- everyone in Chicago will point to some other random character trait the team has and proclaim that the problem. Then Williams can go out and "fix" it in the offseason, perhaps trading all the shoes in the state of Illinois and Aaron Rowand for two sprinters and the bat from The Natural (http://imdb.com/title/tt0087781/).

At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems. Until then, the Twins will have it a whole lot easier than they should and teams like the Brewers can pick up those icky power hitters for 50 cents on the dollar."

SoxFan48
12-23-2004, 03:37 PM
Exactly. Lee and Valentin were the instigators of this type of pattern.
So would rather have this type of inconsistency or the consistency of never less than 1 nor more than 5 runs in a game. Which pattern will lead to a better won-loss record? Do your homework.

maurice
12-23-2004, 03:45 PM
I don't understand why anyone expects the Sox to be a small-ball-only / no-power team in 2005. The roster still includes 7 guys capable of hitting between 25 and 45 HR. Even Podsednik and Davis are good for about 10 HR each over a full season. The only zero-power guys likely to get a significant number of ABs are Harris and Burke.

Jerome
12-23-2004, 03:55 PM
link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-other-trades/

Not a real strong endorsement of the deal...

"This spring, the White Sox will talk about their improved defense and how they are no longer depending on homers to win. Then, once the season starts, they'll start running and bunting like crazy. When September rolls around and they're looking up in the standings -- not only at the Twins again, but at the Indians too -- everyone in Chicago will point to some other random character trait the team has and proclaim that the problem. Then Williams can go out and "fix" it in the offseason, perhaps trading all the shoes in the state of Illinois and Aaron Rowand for two sprinters and the bat from The Natural (http://imdb.com/title/tt0087781/).

At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems. Until then, the Twins will have it a whole lot easier than they should and teams like the Brewers can pick up those icky power hitters for 50 cents on the dollar."



How could you not love this deal? We fleeced the Brewers. We got an amazing defensive outfielder, with speed, who is a great leadoff man, and a shutdown bullpen guy. All we gave up was a lousy defensive outfielder who was a clubhouse cancer. No team could ever win anything with Carlos Lee. Lee sucks. Podsednik is great.

doogiec
12-23-2004, 04:17 PM
The author of this article is a 21 year old journalism student. And the student happens to be from the University of Minnesota, walking distance from the Metrodome.

Other than the fact that he takes a shot at Sox management, why is anyone reading this?

ma-gaga
12-23-2004, 05:18 PM
Actually, we will be comparing Dye, Everett and Posednik with Lee and half a year of Thomas and Maggs. If they managed to get near the top of the league in runs scored with their two best players gone for half the year last year, I think they can at least equal that production with a full year of "lesser" players this coming year.

That's true. It looks like ESPN has "team splits" as a stat page:
Pre-All Star Break = 465 runs
Post-All Star Break = 402 runs

But Everett was acquired last July. Is F.Thomas healthy?? I thought he was out until June. Wouldn't that be a push? Half a season of Everett and half a season of F.Thomas. They can't both DH. Similarly Everett and Dye can't both play RF at the same time.

It seems like we should compare: Dye and Podsednik for Lee, 1/2 Maggs, 1/4 Borchard, and 1/4 Perez (or however they split up RF after Maggs went down last year). Certainly if Dye stays healthy, I think the new team is better. But not by a lot. Maybe we're looking at an additional 30 runs over the year.

Take 402 * 2 + 30 = 834 runs scored. That seems about right. It's still a downgrade from the healthy 2004 team who was on pace to score 930 runs.

- Something else is missing here. Maybe Valentine's slump, I'm not sure, that difference from the first half to the second half of last year is pretty dramatic. As I recall, the W.Sox schedule was HARDER in the first half as well.

Well, I don't have the answers. Just something to think about.

:gulp: (7 guys hitting 25+ homeruns... hahahaha)

ma-gaga
12-23-2004, 05:22 PM
Something else is missing here
ahh. "Games played"; Pre All-star 84, post all-star 78.

Runs/game:
Pre Allstar = 5.50
Post Allstar = 5.15

So still a dramatic drop.

fquaye149
12-23-2004, 05:42 PM
How could you not love this deal? We fleeced the Brewers. We got an amazing defensive outfielder, with speed, who is a great leadoff man, and a shutdown bullpen guy. All we gave up was a lousy defensive outfielder who was a clubhouse cancer. No team could ever win anything with Carlos Lee. Lee sucks. Podsednik is great.
so we have to take the position that EITHER lee sucks or podsednik AND vizcaino suck?

Fire Kenny
12-23-2004, 06:57 PM
link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-other-trades/

Not a real strong endorsement of the deal...

"This spring, the White Sox will talk about their improved defense and how they are no longer depending on homers to win. Then, once the season starts, they'll start running and bunting like crazy. When September rolls around and they're looking up in the standings -- not only at the Twins again, but at the Indians too -- everyone in Chicago will point to some other random character trait the team has and proclaim that the problem. Then Williams can go out and "fix" it in the offseason, perhaps trading all the shoes in the state of Illinois and Aaron Rowand for two sprinters and the bat from The Natural (http://imdb.com/title/tt0087781/).

At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems. Until then, the Twins will have it a whole lot easier than they should and teams like the Brewers can pick up those icky power hitters for 50 cents on the dollar."
Hahahahahahaha, oh man making fun of KW is a treat.

johnny_mostil
12-23-2004, 07:27 PM
You're only helping to prove my point. I can remember a lot of those occasions, too, but they happen to all teams. That's baseball. Until someone actually analyzes the numbers, we don't know if we're looking at a normal pattern or a problem that's unique to the Sox. Memory is not going to cut it.

I'd like to run that analysis myself, but I don't have the numbers and I'm not a statistician.
Here's the data, nicely tabulated already:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/team_game_results2004.html

You don't have to be a statistician. If you look at the data you'll see the White Sox were not all than unusual.

Dadawg_77
12-23-2004, 07:33 PM
I disagree. Most teams have differences from game to game, but only the Sox can score 30 runs in two games and then lose 7 in a row, scoring 2 or less every time. Those might not be the actual numbers, but the Sox's median, I guarantee, would not be impressive as their #3 runs scored in the league number.

I'm willing to bet their median would rate them much lower, around league average. here you go
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/team_game_results2004.html

Go to record by runs scored. Sox scored 4 runs or less in 81 games. So your median is 4 or 5.

batmanZoSo
12-23-2004, 07:44 PM
Most statheads don't believe humans feel anything when batting. To them there is no difference between batting in the bottom of the ninth of a World Series game or in a spring training game. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif
Everyone knows stats can prove anything--14% of all people know that. There's a stat that measures range and they're close to cracking the formulas for clutch-factor, attitude-quotient, and heart-o-meter. :rolleyes:

batmanZoSo
12-23-2004, 07:50 PM
l

At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?) or not having enough guys who can get from first base to second base safely most of the time, but rather that they have a guy running the baseball team who thinks those are the problems.
This guy's a total idiot. Okay, what is the problem then? He can say what isn't, but has no answers or insight of his own.

And I love this line:


At some point, someone in charge might realize that the problem isn't having too many powerful hitters (can you imagine how absurd that sounds to someone just learning about the baseball?)
I think I know someone who's just "learning about the baseball." :rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
12-23-2004, 07:57 PM
Most statheads don't believe humans feel anything when batting. To them there is no difference between batting in the bottom of the ninth of a World Series game or in a spring training game. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif
Wrong once again. Most statheads say there isn't any pattern to success in clutch hitting situations from year to year. One year a player will be great and the next year, horrible. Why? Does his ability to handle pressure change from year to year, or more simply the ball bounce more ofter one year then the other in those situations? Due to small sample sizes plate appearance in situations, the range created by 90% confidence would basically make any observations you have based one those number meaningless.

Also these are professional ball players who have handle pressure before and succeeded. If they hadn't they wouldn't be at this level. To make statements based on activity where a great player fails 6 out 10 times, in a small sample, isn't fair to the player. Do certain people handle pressure better then others, yes. But success in athletic competion is a horrible method to judge that.

Dadawg_77
12-23-2004, 07:58 PM
Has anyone seen one objective review of the Lee trade, saying the Sox get a good deal? I haven't.

SoxxoS
12-23-2004, 08:01 PM
Has anyone seen one objective review of the Lee trade, saying the Sox get a good deal? I haven't.
That's because the trade was taken as player for player...not the money the Sox saved and what they did/plan to do with it.

Dadawg_77
12-23-2004, 08:03 PM
That's because the trade was taken as player for player...not the money the Sox saved and what they did/plan to do with it.
It is hard to evaluate something by mind reading. You can only look at what the Sox have done.

SoxxoS
12-23-2004, 08:05 PM
It is hard to evaluate something by mind reading. You can only look at what the Sox have done.
True, but we were talking about what was wrote (and what it's negative) about the trade, and I told you the reason why. Knowing KW, you should know better than to know is isn't going to make moves.

The media is positive about the White Sox about twice a year...they don't want to go over their quota too soon.

CWSGuy406
12-23-2004, 08:45 PM
Most statheads don't believe humans feel anything when batting. To them there is no difference between batting in the bottom of the ninth of a World Series game or in a spring training game. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif
No, but what JRIG is saying is that hitting in 'clutch' situations are too fluctuating to use as a con against Lee.

Some guys are clutch, no doubt. But one can't say that Carlos isn't clutch because he had poor numbers last season, yet ignore that he hit excellently in clutch situations in '03.

One more thing. Many of you speak about Carlos as an 'all-or-nothing' type of hitter, yet I refuse to believe that. Howcome Carlos has pretty low strikeout numbers if he's so all-or-nothing? Also, he wouldn't be hitting .300+ at both the Cell, and away from the Cell, if he were such an all-or-nothing guy?

fquaye149
12-23-2004, 09:18 PM
No, but what JRIG is saying is that hitting in 'clutch' situations are too fluctuating to use as a con against Lee.

Some guys are clutch, no doubt. But one can't say that Carlos isn't clutch because he had poor numbers last season, yet ignore that he hit excellently in clutch situations in '03.

One more thing. Many of you speak about Carlos as an 'all-or-nothing' type of hitter, yet I refuse to believe that. Howcome Carlos has pretty low strikeout numbers if he's so all-or-nothing? Also, he wouldn't be hitting .300+ at both the Cell, and away from the Cell, if he were such an all-or-nothing guy? There's more brutal ways to be all or nothing than to strike out or homer...ask GIDPaul Konerko about his 2003 season...when he only struck out 50 times and only had 18 homers

meanwhile, situational hitting is not displayed in Batting AVerage. While statheads might dispute that there's no benefit to sacrifices, it is NOT possible to deny that, for instance, popping it up or hitting it to the left side of the field is less productive than hitting it to the right side with a runner on 2nd and 1 out or less. Carlos, being the pull, power hitter (except of course for the beginning of last year when he actually was going to all fields) would not go the other way very often causing unproductive outs. That's another way of being an all or nothing hitter.

We were MURDER at moving runners over...and Carlos had a hand in it. I'm not saying his production didn't help make up for it and I think his power will be missed, but he was certainly a player you wouldn't be any more surprised to see crap himself with risp than come through with a big hit - ALL OR NOTHING.

johnny_mostil
12-23-2004, 10:12 PM
link: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-other-trades/

Not a real strong endorsement of the deal...


Aaron Gleeman is

A college student, and
A Twins fan.
'nuff said.

Jerome
12-23-2004, 10:14 PM
That's because the trade was taken as player for player...not the money the Sox saved and what they did/plan to do with it.


Is El Duque and Podsednik a fair trade for Carlos? Having the 5th starter is amazing, wonderful news, but I still think no.

And as a straight up comparison, not including 'what we plan to do with the money we saved', player vs player, this was a terrible deal. El Duque helps, but Podsednik vs Lee was just not a fair deal. In an offseason where we lose Magglio's production (no guarantee that Dye will improve upon his 2004), we have no one besides Konerko (for the first month) who can hit.

With no Frank for a month, we are really gonna miss CLEE.

SoxFan48
12-23-2004, 10:48 PM
The Lee deal needs to be analyzed in terms of getting Podsednik, Vizcaino, Hermanson and El Duque. While I agree that Podsednik is being way overvalued on this board (Tom Goodwin is good comparable), the deal does fill some holes--outfield defense, bullpen and the missing 5th starter. Was this enough for Lee--we will know by next summer.

A. Cavatica
12-23-2004, 11:29 PM
Here's the data, nicely tabulated already:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/team_game_results2004.html

You don't have to be a statistician. If you look at the data you'll see the White Sox were not all than unusual.Thanks for the link!

(I'm adding these numbers in my head; sorry for any mistakes.)

Let's compare the Sox, Twins, Red Sox, Cardinals, Rangers and Indians. I picked the Twins because they won the division and had the same team OBP as we did; the Red Sox & Cardinals because they won the pennants; and the Rangers & Indians because they scored about the same number of runs as we did last season. All but the Indians had better records than we did.

Sox scored 0-2 runs 45 times and won once (.022).
MIN scored 0-2 runs 37 times and won 4 (.108).
BOS scored 0-2 runs 24 times and won 4.
STL scored 0-2 runs 31 times and won 10.
TEX scored 0-2 runs 35 times and won 4.
CLE scored 0-2 runs 36 times and won 3.

Sox scored 3-6 runs 64 times and won 38 (.594).
MIN scored 3-6 runs 80 times and won 48 (.600).
BOS scored 3-6 runs 77 times and won 38.
STL scored 3-6 runs 85 times and won 52.
TEX scored 3-6 runs 76 times and won 40.
CLE scored 3-6 runs 76 times and won 37.

Sox scored 7+ runs 53 times and won 44 (.830).
MIN scored 7+ runs 45 times and won 40 (.889).
BOS scored 7+ runs 61 times and won 56.
STL scored 7+ runs 46 times and won 43.
TEX scored 7+ runs 51 times and won 45.
CLE scored 7+ runs 50 times and won 40.

Of these teams, we scored 0-2 runs more frequently than anyone else, and scored 3-6 runs less frequently than anyone else. We scored 7+ runs more often than anyone but Boston.

The Twins had a better winning percentage than we did in "all" games, in "something" games, and in "nothing" games. Ergo, if we had the same distribution of all/something/nothing games as the Twins did, we would still have lost the division.

So it looks like there may be some basis for the "all or nothing" theory, but we lost the division because we scored 0.52 more runs per game than Minnesota while allowing 0.88 more.

JRIG
12-24-2004, 05:17 AM
No, but what JRIG is saying is that hitting in 'clutch' situations are too fluctuating to use as a con against Lee.

Some guys are clutch, no doubt. But one can't say that Carlos isn't clutch because he had poor numbers last season, yet ignore that he hit excellently in clutch situations in '03.

Yes, thank you. You can say this about a large majority of players in MLB. They'll hit well in clutch situations some years and poorly in others.

Realist
12-24-2004, 08:08 AM
The Lee deal needs to be analyzed in terms of getting Podsednik, Vizcaino, Hermanson and El Duque. While I agree that Podsednik is being way overvalued on this board (Tom Goodwin is good comparable), the deal does fill some holes--outfield defense, bullpen and the missing 5th starter. Was this enough for Lee--we will know by next summer.Of course you're pretty much exactly right. Then again, if we all thought like you, "The Roadhouse" would be rendered pretty much obsolete. :wink:

On top of that, isn't one of the great things about baseball the fact that we can argue at length about our opinions about this and that player and twist stats all winter long while we chomp at the bit and dream about the next time we walk through the cement pillars and see the freshly cut green grass of the outfield on opening day?

BTW, how many days until pitchers and catchers report? :bandance:

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 10:39 AM
The Lee deal needs to be analyzed in terms of getting Podsednik, Vizcaino, Hermanson and El Duque. While I agree that Podsednik is being way overvalued on this board (Tom Goodwin is good comparable), the deal does fill some holes--outfield defense, bullpen and the missing 5th starter. Was this enough for Lee--we will know by next summer.
So your point is that the farm system was not supplying adequate depth and that the White Sox were being crucified by the last six or seven spots on their roster (which I think is undeniable). I think that given the horrendous production from the fifth starter, the horrendous production from the last guy or two in the pen, and the amazing Tag Team of Incompetence in right field after Maggs went down, you would be right.

There are two huge questions for 2005: can Rowand, Uribe, and Konerko hold their gains, and can Cooper turn around Contreras and (to a lesser extent) Garland while keeping El Duque healthy? Whether or not the Sox sign another infielder (another depth problem) or how good a hitter Podsednik is will be secondary compared the the answer to those first two questions.

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 10:41 AM
No, but what JRIG is saying is that hitting in 'clutch' situations are too fluctuating to use as a con against Lee.

Some guys are clutch, no doubt. But one can't say that Carlos isn't clutch because he had poor numbers last season, yet ignore that he hit excellently in clutch situations in '03.I never said anyting about Carlos. Statheads have repeated here hundreds of times there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. Your statement above that "some guys are clutch" flies in the face of their dogma. JRIG's subsequent agreement with you is probably a recognition of the absurdity of this bit of stathead dogma when stated clearly in English as opposed to acronyms. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 11:02 AM
I never said anyting about Carlos. Statheads have repeated here hundreds of times there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. Your statement above that "some guys are clutch" flies in the face of their dogma. JRIG's subsequent agreement with you is probably a recognition of the absurdity of this bit of stathead dogma when stated clearly in English as opposed to acronyms. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gifIt's not "dogma". Hundreds of people have looked desperately for evidence of a repeatable special clutch hitting skill in the numbers and they've never found any, even given the tendency of statistical analysts to turn numerical mouse jewels into bowling balls.

It isn't like a bunch of Coke-bottle-bespectacled guys with pocket protectors sat around drinking Jolt Cola deciding that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter and making up all sorts of propaganda to prove it. The clutch-hitting analysts initially believed that they did exist, and they thought these unsung Heroes of Clutchness needed to be found, measured, and celebrated. So they tried to find them, first in the 1960s. They failed. They tried again. No dice. Over and over. They decided there wasn't enough information, so they started tracking Late Inning Pressure Situations, and all sorts of other new categories, desperately looking for The Icemen we all know just have to exist. You know, the guys with the Great Character instilled in them by steely-eyed selfless baseball coaches in Little League who always come through with the game on the line like Frank Merriwell, who drag themselves to the plate bleeding from their bellies to deliver that clutch two-run place single to the opposite field off Youngberry -- er, sorry, I meant Eckersley. You know, the guys who win ballgames because they are better people than the other team. The unflappable, indefatigable, predestined-to-heaven Heroes When It Matters.

Nobody could find them. Nobody's ever found them. And finally, after twenty years of looking, they came to the reluctant conclusion that all major league hitters are clutch hitters because batting in front of thousands of people with millions of dollars at stake must effectively eliminate the choke-prone long before we ever know their names. If you can find them, you'll be a hero to all the people out there wanting to know where Joe DiMaggio has gone... FarWest, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you!

(Note to Teal Police: Nothing is in teal above because I'm dead serious.)

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 01:07 PM
(Note to Teal Police: Nothing is in teal above because I'm dead serious.)You're entitled to believe whatever silliness you want. You have that right in this country. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

fquaye149
12-24-2004, 01:29 PM
It's not "dogma". Hundreds of people have looked desperately for evidence of a repeatable special clutch hitting skill in the numbers and they've never found any, even given the tendency of statistical analysts to turn numerical mouse jewels into bowling balls.

It isn't like a bunch of Coke-bottle-bespectacled guys with pocket protectors sat around drinking Jolt Cola deciding that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter and making up all sorts of propaganda to prove it. The clutch-hitting analysts initially believed that they did exist, and they thought these unsung Heroes of Clutchness needed to be found, measured, and celebrated. So they tried to find them, first in the 1960s. They failed. They tried again. No dice. Over and over. They decided there wasn't enough information, so they started tracking Late Inning Pressure Situations, and all sorts of other new categories, desperately looking for The Icemen we all know just have to exist. You know, the guys with the Great Character instilled in them by steely-eyed selfless baseball coaches in Little League who always come through with the game on the line like Frank Merriwell, who drag themselves to the plate bleeding from their bellies to deliver that clutch two-run place single to the opposite field off Youngberry -- er, sorry, I meant Eckersley. You know, the guys who win ballgames because they are better people than the other team. The unflappable, indefatigable, predestined-to-heaven Heroes When It Matters.

Nobody could find them. Nobody's ever found them. And finally, after twenty years of looking, they came to the reluctant conclusion that all major league hitters are clutch hitters because batting in front of thousands of people with millions of dollars at stake must effectively eliminate the choke-prone long before we ever know their names. If you can find them, you'll be a hero to all the people out there wanting to know where Joe DiMaggio has gone... FarWest, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you!

(Note to Teal Police: Nothing is in teal above because I'm dead serious.)
have you ever heard of a shortstop named derek jeter? or an outfielder named reggie jackson?

no such thing as clutch hitters, huh? it's not like we're talking about santa claus here.

jabrch
12-24-2004, 03:21 PM
Has anyone seen one objective review of the Lee trade, saying the Sox get a good deal? I haven't.

Define Objective? Isn't it all subjective anyhow?

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 03:52 PM
have you ever heard of a shortstop named derek jeter? or an outfielder named reggie jackson?

no such thing as clutch hitters, huh? it's not like we're talking about santa claus here.
Let's define terms. "Clutch hitter" is used to describe a player of otherwise "average" ability who magically turns into Ty Cobb when the game in on the line. You know the old saw: "Don't tell me how many you hit, tell me when you hit." These players simply do not exist. Players who are good enough to deliver in the clutch routinely deliver all the time. Any player who lets up just because the game isn't on the line would be a moron anyway because that action would cost him huge dollars at contract time.

Both of the guys you mention can/could flat out hit. They don't/didn't magically become better under pressure or when it matters, they were good all of the time. Both of them kill/killed you when the game wasn't on the line, too. They are not clutch hitters, they are good hitters.

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 03:57 PM
Let's define terms. "Clutch hitter" is used to describe a player of otherwise "average" ability who magically turns into Ty Cobb when the game in on the line.There's your problem. Wrong definition. No wonder why the statheads can't find anything. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 03:59 PM
There's your problem. Wrong definition. No wonder why the statheads can't find anything. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
What definition do you want? Any other definition is basically meaningless drivel.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2004, 04:15 PM
There are good hitters and there are bad hitters. For example...

Good Hitter ------> :hurt

Bad Hitter --------> :hitless

Frank Thomas isn't a "clutch hitter" because he comes through (relatively speaking) all the time. He's a good hitter regardless of the situation.

Royce Clayton isn't a "clutch hitter" because... well because he can't hit, period. He's a bad hitter regardless of the situation.

Hitting is both an art and a science. Some have talent to do it well, but most of us don't. However the notion that hitters can turn it on and turn it off has been debunked over and over and over again.

Either they can hit, or they can't. End of story.
:cool:

:buddylee
"Let me tell you about the all-time fielding percentage record I set that will probably last forever..."

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 04:47 PM
Frank Thomas isn't a "clutch hitter" because he comes through (relatively speaking) all the time. He's a good hitter regardless of the situation.To me a "clutch hitter" is a good hitter who remains a good hitter under extreme pressure. I don't think all of them do.

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 05:07 PM
To me a "clutch hitter" is a good hitter who remains a good hitter under extreme pressure. I don't think all of them do.
Ah, the non-choke definition. Now, define extreme pressure. The playoffs? The quality of pitching is usually much higher, the weather's cold, and and the sample sizes are small. Pennant race games? Er, how did they get there? Like I said, people have looked for this and never found anything unexpected. I don't know about you, but I'd think appearing at all in an MLB game would constitute pretty extreme pressure.

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 05:13 PM
Ah, the non-choke definition. Now, define extreme pressure. The playoffs? The quality of pitching is usually much higher, the weather's cold, and and the sample sizes are small. Pennant race games? Er, how did they get there? Like I said, people have looked for this and never found anything unexpected. I don't know about you, but I'd think appearing at all in an MLB game would constitute pretty extreme pressure.Like I said, believe whatever you want. I have no desire to argue with statheads about human psychology. You think you are experts. I think my background is perhaps better. It's fascinating you guys don't think choking exists in professional sports. Truly fascinating. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif

beckett21
12-24-2004, 05:17 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd think appearing at all in an MLB game would constitute pretty extreme pressure.
Yeah, maybe the first 10 times or so. After that, it is a job like any other, just magnified.

Performing surgery on another live human being is pretty extreme pressure, too. But once you have done it a few times, it too is just a job.

I agree 100% with FWC.

Daver
12-24-2004, 05:18 PM
Any other definition is basically meaningless drivel.
As is most of what statheads believe in, but it doesn't stop them from believing in it.

johnny_mostil
12-24-2004, 05:23 PM
Like I said, believe whatever you want. I have no desire to argue with statheads about human psychology. You think you are experts. I think my background is perhaps better. It's fascinating you guys don't think choking exists in professional sports. Truly fascinating. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gif
Of course I believe choking exists. But that's not what the clutch hitting searchers were looking for, they were looking for players who supposedly played better, not players who declined less under pressure. "Clutch hitter" is used primarily to explain why somebody unproductive (e.g., Timo) is actually more valuable than his pathetic numbers make it appear. I read the same crappy Baseball Digest magazines that other seamheads read when I was growing up, and they were filled with silly arguments about some lame hitter being a great clutch guy even though he stunk most of the time. That sort of clutch hitting is not real. If you redefine the concept, you can't retroactively ridicule those who were looking for a different definition.

Oh, wait, sure you can!

FarWestChicago
12-24-2004, 05:28 PM
Of course I believe choking exists. But that's not what the clutch hitting searchers were looking for, they were looking for players who supposedly played better, not players who declined less under pressure. "Clutch hitter" is used primarily to explain why somebody unproductive (e.g., Timo) is actually more valuable than his pathetic numbers make it appear. I read the same crappy Baseball Digest magazines that other seamheads read when I was growing up, and they were filled with silly arguments about some lame hitter being a great clutch guy even though he stunk most of the time. That sort of clutch hitting is not real. If you redefine the concept, you can't retroactively ridicule those who were looking for a different definition.

Oh, wait, sure you can!Sure I can. Anybody looking for that is just a goofball. To anybody sensible "clutch" has always meant the performance didn't decline under pressure. Jordan, Bird, let them take the last shot. They'll shoot it just like it's the first quarter. Number 12 on the bench might have trouble breathing.

flo-B-flo
12-24-2004, 08:04 PM
Sometimes the Bucky Dents, the Bill Mazerowski's go over and beyond. The more famous - Barry Bonds, Reggie, Jeter have their moments. And it goes the other way too. Witness Bonds mega gagging in the playoffs. Or Dave Winfield.

A. Cavatica
12-24-2004, 11:44 PM
Another key point about the myth of clutch hitters: clutch hits obviously exist. Clutch hitters exist when you look at small samples, like a postseason (hello, David Ortiz) or even a season. But the players who are clutch one season have no greater chance of being clutch the following season than anybody else (and again, "clutch" is defined as playing better than your normal performance level when the game is on the line).

CWSGuy406
12-25-2004, 12:29 AM
FWIW, I do believe that there are clutch hitters, regardless of what the stats say...


I was just saying that someone calling Carlos Lee not-clutch because he had poor 'clutch' numbers this year is stupid, because in '03 he put up very good 'clutch' numbers. The stat alone is just too fluctuating for my liking, and really cannot/should not be used as a pro-con for Carlos Lee (not saying that it can't for another player, though).

FarWestChicago
12-25-2004, 12:43 AM
(and again, "clutch" is defined as playing better than your normal performance level when the game is on the line).Who in their right mind would define "clucth" like that? Is that what statheads do? Make up absurd propositions and disprove them? What a complete and utter waste of time.

fquaye149
12-25-2004, 01:44 AM
Of course I believe choking exists. But that's not what the clutch hitting searchers were looking for, they were looking for players who supposedly played better, not players who declined less under pressure. "Clutch hitter" is used primarily to explain why somebody unproductive (e.g., Timo) is actually more valuable than his pathetic numbers make it appear. I read the same crappy Baseball Digest magazines that other seamheads read when I was growing up, and they were filled with silly arguments about some lame hitter being a great clutch guy even though he stunk most of the time. That sort of clutch hitting is not real. If you redefine the concept, you can't retroactively ridicule those who were looking for a different definition.

Oh, wait, sure you can!
because you say that's what "clutch hitter" describes doesn't mean that's what "clutch hitter" describes.

Good grief. Clutch hitters are people who come through time and again in do-or-die situations.

It has nothing to do with how they regularly play. For instance, the greatest hitter of all time, Ted Williams, hit anemically in his only playoff appearance. Therefore, you'd be hard-pressed to call him a clutch hitter. However, Derek Jeter and Reggie Jackson and Paul Molitor ate up the playoffs when they had a chance. They are all good or great hitters no matter what the scenario, yet they are also clutch hitters. Then there are lousy hitters like Jose who manage to clutch up in big situations. There's a reason we call him a Twins/Cub Killer.

Think back to the ALCS when the Yankees **** themselves in the last four games. Think about A-Rod - a great ballplayer, a great hitter...

But I mean, I can't print a spreadsheet out about this, so it must be worthless.

fquaye149
12-25-2004, 01:46 AM
FWIW, I do believe that there are clutch hitters, regardless of what the stats say...


I was just saying that someone calling Carlos Lee not-clutch because he had poor 'clutch' numbers this year is stupid, because in '03 he put up very good 'clutch' numbers. The stat alone is just too fluctuating for my liking, and really cannot/should not be used as a pro-con for Carlos Lee (not saying that it can't for another player, though).
regardless of whether Lee is clutch or not, I am just dumbfounded by this rejection of the existence of "clutch hitters."

ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHY WE WANTED ECKSTEIN?
because he knew "how to win?"

You can't have it both ways - either players can "know how to win" or they can't.

OEO Magglio
12-25-2004, 02:09 AM
FWIW, I do believe that there are clutch hitters, regardless of what the stats say...


I was just saying that someone calling Carlos Lee not-clutch because he had poor 'clutch' numbers this year is stupid, because in '03 he put up very good 'clutch' numbers. The stat alone is just too fluctuating for my liking, and really cannot/should not be used as a pro-con for Carlos Lee (not saying that it can't for another player, though).
I really don't think there is a stat for being clutch. Just because a hitter is good with runners in scoring position doesn't make him clutch. I guess close and late situations is the closest thing to being a clutch stat but there isn't a stat for lets say a guy hitting with a runner on 2nd and 2 outs down by a run, that's just an example but you get the picture.

FarWestChicago
12-25-2004, 02:27 AM
I really don't think there is a stat for being clutch. Just because a hitter is good with runners in scoring position doesn't make him clutch.Huh? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

Look, you statheads have a serious semantic problem with the word "clutch". However, most people don't seem to. You guys need to lay off the silly definitions of "clutch". It's really just pointless.

OEO Magglio
12-25-2004, 02:31 AM
Huh? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

Look, you statheads have a serious semantic problem with the word "clutch". However, most people don't seem to. You guys need to lay off the silly definitions of "clutch". It's really just pointless.
West, please don't call me a stathead, I'm far from it. Hitting with runners in scoring position is clutch in a different way, what I meant by clutch is what guy do you feel comfortable up with when the game is on the line, who will drive in the big run when you need them to and no it's not always the guy with the big numbers. That's what I meant, I phrased that poorly.

FarWestChicago
12-25-2004, 02:38 AM
West, please don't call me a stathead, I'm far from it. Hitting with runners in scoring position is clutch in a different way, what I meant by clutch is what guy do you feel comfortable up with when the game is on the line, who will drive in the big run when you need them to and no it's not always the guy with the big numbers. That's what I meant, I phrased that poorly.Whoa, sorry about that. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

ma-gaga
12-25-2004, 02:59 AM
You think you are experts. ... It's fascinating you guys don't think choking exists in professional sports. Truly fascinating. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/cool.gifWay to typecast/blanket slam all of stat-head nation.

David Ortiz is a good hitter who doesn't choke in clutch situations. That makes him truly a 'clutch' hitter. Same with Jeter, Matsui, Posada and Bernie Williams. Same with Manny, Damon, Veritek and Millar. All are good hitters that can hit good pitching, and are key contributers on good teams that make the playoffs. I think that's truly what makes 'clutch' hitting.

Plus it doesn't hurt that they've each won a ring, and that they play for the two most obnoxiously covered teams in professional sports history. Their accomplishments are deified by non-statheads as much as Billy Beane is by stat-heads...

:gulp: Clutch hitting exists. But trying to target specific players that have "clutch" ability doesn't work. The stat-head idea is to get good hitters, they are more likely to be "clutch" then bad ones. Yeah, Jeter is "clutch", but he's a pretty good hitting SS for a team that is going to spend something like $60MM on their starting 5 pitchers. pfffew.

Nick@Nite
12-25-2004, 05:36 AM
:tomatoaward

FarWestChicago
12-25-2004, 08:37 AM
Way to typecast/blanket slam all of stat-head nation.

David Ortiz is a good hitter who doesn't choke in clutch situations. That makes him truly a 'clutch' hitter.I certainly didn't mean to slam you, ma. You've always been a rather sensible fellow, as your second statement demonstrates. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

fquaye149
12-25-2004, 10:08 AM
Way to typecast/blanket slam all of stat-head nation.

David Ortiz is a good hitter who doesn't choke in clutch situations. That makes him truly a 'clutch' hitter. Same with Jeter, Matsui, Posada and Bernie Williams. Same with Manny, Damon, Veritek and Millar. All are good hitters that can hit good pitching, and are key contributers on good teams that make the playoffs. I think that's truly what makes 'clutch' hitting.

Plus it doesn't hurt that they've each won a ring, and that they play for the two most obnoxiously covered teams in professional sports history. Their accomplishments are deified by non-statheads as much as Billy Beane is by stat-heads...

:gulp: Clutch hitting exists. But trying to target specific players that have "clutch" ability doesn't work. The stat-head idea is to get good hitters, they are more likely to be "clutch" then bad ones. Yeah, Jeter is "clutch", but he's a pretty good hitting SS for a team that is going to spend something like $60MM on their starting 5 pitchers. pfffew.
i agree for the most part, and I think it is the best idea to get good hitting and not worry about "clutch" so much. However, it sometimes becomes apparent that players are not clutch in which case you must reevaluate their value to the team.

i'm not saying Carlos is not clutch...but there are certainly players who are good hitters but not clutch. (buckner....just kidding)

johnny_mostil
12-25-2004, 11:19 AM
i'm not saying Carlos is not clutch...but there are certainly players who are good hitters but not clutch. (buckner....just kidding)
Who?

Frank Thomas? He did hit .000 in the ALDS in 2000 :angry: . But, wait a minute, he hit .353 with a .593 OBP in 1993 in the ALCS.:cool:

Juan Gone? He hit just .083 in 1998 and .182 in 1999 in the ALDS. Oops, .438 and .348 in 1996 and 2001...:o:

Derek Jeter? .200 in the WS this year :?: . .148 in 2001. .250 in 1996 . Overall, of course, he's at .306 in the series vs .315 lifetime...

Reggie? He only hit .227 in 11 league championship series in his career, the choker, costing his (evil) teams 6 World Series shots:cool: .

Samm-ME? .245 in 15 postseason games -- but .308 in the NLCS last year with 2 homers and 6 RBI in 7 games:?: . (One of the homers was as 'clutch' as you can get.)

Barry Steroids? .245 in the playoffs overall -- but .471 with 4 homers in the 2002 World Series!:?:

These aren't hand-selected examples. These are the first six players I looked up, two suggested here, one obvious, and three players with supposed character flaws.

I want to believe in choking. But I can't really find specific examples outside the same range of variation I would get if players were just represented by D&D dice. This lack of ability to find choking outside what you'd expect from normal luck is what leads statheads to say that special clutch hitting ability is largely myth created by storytelling sportswriters.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-25-2004, 01:39 PM
To me a "clutch hitter" is a good hitter who remains a good hitter under extreme pressure. I don't think all of them do. Your definition isn't "clutch hitting." That's luck.

Bobby Thomson had the most "clutch" hit in the entire history of the game back in 1951. But he wasn't a "clutch hitter." He got a dinger at the right moment -- AKA luck.

Bill Mazeroski had the first-ever walk-off world championship dinger back in 1960. But he wasn't a "clutch hitter." He got a dinger at the right moment -- AKA luck.

Joe Carter a "clutch hitter?" I don't think so. Damn lucky, though.

If I hit my number on a roulette wheel I'm not silly enough to think I'm a "clutch player." I think I'm damned lucky.

Having said all that, I would rather be lucky than good. I believe the entire argument here is circling this very point.
:cool:

CWSGuy406
12-25-2004, 01:55 PM
regardless of whether Lee is clutch or not, I am just dumbfounded by this rejection of the existence of "clutch hitters."

ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHY WE WANTED ECKSTEIN?
because he knew "how to win?"

You can't have it both ways - either players can "know how to win" or they can't.
I don't know about everyone else, but the reason I wanted Eck is because he rarely strikes out, has a fairly high OBP (.340s or so, somewhere aroudn there IIRC), and he plays the game the right way - he's "Johnny Hustle", a grinder, if you will. I wanted him because he was the sparkplug to the Angels 2002 World Series team.

BTW - I don't know if your last comment was directed at me, but not once have I brought up 'knowing how to win' in this thread, so I don't know what you're talking about...

fquaye149
12-25-2004, 07:37 PM
I don't know about everyone else, but the reason I wanted Eck is because he rarely strikes out, has a fairly high OBP (.340s or so, somewhere aroudn there IIRC), and he plays the game the right way - he's "Johnny Hustle", a grinder, if you will. I wanted him because he was the sparkplug to the Angels 2002 World Series team.

BTW - I don't know if your last comment was directed at me, but not once have I brought up 'knowing how to win' in this thread, so I don't know what you're talking about...
it wasn't directed at you...but now that you mention it, players who put the ball in play are more likely to be clutch hitters. Like PHG said, you can't control when you get a basehit or even if your well-hit ball will be a basehit. But there is a marked difference between putting good wood on the ball with the game on the line and whiffing.

That's why, with the exception of Jackson who tests the rule, almost all clutch hitters are contact hitters.

and btw, .340 is not a fairly high obp...