PDA

View Full Version : Joe Sheehan Explains Why He Got the Sox Wrong This Year


FloridaSox
07-19-2005, 01:34 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4233

Reasons:

Playing above expected W-L record because of 23-9 record in one-run games.
Some players have performed above Joe's expectations--read Buerhle and Garland.
He underestimated the Sox upgrades--Iguchi, Dye, Hermanson.

Heffalump
07-19-2005, 01:39 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4233

Reasons:

Playing above expected W-L record because of 23-9 record in one-run games.
Some players have performed above Joe's expectations--read Buerhle and Garland.
He underestimated the Sox upgrades--Taguchi, Dye, Hermanson.
Top of the order much more productive than last year.
Offense is weaker, but pitching and defense (first in Defensive Efficiency) are running at record pace.


6. I am an idiot and have no business making baseball predictions in the first place.

BridgePortNative
07-19-2005, 01:40 PM
gotta register for this stuff

buehrle4cy05
07-19-2005, 01:42 PM
6. I thought Scott Podsednik's abysmal OPS would cost the team the division, because the Twins have the best organization in baseball right behind the beloved A's.

I think that should be in teal...

ChiWhiteSox1337
07-19-2005, 01:43 PM
Did he really use "Taguchi" instead of Iguchi? I am tired of hearing Taguchi said on Comcast Sportsnet when they're talking about Iguchi...

FloridaSox
07-19-2005, 01:44 PM
Did he really use "Taguchi" instead of Iguchi? I am tired of hearing Taguchi said on Comcast Sportsnet when they're talking about Iguchi...

I bad...my mistake...blame Joe for his analysis, me for the spelling.

Walkman
07-19-2005, 01:46 PM
Why does he waste more ink by writing that he underpredicted the Sox because the players performed better than he expected? No sh**. I think he immediately qualifies for a job at ESPN.

Randar68
07-19-2005, 01:47 PM
6. I am an idiot and have no business making baseball predictions in the first place.
7) Still being 4th in the league in HR's hardly constitutes a "small ball" team
8) OPS means diddly-squat at the top of the order
9) "There is no such thing as clutch hitting", or at least that was what I had read once...
10) Good pitching beats good hitting, stupid...
11) Veteran bench players deliver

And for all his talk about overacheiving, where is the mention of Rowand and Konerko underacheiving or being without Thomas for 2+ months, or Marte being injured, or the various other players who have played, statistically, below a reasonable expectation for them?

Gotta be some crazy reason the media selected the Sox somewhere around 3rd or 4th in their division yet they have the best record in baseball and have trounced the living hell out of everyone in their division (including 2 wild card contenders)

Flight #24
07-19-2005, 01:50 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4233

Reasons:

Playing above expected W-L record because of 23-9 record in one-run games.
Some players have performed above Joe's expectations--read Buerhle and Garland.
He underestimated the Sox upgrades--Iguchi, Dye, Hermanson.


I.e. "My model is still perfect, performance outside the model is still considered to be an aberration"

:whatever:

Tragg
07-19-2005, 01:53 PM
I.e. "My model is still perfect, performance outside the model is still considered to be an aberration"

:whatever:


My favorite is the As lack of post season performance. They won't admit their model's weakness in this regard - they just call it "luck"

The one good thing about this team is that NONE of the players are having "career years" offensively and really the only pitchers are Garland and the 2 bullpen guys.

I don't think any BS he can think up can explain why he had us fourth.

MUScholar21
07-19-2005, 02:02 PM
This whole "didn't think they would be this good in 1 run games is not acceptable-the White Sox were unbelievable in the first half of last year in 1 run games, and only slowed down in the second half.

All these analysts need to admit one fact- they didn't think a brand of baseball traditionally reserved for the National League would work against Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and all the defensive hacks who swing out of their shoes every time up to bat.

GoGoSoxReborn
07-19-2005, 02:04 PM
At least he is the first mediot to actually admit he was wrong. Even though his reasons are kind of bogus. I guess its a step in the right direction. He could have pulled an espn and completely ignored the white sox for the remainder of the season, and hope to death that they collapse so he didn't look like an idiot.

Flight #24
07-19-2005, 02:07 PM
This whole "didn't think they would be this good in 1 run games is not acceptable-the White Sox were unbelievable in the first half of last year in 1 run games, and only slowed down in the second half.



It's also intellectual dishonesty. They didn't like the Sox because the team was built to play low-scoring, 1-run games. They think winning 1-run games is luck because they can't identify quantifiable variables that correlate with that. Thus there must be no such variable or combination of variables.

Forget that if you step back, it's quite natural to say "Good relief pitching, good defense, good starting pitching and execution no offense will lead to a lot of wins in close games because you won't make mistakes but you'll be able to take advantage of oppoenets mistakes". If it can't be quantified, Joe Sheehan & co will insist it doesn't exist. It's basically the statistical version of Carl Everett and his "I never saw a dinosaur, so they don't exist".

Exhibit ZZZZZZZZ as to why it's not statistical analysis of baseball that's the problem, it's some of the guys doing the analysis that's the problem.

fquaye149
07-19-2005, 02:08 PM
At least he is the first mediot to actually admit he was wrong. Even though his reasons are kind of bogus. I guess its a step in the right direction. He could have pulled an espn and completely ignored the white sox for the remainder of the season, and hope to death that they collapse so he didn't look like an idiot.

No he isn't. And he's the worst so far. Most people say I made a mistake rather than "The White Sox are defying the odds!!!"

He's still saying they SHOULDN'T be this good.

Rip him. 85% of the people in the world have jobs. the other 15 work at BP.

Iwritecode
07-19-2005, 02:23 PM
All these analysts need to admit one fact- they didn't think a brand of baseball traditionally reserved for the National League would work against Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, and all the defensive hacks who swing out of their shoes every time up to bat.

[devils advocate]Actually, they haven't played against Ramirez or Sheffield yet...[/devils advocate]

maurice
07-19-2005, 02:25 PM
It's also intellectual dishonesty. They didn't like the Sox because the team was built to play low-scoring, 1-run games. They think winning 1-run games is luck because they can't identify quantifiable variables that correlate with that. Thus there must be no such variable or combination of variables.

It's dishonest even if you concede this point for the sake of argument. Even if the Sox were .500 in 1-run games, they still wouldn't be anything like a 4th place team.

The one good thing about this team is that NONE of the players are having "career years" offensively

Right. It doesn't mean much to say that a couple of guys are performing above expectation if an even larger number of players are producing below expectations.

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 02:31 PM
And for all his talk about overacheiving, where is the mention of Rowand and Konerko underacheiving or being without Thomas for 2+ months, or Marte being injured, or the various other players who have played, statistically, below a reasonable expectation for them?

RTFA.

"They've picked up 25 points of OBP in each of the top two lineup spots over last year, and that, rather than smallball or smartball or what have you, is why they're scoring enough runs to win despite drop-offs in production or playing time from the core of last year's offense. Paul Konerko (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/konerpa01.shtml), Aaron Rowand (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rowanaa01.shtml) and Juan Uribe (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/uribeju01.shtml) are all well off their '04 lines, while Joe Crede (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/credejo01.shtml) is slightly down and Frank Thomas (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/thomafr04.shtml) has missed most of the year."


Other than his the first section of "one of those years" (the Sox are far better than .560 team) I found the analysis pretty good. He did state that there was improvement by players that he didn't expect (although he has no love for Hermy). And he does a good job of showing how pitching and defense have contributed to the success of the team.

Obviously that's not a surprise to those following the Sox. Like most articles you'll see on the Sox, it's intended for those who don't see them often.

maurice
07-19-2005, 02:35 PM
They've picked up 25 points of OBP in each of the top two lineup spots over last year, and that, rather than smallball or smartball or what have you, is why they're scoring enough runs to win

This is a retarded statement. Getting the top 2 guys in the order on base and moving them around the bases is probably the #1 rule of smallball / smartball / Ozzie-ball.

It is equally retarded to say that you expected the Sox to finish 4th, but also expected more production from half of the lineup. If production is down, the Sox should have performed worse than expected. While Pods OBP is just above his career averages, it's extremely difficult to argue that Tad's .334 OBP is so much better than expected that it offset the dip in production by the rest of the lineup and moved the team from 4th place to the best record in baseball.

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 02:39 PM
This is a retarded statement. Getting the top 2 guys in the order on base and moving them around the bases is probably the #1 rule of smallball / smartball / Ozzie-ball.

Um, it doesn't work without those guys on base. Besides, Sox don't play small ball. They play balanced ball.

Iwritecode
07-19-2005, 02:40 PM
This is a retarded statement. Getting the top 2 guys in the order on base and moving them around the bases is probably the #1 rule of smallball / smartball / Ozzie-ball.

That's kinda what I was thinking too.

Get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in.

Works better than get 'em on and hope somebody hits a 3-run shot. :cool:

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 02:43 PM
It is equally retarded to say that you expected the Sox to finish 4th, but also expected more production from half of the lineup. If production is down, they should have performed worse than expected. Whiel Pods OBP is just above his career averages, it's extremely difficult to argue that Tad's .334 OBP is so much better than expected that it offset the dip in production by the rest of the lineup and moved the team from 4th place to the best record in baseball.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying Iguchi and some others are larege imrpovements over what the Sox had last year. And even though some hitters are performing less than expected, the pitching and defense have made up for it.

maurice
07-19-2005, 02:47 PM
Um, it doesn't work without those guys on base.

Um, getting those guys on base = Ozzie ball / small ball / smart ball. The Sox always hit HR. Ozzie's main complaint about the 2004 squad was that the 1 and 2 hitters didn't get on base enough. He wanted to immitate the Marlins' combo of Pierre and Castillo. KW did exactly that, adding small ball to the power already on the team. He also added speed and defense, at Ozzie' request. In other words, the difference between the inadequate 2004 Sox and the MLB-best 2005 Sox = smallball. Sheehan's argument to the contrary lacks any basis in reality.

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 02:54 PM
Um, getting those guys on base = Ozzie ball / small ball / smart ball. The Sox always hit HR. Ozzie's main complaint about the 2004 squad was that the 1 and 2 hitters didn't get on base enough.

Small ball refers to getting people on and sacrificing outs for runs to the exclusion of hitting for power. While the Sox do their fair share of sacrificing they also hit for power. Small ball is the antithesis of "take and rake", or bashball. The Sox style of play is closer to the center (leaning toward small ball) than to either of those styles of play.

The strength of this team is not that they play small ball. It's that they can play small ball when they need to, and can also play bashball when they need to. And they can do either as well as or better than any team in the league.

Addendum: I should add, getting guys on base is also a key component of bashball.

maurice
07-19-2005, 02:54 PM
even though some hitters are performing less than expected, the pitching and defense have made up for it.

Not "some." Half the lineup, accoring to Sheehan.

If improved pitching and defense (aka "smallball") simply "made up for" the decline in expected offensive production by half the lineup, the Sox would be exactly where Sheehan predicted -- 4th place. The worse-than-expected offense and better-than-expected pitching / defense would cancel out. Instead, the Sox have the best record in baseball, exposing his pre-season prediction as utter nonsense.

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 02:59 PM
Not "some." Half the lineup, accoring to Sheehan.

If improved pitching and defense (aka "smallball") simply "made up for" the decline in expected offensive production by half the lineup, the Sox would be exactly where Sheehan predicted -- 4th place.

That's simply absurd. Pitching has always been regarded as more important than hitting, yet here you're saying they're equal. Actually you're saying that the improved pitching is only equal to cancelling out a dip in the offensive performance of half the lineup.

maurice
07-19-2005, 03:04 PM
No, smart ball / Ozzie-ball means (1) getting people on, and (2) moving them over when the situation dictates it or trying to drive the ball when the situation dictates it. Smart ball / Ozzie-ball = pitching, defense, speed, and situational hitting, which is impossible if the top of the order doesn't get on base. Thus, it's assinine to claim that adding OBP at the top of the order is not "smartball or what have you."

The Sox are exactly what they claim to be. Remember, the Sox never claimed that they wouldn't hit for power. That was a claim made by the brilliant minds in the media, and strongly denied by KW, Ozzie, and WSI. Ozzie went so far as to ask the media to stop calling it "small ball," a statement that Sheehan foolishly ridicules in the face of very strong evidence.

maurice
07-19-2005, 03:09 PM
That's simply absurd. Pitching has always been regarded as more important than hitting, yet here you're saying they're equal. Actually you're saying that the improved pitching is only equal to cancelling out a dip in the offensive performance of half the lineup.

No, YOU said it. I'm quoting YOUR term "made up for." You're calling yourself absurd. LMAO! That's classic.

To go from 4th place to the best record in baseball, the improved performance would have to do far more than "make up for" the dip in performance by half the lineup. It would have to completely obliterate the dip AND ALSO turn a sub-.500 team into the best team in baseball. That's not what happened. What happened is that Sheehan's pre-season prediction was absurdly and irrationally pessimistic, as noted at the time by WSI.

fquaye149
07-19-2005, 03:19 PM
No, YOU said it. I'm quoting YOUR term "made up for." You're calling yourself absurd. LMAO! That's classic.

To go from 4th place to the best record in baseball, the improved performance would have to do far more than "make up for" the dip in performance by half the lineup. It would have to completely obliterate the dip AND ALSO turn a sub-.500 team into the best team in baseball. That's not what happened. What happened is that Sheehan's pre-season prediction was absurdly and irrationally pessimistic, as noted at the time by WSI.

Look - if you live and die by the numbers, what are you going to say? My mode of thinking about baseball is moronic? My icons picked the best team in baseball to finish 4th and now are trying to say their numbers are still right?

You're sermonizing to a granite slab. I commend you for it...but I feel bad at the same time...

Do you honestly think you can get a propellerhead to see things your way?

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 03:23 PM
No, smart ball / Ozzie-ball means (1) getting people on, and (2) moving them over when the situation dictates it or trying to drive the ball when the situation dictates it.

Yes, we agree. Unfortunately I was talking about "small ball". There's a difference. Sheehan doesn't subscribe to styles, he was dismissing the whole concept.

maurice
07-19-2005, 03:29 PM
"Unless I miss my guess, with Valentin gone, they might well have just one left-handed batter (Ross Gload) in their Opening Day lineup."
- December 2004

Sox predicted to finish in 4th place, behind the Twins, Jndjans, and Tigers, and with a 71-91 record.
- March 2005

"The White Sox are substituting activity for performance, which is one of the last steps before 'unemployment' for a baseball management team."
- March 2005

"Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle are mid-rotation innings guys who get paid like aces."
- March 2005

The Twins should approach 800 runs this season, as Justin Morneau plays a full year and is one of the ten best hitters in the league."
- March 2005

"I donąt think the Sox are a .500 team, though. I think they're a bit worse than that. . . . The Twins are still going to win the AL Central."
- June 2005

Yeah, he was just off a little bit. A few surprising performances make up the 30+ game difference between reality and his prediction.

scottjanssens
07-19-2005, 03:31 PM
No, YOU said it. I'm quoting YOUR term "made up for." You're calling yourself absurd. LMAO! That's classic.

To go from 4th place to the best record in baseball, the improved performance would have to do far more than "make up for" the dip in performance by half the lineup. It would have to completely obliterate the dip AND ALSO turn a sub-.500 team into the best team in baseball. That's not what happened. What happened is that Sheehan's pre-season prediction was absurdly and irrationally pessimistic, as noted at the time by WSI.

I'm saying the improvement in pitching this year has more than made up for the dip in several player's offense, yes. It doesn't matter how few runs you score if you hold your opponent to fewer runs.

Your problems with reading comprehension have led you to believe that I'm defending or even agree with Sheehan's preseason prediction. I predicted the Sox to finish first. I felt they improved significantly in the all aspects of pitching as well as defensively and that would give them what they needed to win. I admit I expected much more of Konerko and Uribe than we've seen but I also predicted the Twins would falter with the loss of half their infield. Like Sheehan my wins prediction would appear to be abysmally low. I predicted the Sox to win 93.

I find it amusing the amount of bashing that BP takes when the bashers so often don't read the entire article or misinterpret what's being said. At any rate, I'm done with this thread. Good day and go Sox!

fquaye149
07-19-2005, 03:31 PM
"Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle are mid-rotation innings guys who get paid like aces"

The funny thing is, Buehrle's making 6 mil. For a stathead to be this off...or was he thinking of aces at Tampa Bay and Kansas City...


And by the way...aren't we closing in on his preseason win prediction?...

Countdown to 71...

maurice
07-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Yes, we agree. Unfortunately I was talking about "small ball". There's a difference. Sheehan doesn't subscribe to styles, he was dismissing the whole concept.

That's fine, but I didn't criticize what YOU said. I criticized and quoted what Sheehan said. Sheehan is wrong . . . yet again.

maurice
07-19-2005, 03:44 PM
I'm saying the improvement in pitching this year has more than made up for the dip in several player's offense, yes.

Great. Good for you. This has exactly nothing to do with anything I wrote. Sheehan apparently has claimed that the improvement has not only made up for the dip but also turned a 71 win club into a 100+ win club. That's retarded. The reality is that his 71-win prediction was irrational at the time and that subsequent events have proven this fact. If you don't disagree with this statement, you probably should stop replying and defending this mediot.

Your problems with reading comprehension have led you to believe that I'm defending or even agree with Sheehan's preseason prediction.

Now you're the one who's acting retarded. I'm attacking the article and the author of the article. You've defended the article and said, "I found the analysis pretty good." This thread is not about you. As I said in my previous post, "I didn't criticize what YOU said. I criticized and quoted what Sheehan said. Sheehan is wrong . . . yet again." Contrary to your narcissistic belief, you are not the center of the universe.

I predicted the Sox to finish first.

Good for you. Nobody cares. You are not the topic of this thread.

dividedsk717
07-19-2005, 04:28 PM
I just want to say this: I love it when people try to use statistics to predict everything. Why play the flipping season? Let's just have the stats tell us who's gonna win. :angry:


Stats fail to include the one variable - the human variable - that can't be quantified.

As a manager of people at my place at work, I've figured out that each person has a certain capability, but there are an infinite number of variables that can contribute to consistently overacheiving or consistently underacheiving. Stats can't tell you exactly what those factors are.

santo=dorf
07-19-2005, 04:32 PM
"Unless I miss my guess, with Valentin gone, they might well have just one left-handed batter (Ross Gload) in their Opening Day lineup."
- December 2004

Sox predicted to finish in 4th place, behind the Twins, Jndjans, and Tigers, and with a 71-91 record.
- March 2005

"The White Sox are substituting activity for performance, which is one of the last steps before 'unemployment' for a baseball management team."
- March 2005

"Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle are mid-rotation innings guys who get paid like aces."
- March 2005

The Twins should approach 800 runs this season, as Justin Morneau plays a full year and is one of the ten best hitters in the league."
- March 2005

"I donąt think the Sox are a .500 team, though. I think they're a bit worse than that. . . . The Twins are still going to win the AL Central."
- June 2005

Yeah, he was just off a little bit. A few surprising performances make up the 30+ game difference between reality and his prediction.

That's some great stuff right there. Is there a way to e-mail this high pitch (ever hear him talk) geek?

EDIT: Just like to also add how many fools I see around the internet who follow this guy's belief that Stolen Bases are not worth it unless you're stealing at a 75% stealing rate. If this ******* can't accept being wrong, or is making stupid quotes like the ones above, why accept his belief of >75% SB as if it's part of the Bible? :rolleyes:

jeremyb1
07-19-2005, 06:41 PM
Yeah, Ozzie Guillen is obsessed with OBP, next to Billy Beane no one finds it more important. He might as well manage the A's.

Daver
07-19-2005, 06:49 PM
Yeah, Ozzie Guillen is obsessed with OBP, next to Billy Beane no one finds it more important. He might as well manage the A's.

This has what to do with this thread?

jeremyb1
07-19-2005, 08:24 PM
This has what to do with this thread?

The multiple posts suggesting that "Ozzie ball" and "smart ball" are synonymous with stressing a high on base percentage at the top of the order.

Daver
07-19-2005, 08:30 PM
The multiple posts suggesting that "Ozzie ball" and "smart ball" are synonymous with stressing a high on base percentage at the top of the order.

You're extropalating a lot out of people pointing out that the reason for the Sox success has been because of the OBP of the top of the order into Ozzie preaching it.

Statheads never change, if your theory is failing, steer the argument to where you can make it work.

Keep it to your blog or find an A's board, they actually believe that ****.

jabrch
07-19-2005, 08:47 PM
He is one of the biggest morons to be given a pedastal. Sheehan has absolutely no capacity to be genuinely intellectual as an analyst. He builds his hyopthesis, then his models, and he throws out any data that doesn't conform to his model/hypothesis.

He was wrong because in his perpetual effort to solve baseball in mathematical terms, he failed to realize what truly makes the game GREAT. You can not calculate EXPECTED performance based on the last AB. the last week, the last month, season, three years, etc. You can take a sample - but that sample doesn't necesarily predict anything with any accuracy that can be extrapolated to any other INDIVIDUAL event.

jabrch
07-19-2005, 08:48 PM
This has what to do with this thread?

What surprises you about that tripe?

jeremyb1
07-19-2005, 11:23 PM
You're extropalating a lot out of people pointing out that the reason for the Sox success has been because of the OBP of the top of the order into Ozzie preaching it.

Statheads never change, if your theory is failing, steer the argument to where you can make it work.

Keep it to your blog or find an A's board, they actually believe that ****.

Yeah. The A's believe in On Base Percentage which is now apparently the key to Ozzie Guillen's baseball philsophy. I've been emphasizing the need for better on base skills at the top of the order since Ray Durham left town and few on this board and certainly not Ozzie Guillen ever raced to jump on that bandwagon. "Ozzie ball" and "smartball" have always been a different way of saying small ball which is primarily regarded as stealing bases, bunting, hit and run, and situational hitting in this day and age. If on base percentage fits in it's a distant fourth. For people to suggest taking walks and getting on base is one of the main pillars of what Ozzie, the local, and mainstream national media refer to as "smart ball", "small ball", and "Ozzie ball" is insanity. It's just another way of manipulating everything Sheehan says because he's a stat guy and has written pessimistic things about the White Sox front office and chance of contending in the past. Here's the deal, Sheehan is a "stat head" and therefore places a high emphasis on on base percentage. If Ozzie also thinks OBP is key and therefore deserves the credit for the improvement in on base skills at the top of the lineup this season Sheehan attributes our winning to in part then I guess that makes Ozzie a stathead and an idiot like myself and Joe Sheehan based on the rest of this thread...

Randar68
07-19-2005, 11:40 PM
"Ozzie ball" and "smartball" have always been a different way of saying small ball which is primarily regarded as stealing bases, bunting, hit and run, and situational hitting in this day and age.

Really? Could have fooled me. Sox are 4th in the league in HR's and stress moving runners over, stealing, being aggressive, and manufacturing runs when the situation dictates. It is why they have the record they do and why they have so infrequently been held under 2 runs in games as compared to the streaky nature of their offense the past few years...

Then again, being in the top half of the league in runs, HR's, and SB's must mean they are playing "small ball"...

Have you guys ever heard of a balanced attack?

Randar68
07-19-2005, 11:42 PM
RTFA.

Here's a clue: KMFA...

Pods: .368 OBP
Gooch: .334 OBP...

So, you're telling me, based on our favorite stat de jour, that this is one of the top leadoff combos in baseball?

You know, seeing as how sacrificing at-bats to move runners over and stealing bases are useless in today's game...

I don't think Shehan's mother could defend this garbage to the extent blind followers like yourself do.

santo=dorf
07-19-2005, 11:57 PM
Besides, Sox don't play small ball. They play balanced ball.
"Ozzie ball" and "smartball" have always been a different way of saying small ball which is primarily regarded as stealing bases, bunting, hit and run, and situational hitting in this day and age.

I love it. The two guys defending this ****ty writer can't even agree on the style of play the Sox use.

Jeremy, why do you PAY for that stupid site? Is it true that you're really a Cubs fan? That would explain it.

jeremyb1
07-20-2005, 07:12 AM
Really? Could have fooled me. Sox are 4th in the league in HR's and stress moving runners over, stealing, being aggressive, and manufacturing runs when the situation dictates. It is why they have the record they do and why they have so infrequently been held under 2 runs in games as compared to the streaky nature of their offense the past few years...

Then again, being in the top half of the league in runs, HR's, and SB's must mean they are playing "small ball"...

Have you guys ever heard of a balanced attack?

I completely agree with you Randar, that is what the team is actually doing. I never meant to suggest Ozzie was telling his players at the top of the lineup not to get on base and take walks. What I'm refering to is what the main goals of his strategy is and how it is reported by the media and Ozzie does not emphasize hitting the home run and taking walks as the key to our philosophy, no one thinks "home runs" when they think smart ball. The home runs are the result of having Frank, Dye, Everett, and Paully on the roster, guys put there by Williams and Schuler not the result of smart ball the way I see it.

Flight #24
07-20-2005, 09:19 AM
I completely agree with you Randar, that is what the team is actually doing. I never meant to suggest Ozzie was telling his players at the top of the lineup not to get on base and take walks. What I'm refering to is what the main goals of his strategy is and how it is reported by the media and Ozzie does not emphasize hitting the home run and taking walks as the key to our philosophy, no one thinks "home runs" when they think smart ball. The home runs are the result of having Frank, Dye, Everett, and Paully on the roster, guys put there by Williams and Schuler not the result of smart ball the way I see it.

The point is that it's not OBP and HR that are driving the Sox success, it's that while they have that, they ALSO have the ability to manufacture runs - which is something BP & co don't really believe in.

Even Bill James, the godfather of statheads has said that "teams bunt, etc tend to consistently be better at 1-run games". But winning in those games is still primarily luck according to BP. *****.

Ozzieball is about situational execution over everything else. Which means you try to get on base and hit HRs, but when the situation demands it you move guys over, etc. He also believes in the "annoyance" factor that team speed provides. Add in strong relief pitching and D, and that's a recipe for winning in close games, which is what they've been doing - not "getting lucky".

Edit: By the way, at the risk of copletely hijacking the discussion, anyone else notice the striking similarity in jeremyb1's sig of the 2004 Jeremy Reed totals and his 2005 MLB totals to date? Allowing for a translation to the majors from AAA, it's about what you'd expect: .260-some BA & .330-.350-some OBP. Could be his "true level", which is solid for a major league CF with great D, but nothing worth crying over.

fquaye149
07-20-2005, 10:15 AM
I completely agree with you Randar, that is what the team is actually doing. I never meant to suggest Ozzie was telling his players at the top of the lineup not to get on base and take walks. What I'm refering to is what the main goals of his strategy is and how it is reported by the media and Ozzie does not emphasize hitting the home run and taking walks as the key to our philosophy, no one thinks "home runs" when they think smart ball. The home runs are the result of having Frank, Dye, Everett, and Paully on the roster, guys put there by Williams and Schuler not the result of smart ball the way I see it.

And all of this has what to do with Sheehan's moronic preseason predictions, midseason predictions, and then ferocious backtracking?

It's good to see some of you propellerheads half-assedly admit you were wrong about our team's offensive capabilities (of course you would never TRULY admit you were wrong about this team...too much Sheehan in you)

However Sheehan said:

Maggs and Lee would have taken all our power with them
We wouldn't win 71 games because Ozzie's style of baseball wouldn't be a'ight in the AL
Pods was almost certainly going to be the 2004 and not the 2003.

He didn't say: "we are going to play a balanced ball attack that emphasized speed or defense" so who cares if you will agree with Randar?

Did anyone else miss Jeremy as much as I did?

Tragg
07-20-2005, 10:52 AM
I've been emphasizing the need for better on base skills at the top of the order since Ray Durham left town and few on this board and certainly not Ozzie Guillen ever raced to jump on that bandwagon.
Oh, hell, half this board was concerned about our OBP, particularly our lack of a lead-off hitter the last few seasons. So what did we do - we went out and got one. He was sort of a gamble, based on last year (but not based on the prior year), but Ozzie and Kenny figured they knew what the problem was last year when they got him - he had been doing some fence-swinging in Milwaukee. It's called good scouting.
OBP is not the be all and end all. Eventually runners must be driven in. To win games with walks and singles means you MUST have a pitching staff like the As have had the last several years because you sure as hell aren't going to score a lot of runs with nothing but walk/single hitters, high obp or not.

The thing I note about Sheehan is that he actually lamented the loss of Valentine. Here's a guy with a horrendous OBP year after year, and he acted like this was a material loss for us. That shows that his analysis was effed up from the start (and then calling MB and Garcia "mid rotation guys" - I'm sorry, who does Detroit or Cleveland have at the top of the rotation who are better than MB and Freddie in their WORST seasons?; and what great pitchers at tops of rotations make similar salaries of $6 and $8 million?). He just effed up our analysis, period.

Tragg
07-20-2005, 10:59 AM
Even Bill James, the godfather of statheads has said that "teams bunt, etc tend to consistently be better at 1-run games". But winning in those games is still primarily luck according to BP. *****.


And it's so logical for that to be true. The bunt-teams are minimizing their chances to score multiple runs, by increasing their chances to score one run. Well, late in games if you do that, you're going to win a lot of 1-run games instead of two-run games. You need a bullpen behind you to pull that off, but low and behold, we have one.

And my personal opinion is that it's a smart approach late in games (if you have a bullpen) but not the greatest approach early in games.

Flight #24
07-20-2005, 11:08 AM
And my personal opinion is that it's a smart approach late in games (if you have a bullpen) but not the greatest approach early in games.

Which is the essence of smartball: Execute the play that's appropriate for the moment. Early in the game, against a mediocre pitcher, you probably won't see Iguchi bunt with Pods on 1st. Later in the game, or against a top pitcher, you probably will.

maurice
07-20-2005, 01:08 PM
Oh, hell, half this board was concerned about our OBP, particularly our lack of a lead-off hitter the last few seasons.

And Ozzie agreed, stating publicly that his primary goal was to acquire 1 and 2 hitter in the mold of the Marlins' Pierre and Castillo. He later stated publicly that the Sox should not be called a "small ball" team, because they can do much more than that. He suggested that the media apply the term "smart ball" to his brand of baseball for the express purpose of distinguishing it from a small ball only team.

Thus, Sheehan and anybody else who thinks that small ball = smart ball / Ozzie ball must have been living in the closet for the past year.

jeremyb1
07-20-2005, 06:15 PM
The point is that it's not OBP and HR that are driving the Sox success, it's that while they have that, they ALSO have the ability to manufacture runs - which is something BP & co don't really believe in.

Even Bill James, the godfather of statheads has said that "teams bunt, etc tend to consistently be better at 1-run games". But winning in those games is still primarily luck according to BP. *****.

Ozzieball is about situational execution over everything else. Which means you try to get on base and hit HRs, but when the situation demands it you move guys over, etc. He also believes in the "annoyance" factor that team speed provides. Add in strong relief pitching and D, and that's a recipe for winning in close games, which is what they've been doing - not "getting lucky".

Edit: By the way, at the risk of copletely hijacking the discussion, anyone else notice the striking similarity in jeremyb1's sig of the 2004 Jeremy Reed totals and his 2005 MLB totals to date? Allowing for a translation to the majors from AAA, it's about what you'd expect: .260-some BA & .330-.350-some OBP. Could be his "true level", which is solid for a major league CF with great D, but nothing worth crying over.

That's all well and good Flight but it has more or less nothing to do with anything Sheehan wrote about in the article that inspired this thread or the point I have restated three times at this point. It all eventually seems to come back to "propellerheads" and "bunting" no matter what and eventually it's just perpetually beating a dead horse.

My point one final time is that implying that Ozzie deserves the overwhelming majority of the credit for increasing the team's OBP at the top of the lineup because of "smart ball" is irresponsible when neither Ozzie, the local media, the mainstream national media, or even most posters on this board as far as I can tell consider on base skills to be the key to "smart ball".

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the value of bunts, steals, and situation hitting, Jeremy Reed, and Bill James in another thread, via PM/e-mail, or through my blog but what I'm interested in discussing in this thread is the supposed rebuttal to Sheehan's argument that the team is leveraging more runs via a high OBP at the top of the order that high OBP is "the point" of "small ball", "smart ball", "Ozzie ball", Ozzie Guillen's managerial philosophy - whatever you want to call it.

jeremyb1
07-20-2005, 06:17 PM
And all of this has what to do with Sheehan's moronic preseason predictions, midseason predictions, and then ferocious backtracking?

It's good to see some of you propellerheads half-assedly admit you were wrong about our team's offensive capabilities (of course you would never TRULY admit you were wrong about this team...too much Sheehan in you)

However Sheehan said:

Maggs and Lee would have taken all our power with them
We wouldn't win 71 games because Ozzie's style of baseball wouldn't be a'ight in the AL
Pods was almost certainly going to be the 2004 and not the 2003.

He didn't say: "we are going to play a balanced ball attack that emphasized speed or defense" so who cares if you will agree with Randar?

Did anyone else miss Jeremy as much as I did?

If that had the slightest bit to do with what my previous posts in this thread have been about I might consider responding but I don't feel like it's a good use of time to expand the scope of the discussion to sabermetrics, baseball strategy, and the hundreds of articles written by one columnist in general.

maurice
07-20-2005, 07:22 PM
implying that Ozzie deserves the overwhelming majority of the credit for increasing the team's OBP at the top of the lineup because of "smart ball" is irresponsible when neither Ozzie, the local media, the mainstream national media, or even most posters on this board as far as I can tell consider on base skills to be the key to "smart ball". . . . what I'm interested in discussing in this thread is the supposed rebuttal to Sheehan's argument that the team is leveraging more runs via a high OBP at the top of the order that high OBP is "the point" of "small ball", "smart ball", "Ozzie ball", Ozzie Guillen's managerial philosophy - whatever you want to call it.

Again, these statements have absolutely no basis in reality, as I've explained throughout this thread. If you were really "interested in discussing" Sheehan's irrational contention that small ball = smart ball / Ozzie ball and necessarily excludes OBP by the 1 / 2 hitters, you might begin by actually responding to the points contained in those previous posts. Otherwise, you might as well go back into that closet with Sheehan.

Anything written by "the local media [and] the mainstream national media" could not possibly be any less relevant to Ozzie's offseason intentions. Moreover, Tragg is undoubtedly correct when he states that "half this board was concerned about our OBP, particularly our lack of a lead-off hitter the last few seasons" . . . but you didn't bother to respond to that point either. You must find it easier to be disagreeable than to rationally disagree.

jabrch
07-20-2005, 09:15 PM
The style of baseball we play has LITTLE to do with OBP, and more to do with converting baserunners to runs. Sheehan is an idiot. He just doesn't have the stones enough to admit his failed ethos and those who followed it will be soon considered a blip in the history of baseball. Baseball still is won by the best team. The best team, more often than not, is the most balanced team. Sheehan's belief in his select few stats continues to be proven wrong at every turn. Yes you need to get on base. Yes you need to take walks. But you also need to bunt, you need to hit HRs, you need to field, you need to pitch and you need to run the bases. Sheehan's legions of dopes believed that bunting and stealing bases gave teams a better chance of LOSING. That's just plain stupid. The earth, my friends, is indeed not flat. But just because you propose something radical, that is rejected at the time, does not mean that it is right - or that you know of what you speak. Bunting and properly running the bases IS a key to winning baseball games no matter what these idiots say.

jeremyb1
07-20-2005, 09:28 PM
Again, these statements have absolutely no basis in reality, as I've explained throughout this thread. If you were really "interested in discussing" Sheehan's irrational contention that small ball = smart ball / Ozzie ball and necessarily excludes OBP by the 1 / 2 hitters, you might begin by actually responding to the points contained in those previous posts. Otherwise, you might as well go back into that closet with Sheehan.

Anything written by "the local media [and] the mainstream national media" could not possibly be any less relevant to Ozzie's offseason intentions. Moreover, Tragg is undoubtedly correct when he states that "half this board was concerned about our OBP, particularly our lack of a lead-off hitter the last few seasons" . . . but you didn't bother to respond to that point either. You must find it easier to be disagreeable than to rationally disagree.

Hey, I said it appeared to me that a majority of the posters did not seem to view OBP as the main objective of "smart ball" and that I hadn't noticed a huge emphasis on OBP around these parts. I haven't been posting here recently so if I'm wrong then I'm guilty of going to far and speaking on a subject without enough knowledge and I'll apologize for that. To act as though a casual comment about how I perceive posters on this board is somehow the lynchpin of my argument and I'm disregarding pertinent arguments is beyond absurd. What do you mean by saying i "didn't respond to that either". Please list (preferably seperated and numbered) the multiple arguments explaining HOW OBP PERCENTAGE IS INCLUDED AS A MAIN FOCUS OF SMARTBALL that I ignored in this thread. Arguments about Jeremy Reed or how the White Sox have a balanced offense don't count because they don't apply to this very narrow debate (what Ozzie emphasizes as "smart ball" and as evidence what the various perceptions of "smart ball" are).

I posted on one subject and one subject only, that doesn't obligate me to discuss anything else other people somehow feel the need to randomly throw out there. If I post about abortion on a political message board and eight people respond mentioning among other things big government, the War in Iraq, the death penalty, and the Clinton impeachment hearings I'm not going to spend four hours responding on every point because it's completely endless.

At no point have I ever said that Ozzie actively opposes batters getting on base, I have merely been adamant that On Base Percentage is one of the defining characteristics or "the point of" smart ball. There is more to the argument than the two extremes. I am merely arguing that "smart ball" is not defined by an above average emphasis on getting on basis ie a greater emphasis on OBP than your average manager or than has existed on recent Sox teams because clearly that is the perception of "smart ball" when it comes to stolen bases, situational hitting, running, pitching, and defense - the team is credited with "playing NL ball", manufacturing runs, and generally defying the norms of baseball in 2005 (since teams like Boston, Oakland, the Yankees, and the Dodgers heavily emphasize OBP, simply not discouraging or completely ignoring OBP doesn't make it a notable component of a strategy).

Flight #24
07-20-2005, 09:30 PM
That's all well and good Flight but it has more or less nothing to do with anything Sheehan wrote about in the article that inspired this thread or the point I have restated three times at this point. It all eventually seems to come back to "propellerheads" and "bunting" no matter what and eventually it's just perpetually beating a dead horse.



No, but it has everything to do with the article that he initially wrote slamming "Ozzieball", and he neglects to correct himself or adjust his model to account for winning methods outside of it. The Sox do not by any means have outstanding OBP at the top of the order, as of this evening it was .363 (56th in MLB) and .332.

Again - Moneyball is focused primarily on high OBP. It's not that Ozzie thinks OBP is unimportant, just that he thinks a good (not great) OBP with execution is far better than a great OBP. Execution is the key, on D, on the mound, and in terms of manufacturing runs.

maurice
07-20-2005, 09:35 PM
Please list (preferably seperated and numbered) the multiple arguments explaining HOW OBP PERCENTAGE IS INCLUDED AS A MAIN FOCUS OF SMARTBALL that I ignored in this thread.

They're already listed in this thread. Number them yourself.

I posted on one subject and one subject only, that doesn't obligate me to discuss anything else other people somehow feel the need to randomly throw out there.

There's nothing random about it. Sheehan said that small ball = smartball and does not include a solid OBP by the 1/2 hitters. You agreed. You're both wrong for the reasons already stated.

I am merely arguing that "smart ball" is not defined by an above average emphasis on getting on basis ie a greater emphasis on OBP than your average manager or than has existed on recent Sox teams because clearly that is the perception of "smart ball" when it comes to stolen bases, situational hitting, running, pitching, and defense - the team is credited with "playing NL ball", manufacturing runs, and generally defying the norms of baseball in 2005 (since teams like Boston, Oakland, the Yankees, and the Dodgers heavily emphasize OBP, simply not discouraging or completely ignoring OBP doesn't make it a notable component of a strategy).

Sorry, but a 106-word run-on sentence is not English, much less a coherent counter-argument.

jeremyb1
07-20-2005, 11:59 PM
No, but it has everything to do with the article that he initially wrote slamming "Ozzieball", and he neglects to correct himself or adjust his model to account for winning methods outside of it. The Sox do not by any means have outstanding OBP at the top of the order, as of this evening it was .363 (56th in MLB) and .332.

Again - Moneyball is focused primarily on high OBP. It's not that Ozzie thinks OBP is unimportant, just that he thinks a good (not great) OBP with execution is far better than a great OBP. Execution is the key, on D, on the mound, and in terms of manufacturing runs.

Why? Because Joe Sheehan and I are both considered "statheads" on this board? Because I subscribe to BP and enjoy some of his writing? That's atrocious reasoning. I did not agree to everything about which he wrote about the White Sox prior to and early in the season and I'm not sure I agree about everything now. Making me debate every point written by a writer WHO IS NOT ME is unfairly labeling me and my ideas and I refuse to participate in it. I wanted to make one singular point in this thread and I seriously could not unequivically agree with you more about that point than what you read in the last two sentences so it seems to me we're on the same page and various other arguments can be saved for another time and space as it appears you disagree with the posts I disagree with in this thread to the same extent even if you don't feel anywhere near as strongly about them.

jeremyb1
07-21-2005, 12:12 AM
They're already listed in this thread. Number them yourself.



There's nothing random about it. Sheehan said that small ball = smartball and does not include a solid OBP by the 1/2 hitters. You agreed. You're both wrong for the reasons already stated.



Sorry, but a 106-word run-on sentence is not English, much less a coherent counter-argument.

Sorry, that's a huge cop out Mo. If you can't name a single pertinent argument I've ignored when there are in fact numerous ones in this thread you're running out of rope. I've explained why at least five seperate arguments are unrelated to my contention if you can't explain why at least one is, I'm not going to waste my time stating why a dozen other arguments that are not even tangentially related to the one narrow, concise issue I'm debating are irrelevant.

Shehan never argued that "smart ball" or "small ball" discludes and is the antithesis to OBP. That bizarre argument exists entirely in this thread. As I'm not stating for the upteenth time there is a whole world of difference between arguing that "smart ball" is not the impetus behind increased OBP and arguing that "smart ball" precludes any kind of successful OBP. Joe and myself have argued the former that the increase in OBP in the top spots in the lineup has occured largely independent of "smart ball" whereas posters in this thread have implied OBP is the focus of "smart ball" and improvements in OBP exist largely due to Guillen's managerial philisophy. The only time the argument that Ozzie inhibits OBP has occured when posters such as yourself have placed the words in others' mouthes.

Finally, if there's a part of my sentences or arguments you don't understand - I'm fully willing to admit that I ramble on when I quickly author posts such as I have tonight - please explain what is unclear to you and I will go above and beyond to further clarify my point. Making ad hominem attacks accusing me of run on sentences sends a clear message that you are unwilling or unable to respond to my arguments.

maurice
07-21-2005, 10:39 AM
Sorry, that's a huge cop out Mo. If you can't name a single pertinent argument I've ignored . . . .

BS. The arguments are already named. It's all right here in this thread in black and white. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too busy to read the entire thread and would rather chime in with BS comments. Again, that's not disagreeing. That's just being disagreeable.

I've explained why at least five seperate arguments are unrelated to my contention . . . .

None of which are my arguments.

Shehan never argued that "smart ball" or "small ball" discludes and is the antithesis to OBP.

Sure he did. He said:
They've picked up 25 points of OBP in each of the top two lineup spots over last year, and that, rather than smallball or smartball or what have you, is why they're scoring enough runs to win

I agree with you that this is a bizarre argument for Sheehan to make and have already set forth reasons why it's bizarre. Morover, he equates "small ball" with "smart ball," which also is BS for reasons I've already stated.

posters in this thread have implied OBP is the focus of "smart ball" and improvements in OBP exist largely due to Guillen's managerial philisophy.
"Smart ball" IS "Guillen's managerial philisophy."
Besides, nobody argued that "OBP is the focus of 'smart ball.'" OTOH, it is very clear that OBP by the 1/2 hitters is a major focus of smart ball for the reasons already stated.

Making ad hominem attacks accusing me of run on sentences sends a clear message that you are unwilling or unable to respond to my arguments.

Nobody made an ad hominem attack. I said:
Sorry, but a 106-word run-on sentence is not English, much less a coherent counter-argument.
All of this is quite literally true. In fact, the "106" is not even an exaggeration. Don't blame me for your admitted shortcomings.

Flight #24
07-21-2005, 11:04 AM
Why? Because Joe Sheehan and I are both considered "statheads" on this board? Because I subscribe to BP and enjoy some of his writing? That's atrocious reasoning.

Here's what you said: That's all well and good Flight but it has more or less nothing to do with anything Sheehan wrote about in the article that inspired this thread or the point I have restated three times at this point.

Here's what I said: No, but it has everything to do with the article that he initially wrote slamming "Ozzieball", and he neglects to correct himself or adjust his model to account for winning methods outside of it.

I.e., My criticism of Sheehan's stuff is based on a)His initial article was crap, and b)his "correction" is further crap because it doesn't address any of the real reasons why his initial article was crap.

Whose writings you enjoy, etc doesn't factor anywhere into it. The only disagreement that's not strictly focused on Sheehan's stuff is that "Smartball" includes having a leadoff hitter who gets on base, creates havoc once there, and is moved over via execution if appropriate. The difference, as I said earlier - is that a guy with a good but not great OBP who creates havoc is more valuable than a great OBP guy who does not, and that sacrifices are valued whereas "moneyball" says they should not be.

jeremyb1
07-23-2005, 07:53 PM
Here's what you said:
I.e., My criticism of Sheehan's stuff is based on a)His initial article was crap, and b)his "correction" is further crap because it doesn't address any of the real reasons why his initial article was crap.

Whose writings you enjoy, etc doesn't factor anywhere into it. The only disagreement that's not strictly focused on Sheehan's stuff is that "Smartball" includes having a leadoff hitter who gets on base, creates havoc once there, and is moved over via execution if appropriate. The difference, as I said earlier - is that a guy with a good but not great OBP who creates havoc is more valuable than a great OBP guy who does not, and that sacrifices are valued whereas "moneyball" says they should not be.

Ok. The only issue I've been debating is the argument that getting on base at the top of the order is one of the two or three most important, most emphasized, and or most discussed aspect of Ozzie's managerial philosophy ie "smarball'. Sure it's indirectly related to Joe's article since it was in response to his observation that a large unexpected aspect of the Sox performance is the high OBP in the top two spots which have allowed the team to leverage more runs. Still, I don't really think what he previoulsy wrote about his perceptions of "smart ball" is applicable outside of perhaps extending previous arguments in response to that article explaining how OBP is a main focal point of "smart ball" yet people such as myself or Joe may not perceive that. I am basing the argument on my personal observations of "smart ball", not Joe Sheehan's, so I really don't believe he is particularly relevant to the debate.

I think you're absolutely right that OBP at the top of the order is a part of "smart ball" in that you can't bunt, steal, and hit and run all that effectively but I don't believe that along makes it "the point" of "smart ball".

jeremyb1
07-23-2005, 08:51 PM
BS. The arguments are already named. It's all right here in this thread in black and white. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too busy to read the entire thread and would rather chime in with BS comments. Again, that's not disagreeing. That's just being disagreeable.

Alright, I'll go back through every post and you can explain to me again how I'm lazy.

Post 37 - my first post
38 - Daver asks what my post has to do with the thread.
39 - I explain.
40 - Daver says I'm overstating the point re: OBP made by posters in the thread and insults me for kicks.
41 - jabrch makes a post about sheehan unrelated to mine.
42 - jabrch "what surprises you about that tripe ?"
43 - I respond to daver.
44 - Randar disputes the use of the term "small ball" for the team and explains we have a balanced attack.
45 - Randar addresses scottjannses.
46 - santo=dorf asks why I pay for BP and implies there's something wrong with the fact that scott jannses and I don't agree.
47 - I agree with what Randar stated in 44 and attempt to explain my point further.
48 - Flight:
a) We have a balanced attack, BP doesn't believe in our one run strategies.
b) Bill James believes in the value of one run strategy.
c) Ozzieball is about adapting to the situation.
d) edit: Jeremy Reed
49 - Fquaye attacks me and Joe Sheehan, more or less saying it doesn't matter what I'm arguing in the thread, Sheehan is an idiot and his previous predictions were awful.
50 - Tragg: others on the board stressed the need for OBP at the top of the order, acquiring Pods was good scouting, and Sheehan is an idiot because he liked Valentin.
51 - Tragg addresses Flight's comments on James and 1 run strategy.
52 - Flight: the essensce of smart ball is to play for the approrpiate moment.
53 - Maurice enters the thread. a) Ozzie publicly stated his goal was to acquire hitters in the mold of Pierre/Castillo.
b) Ozzie stated the Sox shouldn't be called "small ball" because we do more than that.
c) Thinking small ball = smart ball is dumb.
54 - I explain to Flight that I don't belive 48a, b, and c are related to whether or not OBP is emphasized/considered a key to smart ball.
55 - I explain to fquaye that 49 is unrelated to the debate.
56 - Maurice:
a) "Again, these statements have absolutely no basis in reality, as I've explained throughout this thread. If you were really "interested in discussing" Sheehan's irrational contention that small ball = smart ball / Ozzie ball and necessarily excludes OBP by the 1 / 2 hitters, you might begin by actually responding to the points contained in those previous posts."
b) Ozzie's offseason intentions are completly unrelated to the mainstream media.
c) I don't respond to Tragg's point that the board was concerned with top of the order OBP

So this is the first point where you accuse me of ignoring points in the thread. I'm just beyond clueless which points you're referring to. Maybe with the help of numbering, you can now refer to them easily. As far as I can see up to this point the only arguement I may have missed is your assertion that Ozzie stated he wanted to obtain players like Castillo/Pierre and Tragg's argument about the board's take on OBP which I answer in 58. You never specifically stated that such a statement was a strong indication that Ozzie was emphasizing OBP at the top of the lineup so I wasn't sure it really applied at all to what we were discussing. I didn't respond to your arguments discussing why "small ball" is not "smart ball" because I never argued they were the same thing at any point in the thread. I used the terms somewhat interchangably in my first or second post and still believe that most people use them that way but abandoned the term "small ball" completely after a few posts when it becamse clear people disagreed. At this point I have specifically addressed why posts 48 and 49 are not applicable to the debate and so far no one including yourself has provided a counter argument. I addressed Daver's contentions in 40, Randar's in 44, and Flight and fquaye in 48 and 49. Anything I ignored was completely limited to personal attacks or points which if I did not directly explain why they were unrelated to the debate, I at least explained why those types of arguments (Sheehan is an idiot, Sheehan's other articles on the Sox, the merits of one run strategy, etc.) were unrelated in other posts.

57 - jabrch talks about the Sox offense generally and again explains why Sheehan is an idiot.
58 - Me:
a) Tragg's OBP contention about the board.
b) explain again why I won't discuss unrelated points
c) express disbelief that I'm ignoring other's arguments left and right
58 - Flight discusses Sheehan's previous article.
59 - Maurice
a) asks me to number the arguments myself (done and done).
b) Joe Sheehan said smart ball equals small ball and I agreed with him.
c) My writing is rambling and incoherent.
60 - I ponder why it is that I'm always assumed to agree with Sheehan.
61 - Me:
a) If I can take the time to point out numerous arguments I have responded to why can't you take the time to name just one I haven't?
b) I argue that Sheehan never argued "smart ball" or "small ball" necessitates a low OBP again explaining the distinction between not going to great lengths to emphasize something and and actively discouraging something.
c) I apologize for my lack of clarity and ask that you actually respond to the argument instead of just attacking my run on sentence.
63 - The thread I'm currently responding to.

Sure he did. He said: They've picked up 25 points of OBP in each of the top two lineup spots over last year, and that, rather than smallball or smartball or what have you, is why they're scoring enough runs to win

Rather than in that sentence means "not because of". Paraphrased that sentence says "The reason the Sox are leveraging more runs is a higher OBP at the top of the lineup not "smart ball" NOT "They've picked up 25 points in spite of "smart ball".


"Smart ball" IS "Guillen's managerial philisophy."
Besides, nobody argued that "OBP is the focus of 'smart ball.'" OTOH, it is very clear that OBP by the 1/2 hitters is a major focus of smart ball for the reasons already stated.

Your post 18 "This is a retarded statement. Getting the top 2 guys in the order on base and moving them around the bases is probably the #1 rule of smallball / smartball / Ozzie-ball." 22 "Um, getting those guys on base = Ozzie ball / small ball / smart ball." and 26 "No, smart ball / Ozzie-ball means (1) getting people on," How contradictory that you not only use "small ball" and "smart ball" interchangeably which you later blast me for but also that after saying getting the top two guys on base is the #1 point on "smart ball" you now argue no one has argued OBP is the focus of smart ball.





Nobody made an ad hominem attack. I said:

All of this is quite literally true. In fact, the "106" is not even an exaggeration. Don't blame me for your admitted shortcomings.

Ok well since you never answered the point I was making in that sentence and only addressed my "shortcoming" I don't understand how that's not a personal attack.

Lip Man 1
07-23-2005, 11:03 PM
My God....just shoot me now and get it over with!

Lip

maurice
07-25-2005, 12:55 PM
I'm just beyond clueless

Finally, something we can agree on. :cool:

the only arguement I may have missed is your assertion that Ozzie stated he wanted to obtain players like Castillo/Pierre . . . . You never specifically stated that such a statement was a strong indication that Ozzie was emphasizing OBP at the top of the lineup

Sorry, I thought people knew that Pierre (.361 OBP) and Castillo (.381 OBP) got on base the year the Marlins won it all. In other breaking news, 2 + 2 = 4.

I didn't respond to your arguments discussing why "small ball" is not "smart ball" because I never argued they were the same thing at any point in the thread. I used the terms somewhat interchangably in my first or second post and still believe that most people use them that way but abandoned the term "small ball" completely after a few posts when it becamse clear people disagreed.

In other words, you did exactly what Sheehan did (something I previously criticized in the article) without explaining why you agreed with Sheehan's erroneous assumption. Thanks for acknowledging the error. That's far more than we can expect from Sheehan.

Rather than in that sentence means "not because of". Paraphrased that sentence says "The reason the Sox are leveraging more runs is a higher OBP at the top of the lineup not "smart ball"

Even accepting your subjective interpretation of the sentence, it changes nothing. The statement is still wrong for 3 reasons I listed and an additional reason listed by Flight, to wit:
a. "Small ball" and "smart ball" are not the same thing, as you've conceded.
b. Assuming for the sake of argument that "small ball" excludes OBP from the top of the order (a dubious argument), "smart ball" certainly does not.
c. The Sox were not experiencing particularly impressive OBP from the 1/2 hitters.
d. Therefore, the improvement in OBP from the 1/2 hitters could not be the reason that a purported 71-win team is 30 games over .500, despite admittedly disappointing performances from half of the lineup, as Sheehan argues.

How contradictory that you not only use "small ball" and "smart ball" interchangeably

I don't use them interchangeably. I referenced Sheehan's use of the terms interchangeably. The fact that I've repeatedly distinguished the terms throughout this very thread excludes the possibility that I think they're the same thing.

after saying getting the top two guys on base is the #1 point on "smart ball" . . . .

That's a lie based on an out-of-context quote. My full quote identified and distinguished several elements of "smart ball" without ranking them:
- "getting people on,"
- situational hitting,
- pitching,
- defense, and
- speed.
I also noted that "situational hitting [] is impossible if the top of the order doesn't get on base." For example, Iguchi's vaunted ability to hit behind the runner is irrelevant if there is no runner to hit behind. Ozzie talked about the value of OBP yet again in a TV interview this past weekend. Dusty Baker is the only manager in town who thinks that OBP is overrated.

I don't understand how that's not a personal attack.

It might have something to do with the fact that I attacked your statement with facts, which by definition is not ad hominem. Besides, you specifically claimed that calling a particularly bad run-on sentence a "run-on sentence" is an ad hominem attack. That's utter nonsense. As you well know, your history on this board is filled with potentially correct but extremely poorly composed arguments . . . and probably 99% of posters would contend that my statements are too generous.

jabrch
07-25-2005, 05:55 PM
I'm completely amazed Maurice...you must have the patience of a saint.

Ol' No. 2
07-25-2005, 06:02 PM
I'm completely amazed Maurice...you must have the patience of a saint.Or a streak of masochism.

Daver
07-25-2005, 06:04 PM
I'm completely amazed Maurice...you must have the patience of a saint.

Or absolutely nothing else to do........


:)

jeremyb1
07-25-2005, 07:35 PM
Finally, something we can agree on. :cool:

Good one.

Sorry, I thought people knew that Pierre (.361 OBP) and Castillo (.381 OBP) got on base the year the Marlins won it all. In other breaking news, 2 + 2 = 4.

First of all just to clarify, I stated the above argument is the only one I can see that I may have missed in the entire thread. So, we're now in agreement that you were error the three or more seperate times you accused me of ignoring multiple arguments in the thread, being too lazy to figure out which arguments I missed, and attempting only to create dissention without actually paying attention to what people were writing, correct?

I suspected that your refference to Pierre and Castillo might be intended as evidence that Ozzie emphasized OBP in acquiring Pods and Tad but it was not particularly apparent that was your argument. For starters, you might have used the term on base percentage somwhere in the post if you wanted to make your argument clear.

In other words, you did exactly what Sheehan did (something I previously criticized in the article) without explaining why you agreed with Sheehan's erroneous assumption. Thanks for acknowledging the error. That's far more than we can expect from Sheehan.

Haha. Well I'm still not sure "smart ball" is at all different from "small ball". Frankly, I don't really care. I'm not interested in a long argument about the semantics of the two phrases. Personally I can't ever recall a quote from Ozzie explaining the difference, just soundbites to the effect of "it's not small ball it's smart ball". Do a google news search for "smart ball" and you'll find numerous sports writers both local and national with phrases such as "small ball or as Ozzie Guillen likes to call it small ball". Regardless of whether there is a small difference (which would largely be dictated by the fact that no team in baseball has the personell to have batters 1-9 bunt and steal bases in 2005) I don't think it's unforgivable to use the terms interchangably and I still fail to see the relationship to the debate I've been trying to carry on.

Even accepting your subjective interpretation of the sentence, it changes nothing. The statement is still wrong for 3 reasons I listed and an additional reason listed by Flight, to wit:
a. "Small ball" and "smart ball" are not the same thing, as you've conceded.
b. Assuming for the sake of argument that "small ball" excludes OBP from the top of the order (a dubious argument), "smart ball" certainly does not.
c. The Sox were not experiencing particularly impressive OBP from the 1/2 hitters.
d. Therefore, the improvement in OBP from the 1/2 hitters could not be the reason that a purported 71-win team is 30 games over .500, despite admittedly disappointing performances from half of the lineup, as Sheehan argues.

Sorry, Maurice I don't see it as a subjective interpretation. There's just nothing in the sentence or any article I've seen from Sheehan for that matter that a reasonable person would infer to mean that "smart ball" is a detriment to OBP. To suggest that the default assumption would be that any approach aside from a batting coach or manager urging hitters to be more agressive and swing earlier in the count - which I've never heard Ozzie accused of - would emphasize lowering OBP makes no sense. As you say, "b" is a dubious argument and for that reason no one is making it.

As far as what you're arguing in d, the Sheehan goes to great pains - he takes a full paragraph - at the beginning of the column to explain that no one factor or even three factors for that matter can account for a team being 30 wins better than expected. There's nothing he'd disagree with - and take offense to you attributing to him - than the argument that a higher OBP at the top of the lineup improved the team 30 wins. He lists 6 or 7 different factors for the teams surprising (to him at least) success for a reason.

You seem to be arguing above that because the team's OBP was not high last season and it is this season, it is because of "smart ball" that the OBP increased. The first problem with that is that Ozzie Guillen was still the manager last season. I suppose you might argue that he didn't have times to put his stamp on the team during his first season but to argue that 1) Ozzie's "smart ball" and not KW (who had persued Pods in the past) was the motivating force behind acquiring both Iguchi and Pods 2) it was a given Pods would rebound with his on base skills 3) that Iguchi was viewed primarily as a high OBP top of the order player when despite the fact that he hit for high average and stole some bases in Japan he didn't walk a ton and was known best for hitting home runs 4) that OBP was one of the one or two most important qualities Ozzie saw in each hitter. I find it difficult to meet all four of those conditions. Correlation does not equal causation so merely the fact that Ozzie said he wanted to play "smart ball" with hitters similar to Castillo and Pierre and we then raised our OBP in the top two spots is by no means conclusive evidence that OBP is one of the main emphases of "smart ball" and that because something happened it was intended.

I don't use them interchangeably. I referenced Sheehan's use of the terms interchangeably. The fact that I've repeatedly distinguished the terms throughout this very thread excludes the possibility that I think they're the same thing.

Alright, if you insist that's the case, then fine. It certainly wasn't clear that you were referencing Sheehan's use of the terms when you don't even mention his name in the post.

That's a lie based on an out-of-context quote. My full quote identified and distinguished several elements of "smart ball" without ranking them:
- "getting people on,"
- situational hitting,
- pitching,
- defense, and
- speed.
I also noted that "situational hitting [] is impossible if the top of the order doesn't get on base." For example, Iguchi's vaunted ability to hit behind the runner is irrelevant if there is no runner to hit behind. Ozzie talked about the value of OBP yet again in a TV interview this past weekend. Dusty Baker is the only manager in town who thinks that OBP is overrated.

C'mon. It's not a lie, you wrote it. Taking something out of context might be misleading but it's not lying. It's a fact that the phrase was in your post, it's there for everyone to read. I didn't make up the fact that you typed it.

Furthermore I don't think the quotation was out of context. Here's the entire post (number 18 in this thread) from start to finish, completely unedited.

This is a retarded statement. Getting the top 2 guys in the order on base and moving them around the bases is probably the #1 rule of smallball / smartball / Ozzie-ball.

It is equally retarded to say that you expected the Sox to finish 4th, but also expected more production from half of the lineup. If production is down, the Sox should have performed worse than expected. While Pods OBP is just above his career averages, it's extremely difficult to argue that Tad's .334 OBP is so much better than expected that it offset the dip in production by the rest of the lineup and moved the team from 4th place to the best record in baseball.

There's no reference I can see to defense or pitching there. The only thing other than getting the top two guys on base is the vague phrase "moving them around the bases". Presumably that means stealing, bunting, hit and run, and situation hitting. So at best you're saying that four seperate acts are the #1 rule of smallball which makes little sense and at worse you're insisting that "smart ball" places an emphasis on OBP which I just don't find to be accurate.

It might have something to do with the fact that I attacked your statement with facts, which by definition is not ad hominem. Besides, you specifically claimed that calling a particularly bad run-on sentence a "run-on sentence" is an ad hominem attack. That's utter nonsense. As you well know, your history on this board is filled with potentially correct but extremely poorly composed arguments . . . and probably 99% of posters would contend that my statements are too generous.

Haha. You didn't attack the content of my statement with facts, you attacked the structure of my sentence. I guess the number of words in the sentence is a fact but by that logic it's okay to taunt overweight or mentally disabled people because if the comments are rooted in fact. If you disputed the argument I made and also called it a run on sentence I'd consider it less of an offense but it was a cop out that allowed you not to answer my argument and then you turned around and blasted me for ignoring people's arguments!

According to dictionary.com ad hominem means "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason." The consideration is not the accuracy of the statement it is the topic it addresses. You choose to address a personal consideration (my ability to write clear concise sentences) instead of the logic/reasoning I used pertinent to the actual argument we were debating (which was not the quality of my writing the last time I checked).

PaulDrake
07-25-2005, 07:50 PM
No he isn't. And he's the worst so far. Most people say I made a mistake rather than "The White Sox are defying the odds!!!"

He's still saying they SHOULDN'T be this good.

Rip him. 85% of the people in the world have jobs. the other 15 work at BP. :rolling: As I get up off the floor, yes rip him indeed.

PaulDrake
07-25-2005, 08:26 PM
My God....just shoot me now and get it over with!

Lip This does qualify under "cruel and unusual" punishment doesn't it?

Mohoney
07-26-2005, 04:42 AM
8) OPS means diddly-squat at the top of the order

This is exactly why I will never understand these people that live and die by OPS. I mean, it's all fine and good to get extra base hits, but top of the order hitters working counts, getting on first base, stealing bases, and (most importantly) scoring runs means way more to me than 15 or 20 more extra base hits per season.

Look at the team we just played in the Red Sox. Don't get me wrong, I think Johnny Damon is a great hitter, but can you tell me that he is light-years better as a leadoff hitter than Scott Podsednik just because his OPS is .857 and Podsednik's OPS is only .729? There are only .009 points of OBP separating Podsednik from Damon, and while Damon has scored 20 more runs than Podsednik, remember that the #3 and #4 hitters in Damon's lineup are the top 2 RBI men in baseball.

I might give a slight edge to Damon, but there isn't the huge gap between them that this OPS crap would lead you to believe. In fact, I could make a strong argument that the element of the stolen base that Podsednik adds to a lineup means just as much, if not more, than the element of extra power that Damon brings because it provides a balance to an offense that can be huge when power guys slump or get hurt (see: 2001-2004 White Sox).

Flight #24
07-26-2005, 09:20 AM
Ok. The only issue I've been debating is the argument that getting on base at the top of the order is one of the two or three most important, most emphasized, and or most discussed aspect of Ozzie's managerial philosophy ie "smarball'.

I think you're absolutely right that OBP at the top of the order is a part of "smart ball" in that you can't bunt, steal, and hit and run all that effectively but I don't believe that along makes it "the point" of "smart ball".

If I were you, I'd be wary of falling into the trap of what's "discussed" about smartball in the media. For the most part, they don't know much more than they can fit into a 3-syllable sound bite. Watch what Ozzie does and says, not what the media says. Remember - he's the one that specifically said the Sox are NOT smallball, they're smartball. I.e. doing things like getting guys on base, but making sure that you can execute as the situation demands, including sacrifices, etc. Just because Sheehan, ESPN, and other mediots interpret that as "smallball", or say things like "KW thinks hitting fewer homers is a recipe for success", doesn't make it so.

maurice
07-26-2005, 12:38 PM
So, we're now in agreement that you were error the three or more seperate times you accused me of ignoring multiple arguments in the thread

No, it's true that you ignored multiple arguments until your most recent post.

you might have used the term on base percentage somwhere in the post if you wanted to make your argument clear.

*** are you talking about? My very 1st post responding to this point in Sheehan's article contains the terms "OBP" and "on base" 4 times. My 2nd post on the subject (including my 1st reference to Pierre and Castillo) contains the words "on base" 3 times. These terms also appear in many of my other posts in this thread. This is what is known as "context."

I can't ever recall a quote from Ozzie explaining the difference, just soundbites to the effect of "it's not small ball it's smart ball"

Which necessarily implies that there is a significant difference . . . unless you want to explain to us how "not" doesn't really mean "not." The opinion of "numerous sports writers both local and national" is completely irrelevant. It would not surprise anybody here to find other examples of sports writers as clueless as Sheehan who share his lack of insight into Ozzie's strategies.

I don't see it as a subjective interpretation. There's just nothing in the sentence or any article I've seen from Sheehan for that matter that a reasonable person would infer to mean that "smart ball" is a detriment to OBP.

You're not the arbiter of what a reasonable person thinks. The sentence speaks for itself and is completely incorrect, even under your strained interpretation, for the reasons I've already stated.

To suggest that the default assumption would be that any approach aside from a batting coach or manager urging hitters to be more agressive and swing earlier in the count - which I've never heard Ozzie accused of - would emphasize lowering OBP makes no sense.

Actually, this "sentence" makes no sense.

As you say, "b" is a dubious argument and for that reason no one is making it.

Except for Sheehan.

There's nothing he'd disagree with - and take offense to you attributing to him - than the argument that a higher OBP at the top of the lineup improved the team 30 wins.

You lost me again with the grammar (or lack thereof). Who's taking offense? You? Sheehan? You read minds now?

It appears that you're conceding that the OBP increase couldn't make up for the 30-win difference (especially in light of the disappointing performance by half the lineup that Sheehan identifies). Fine, except that none of the other factors make up the 30-win difference, considered separately or together. The reality is that his initial 71-win projection was absurdly pessimistic, as explained in a separate pre-season thread on this subject. In other words, the primary reason for the 30-win difference is not any factor that Sheehan identified, but rather Sheehan's own lack of analytical ability as reflected in his pre-season assessment.

I suppose you might argue that he didn't have times to put his stamp on the team during his first season but to argue that 1) Ozzie's "smart ball" and not KW (who had persued Pods in the past) was the motivating force behind acquiring both Iguchi and Pods 2) it was a given Pods would rebound with his on base skills 3) that Iguchi was viewed primarily as a high OBP top of the order player when despite the fact that he hit for high average and stole some bases in Japan he didn't walk a ton and was known best for hitting home runs 4) that OBP was one of the one or two most important qualities Ozzie saw in each hitter.

This is a 120-word run-on sentence. It's impossible for any reader to know exactly what this "sentence" means. However, there's no doubt that KW used this past offseason to put Ozzie's stamp on the team and that the poster children of this renovation are Podsednik and Iguchi. This was Ozzie's 1st full offseason with the team and the 1st offseason after he had the opportunity to evaluate the club. (He was coaching in the NL previously.) Both Ozzie and KW have said as much. I'll take their word concerning their motives over some random national media member your Google search identifies.

Correlation does not equal causation so merely the fact that Ozzie said he wanted to play "smart ball" with hitters similar to Castillo and Pierre and we then raised our OBP in the top two spots is by no means conclusive evidence that OBP is one of the main emphases of "smart ball" and that because something happened it was intended.

That's because you left out the part were KW acquired brand new 1/2 hitters in the mold of Castillo and Pierre at Ozzie's request. The OBPs posted by Podsednik and Iguchi at the time the article was written were fully expected by KW and Ozzie, because their projections were better than Sheehan's projections. That's why they get paid big bucks to work for a 1st place MLB squad and Sheehan doesn't.

It certainly wasn't clear that you were referencing Sheehan's use of the terms when you don't even mention his name in the post.

This is fantastically dishonest. His name is in the title of this thread. His article is the subject of the entire thread and my posts in this thread, which is clear from my posts. In fact, I went to great lengths to explain this dynamic in posts 33 & 34, and have called out Sheehan by name 100 times in this thread. Only the narcissism of a couple of posters makes them believe that this thread is not about Sheehan.

It's not a lie, you wrote it. Taking something out of context might be misleading but it's not lying. It's a fact that the phrase was in your post, it's there for everyone to read. I didn't make up the fact that you typed it.

You wrote that you're "in . . . error" and "three . . . times . . . too lazy" to "write" anything that's "not a lie." It's a fact that those words are in your post. It's there for everyone to read. I didn't make up the fact that you typed it.

Intentionally misrepresenting what somebody said by quoting them out of context is very easy to do, but it's still a lie. Contending that "misleading" and "lying" are 2 different thing is the worst kind of semantic argument. Besides, I specifically responded only to your erroneous summary of what I said.

Furthermore I don't think the quotation was out of context. Here's the entire post (number 18 in this thread) from start to finish, completely unedited.

My rules of smart ball (gleaned from Ozzie's pre-season comments) are contained in post 26, which identified and distinguished several elements of "smart ball" without ranking them. It's consistent with and expands on what I said in earlier posts. This is called "context." Here are those rules for the third time:
1. "getting people on,"
2. situational hitting,
3. pitching,
4. defense, and
5. speed.
I also noted that "situational hitting [] is impossible if the top of the order doesn't get on base." In other words, getting guys on is listed "#1" because it comes 1st chronologically and necessarily precedes situational hitting (and SBs). Pitching and defense are listed separately, because they describe a different aspect of the game.

It's just a list, not a ranking. There's a huge difference between saying that something is the 1st of about 5 rules of smart ball and saying that it's "the focus" of smart ball.

you attacked the structure of my sentence.

So? That's not ad hominem by definition, since your sentence is not a person. For this reason, your analogies are really bad. Moreover, this is a message board made up of sentences. There's nothing else to attack.

If you disputed the argument I made and also called it a run on sentence I'd consider it less of an offense but it was a cop out that allowed you not to answer my argument and then you turned around and blasted me for ignoring people's arguments!

See, this is the crux of the problem. A run-on sentence is not an argument. By hiding your "argument" in a run-on sentence, you've obscured it and made it impossible to divine. That's the fault of the writer, not the reader. Thus, a complaint that the argument is not decipherable goes directly to the argument and is not ad hominem.

When the argument is clear, a response is provided, but you've essentially conceded all 4 points. It appears that your only remaining argument is your subjective decision that "rather than" doesn't mean "rather than," and your contention that "ad hominem" is Latin for "to the sentence." I guess I'll just (generously) chalk those up to semantics and move on to other threads.

ode to veeck
07-26-2005, 12:42 PM
OMG! He's baaaaaaaaacccckkk ...

Hangar18
07-26-2005, 02:32 PM
Joe Sheehan, can you tell us WHY you were so wrong about the SOX?
Joe: Yes, I was caught up in the Cubtacular Coverage and Hype put forth
by the Tribune and the Eastern Seaboard Propoganda Network. I figured
for sure with The Messiah coming back, and Kerry Woods, we were a lock for the WS, i kind of forgot all about the White SOX. My bad.

jeremyb1
07-27-2005, 12:11 AM
No, it's true that you ignored multiple arguments until your most recent post.

Ok. Well I was previously lazy for asking you to state which arguments I ignored. So to dispel that notion I listed every argument written in response to my posts and explained which statements I wrote applied to which arguments and why. I took pains to examine which arguments I addressed and concluded I missed one at the most. You wrote a lengthy post and failed to disagree with my conclusion. So this leaves us with you refusing to tell me which arguments I've ignored and not seeing the need to point out the inacuracy of my statement that I answered your arguments with one possible exception when I clearly went to great lengths to argue that point. Clearly if I'm expending this much time attempting to address the arguments and all you are willing to come back with are unsupported accusations, I clearly am not disregarding arguments left and right and disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable as you claimed earlier. I find those to be heavy accusations to throw around and then only mention when confronted with them at a later date.

*** are you talking about? My very 1st post responding to this point in Sheehan's article contains the terms "OBP" and "on base" 4 times. My 2nd post on the subject (including my 1st reference to Pierre and Castillo) contains the words "on base" 3 times. These terms also appear in many of my other posts in this thread. This is what is known as "context."

Well twice. Apparently I glossed over your third post in the thread or simply forgot about it several pages later as I was looking for responses to my posts and not focusing on the earliest posts in the thread. It was an oversight on my part and I apologize. I indicated in my previous post that I might have failed to respond to that point. Unfortunately since you did directly apply the reference to OBP earlier in the thread, the intent of the reference should have been clear to me even if you could have made it more clear by restating the implications of the reference. When I genuinely believe I was in error such as in this case I don't feel I have a problem admitting I was wrong, I made a mistake by missing the argument. This is why I take such offense to the fact that you've gone on as though such ommissions occur numerous times in each of my threads without giving specifics.

Which necessarily implies that there is a significant difference . . . unless you want to explain to us how "not" doesn't really mean "not." The opinion of "numerous sports writers both local and national" is completely irrelevant. It would not surprise anybody here to find other examples of sports writers as clueless as Sheehan who share his lack of insight into Ozzie's strategies.

Hahaha. No, it implies that Ozzie says and/or thinks there is a difference (or merely that he likes the name better). Ozzie insisting on a different name by no means proves or even strongly suggests "smart ball" is substantially different than "small ball". I'm not arguing they're definitely the same but to say they're obviously significantly different because Ozzie calls them by a different name is laughable. As far as the mainstream media, I'm as inclined as most to believe they don't know what they're talking about but we're talking about what the manager says and what he emphasizes as far as strategy. While the media may not be perfect who communicates Ozzie Guillen's statements and coaching better? No one as far as I can tell. Without offering a different source, this argument doesn't carry much weight. If you want to argue Ozzie's quotes (such as his preference for a Castillo/Pierre top of the lineup) make it clear OBP is one of the main goals of "smart ball" fine but then you're arguing with my interpretation of the media not the validity of the media as a worthwhile source on this issue.

You're not the arbiter of what a reasonable person thinks. The sentence speaks for itself and is completely incorrect, even under your strained interpretation, for the reasons I've already stated.

You've stated that Sheehan's statement suggests "smart ball" is counterproductive to OBP without ever providing a single reason why the language in the statment indicates that or why that would be a common or reasonable assumption held by anyone. So if it's a illogical, unsupporoted statement and you can't explain why any of Sheehan's language suggests he holds the belief, why on earth would it be reasonable to believe the statement means what you say it means? You can't just claim Sheehan is making an argument if you can't explain why the words he is using constitute that argument.



Actually, this "sentence" makes no sense.

Sorry. There should have been an additional hyphen after "approach" and before "aside". There's no reason the default assumption would be what you admit is an illogical belief stating that "smart ball" hinders OBP unless some of the language Sheehan uses makes such an implication (you never explain why this would be the case). Care to respond now that I've clarified?

Except for Sheehan.

Ok, well I've spent several sentences explaining why the sentences formulated by Sheehan do NOT make that argument and you're firing back with "yes they do" which in no way accounts for or reasonably rebuts my logic so until you're willing to do so I'm just going to assume you do not have a response to my argument.

You lost me again with the grammar (or lack thereof). Who's taking offense? You? Sheehan? You read minds now?

It appears that you're conceding that the OBP increase couldn't make up for the 30-win difference (especially in light of the disappointing performance by half the lineup that Sheehan identifies). Fine, except that none of the other factors make up the 30-win difference, considered separately or together. The reality is that his initial 71-win projection was absurdly pessimistic, as explained in a separate pre-season thread on this subject. In other words, the primary reason for the 30-win difference is not any factor that Sheehan identified, but rather Sheehan's own lack of analytical ability as reflected in his pre-season assessment.

The word "more" was supposed to preceed "than". I'm surprised that you found the sentence completely unintellgibible without that one word but I'm the one who failed to proof my post and made an error so I'll take the lion's share of the blame.

I'm not reading minds, I'm reading the article Joe Sheehan wrote! Since paraphrasing it apparently isn't enough, I'll quote it:

So where did I go wrong? When you're this far off, it's never one factor, but a combination of things, some that might have been evident in March and others than remain a mystery today.

Sheehan specifically states that it was a large number of factors that contributed to his miscalculation of the White Sox success in '05. He more or less leads of the article with this claim and devotes an entire paragraph to the subject so I don't think it takes mind reading for me to infer that he'd be incredibly offended by you completely disregarding 90% of his article and stating he believes the entirety of the team's success beyond his projection is the result of an increase in OBP in the top two spots in the lineup when he goes out of his way to state the direct opposite of that claim at the very beginning of the article!! I'm not merely arguing that the OBP in the top two spots doesn't make up the 30 game difference I'm pointing out that if you read the article it is clearly the crux of Sheehan's argument.

Guess what? I think the 71 win prediction and placing the Sox behind the Tigers in the standings was abusurdly pessimistic and wrong too! I wrote Joe an e-mail after that article blasting his assessment of Mark Buehrle and his pessimism directed toward's Frank's health. Why it is assumed that I agree with everything he's written and possess an overly pessimistic view towards my favorite sports team in the entire world is completely beyond me but it lends a ton of credence to the fact that people are completely misconstruing what I write in my posts.

jeremyb1
07-27-2005, 12:15 AM
This is a 120-word run-on sentence. It's impossible for any reader to know exactly what this "sentence" means. However, there's no doubt that KW used this past offseason to put Ozzie's stamp on the team and that the poster children of this renovation are Podsednik and Iguchi. This was Ozzie's 1st full offseason with the team and the 1st offseason after he had the opportunity to evaluate the club. (He was coaching in the NL previously.) Both Ozzie and KW have said as much. I'll take their word concerning their motives over some random national media member your Google search identifies.

The mere number of words in a sentence do not make it a "run on sentence". The aforementioned sentence is not one long run on without punctuation, it's a list of four different conditions. If it would make it easier to read I'm completely willing to list the seperate numbers on different lines but I don't know of any other way to write a similar numbered list without including the numbered items in one sentence. The numbers clearly and concisely seperate different ideas and hence the sentence is not a run on. You can continue to count the words in my sentences all you like but as any english teacher would tell you there isn't some magic number which constitutes a run-on especially in special circumstances such as a clearly numbered list. The argument is simple but I will condense it for you to make it easier to understand: unless you're hinging your entire argument on a singular statement from Ozzie about replicating Florida's success with Castillo and Pierre (in which as far as I know Ozzie did not specifically mention OBP) simply stating that the OBP improved in the top two spots in the year in which Ozzie gained more control of the roster does not mean it increased because Ozzie gained more control of the roster. That correlation does not equal causation is an argument fundamental to the scientific method and emphasized in any sound reasearch course. Just because two events occur at the same time (ie Freddy Garcia pitches well in day games) does not offer proof that one factor directly causes the other (ie that Freddy Garcia pitches well because it is daytime).

That's because you left out the part were KW acquired brand new 1/2 hitters in the mold of Castillo and Pierre at Ozzie's request. The OBPs posted by Podsednik and Iguchi at the time the article was written were fully expected by KW and Ozzie, because their projections were better than Sheehan's projections. That's why they get paid big bucks to work for a 1st place MLB squad and Sheehan doesn't.

That's because I'm unaware of the evidence in support of that argument. I'm unaware of evidence that Ozzie was the motivation behind acquiring Pods and not KW (when as I mentioned KW previously tried to acquire Scotty) and I'm unaware of the evidence that Iguchi was projected as a top of the order hitter whose main strengths in MLB would be OBP and situation hitting when he had different strongsuits in Japan.

Aside from the fact that BP authors have been hired by major league teams if you seriously want to argue that GMs/coaches always intended for positive outcomes critisized by sports writers because they are far more skilled and I have wasted a vast amount of time in this thread since not only are we not employed by a major league franchise, we're not employed to write baseball columns. Everything KW does would be far more intelligent that any insight we could ever offer.

This is fantastically dishonest. His name is in the title of this thread. His article is the subject of the entire thread and my posts in this thread, which is clear from my posts. In fact, I went to great lengths to explain this dynamic in posts 33 & 34, and have called out Sheehan by name 100 times in this thread. Only the narcissism of a couple of posters makes them believe that this thread is not about Sheehan.

I didn't intend to argue the thread or even your post was unrelated to Sheehan and his article. However, you typed "small ball/smart ball/Ozzie ball" without mentioning once in the post that you disagreed with equating the terms. If you don't belive they're the same and you weren't addressing the fact that you believed Sheehan eroneously equated them I fail to understand why you used the terms interchangeabley in that particular post.

You wrote that you're "in . . . error" and "three . . . times . . . too lazy" to "write" anything that's "not a lie." It's a fact that those words are in your post. It's there for everyone to read. I didn't make up the fact that you typed it.

Intentionally misrepresenting what somebody said by quoting them out of context is very easy to do, but it's still a lie. Contending that "misleading" and "lying" are 2 different thing is the worst kind of semantic argument. Besides, I specifically responded only to your erroneous summary of what I said.

If you'd typed that I'd never call it a lie, extremely confusing and misleading but not a lie. I don't consider differentiating between the two words to be an issue of semantics.

From dictionary.com

Lie - A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Mislead - To lead in the wrong direction.

A lie presents something as a fact which does not exist in reality where as to mislead portrays an actual fact in a less than accurate light. Either way the "examples" you took from my post are completely inapplicable as you removed the majority of the words from my sentences whereas I quoted a complete phrase of yours without ommiting a single word. When you objected I quoted the entire post in it's entirety!!! What more do you want from me than to quote every word you wrote in a post?! I fail to see any indication that I diliberately misreprestened what YOU typed.

My rules of smart ball (gleaned from Ozzie's pre-season comments) are contained in post 26, which identified and distinguished several elements of "smart ball" without ranking them. It's consistent with and expands on what I said in earlier posts. This is called "context." Here are those rules for the third time:
1. "getting people on,"
2. situational hitting,
3. pitching,
4. defense, and
5. speed.
I also noted that "situational hitting [] is impossible if the top of the order doesn't get on base." In other words, getting guys on is listed "#1" because it comes 1st chronologically and necessarily precedes situational hitting (and SBs). Pitching and defense are listed separately, because they describe a different aspect of the game.

It's just a list, not a ranking. There's a huge difference between saying that something is the 1st of about 5 rules of smart ball and saying that it's "the focus" of smart ball.

No, no, no, no, no. Context how phrases are clearly intended within a sentence, how sentences are clearly intended within a paragraph, or perhaps how sentences or paragraphs are intended within a book or article, NOT making sense of scattered, sometimes contradictory posts on an internet message board! Asking me to go through every single one of your posts in a large thread and decipher exactly what you were referring to in posts several pages earlier is not necessary to avoid taking your arguments out of context. If you cannot remotely indicate the point you are trying to make within a singular post I am not responsible. It is not my fault you made a list in one thread and then used the phrase "the number one point of smart ball" in a different thread. The term "number one point" clearly does involve ranking and therefore conflicts with your other post. For me to be unable to understand that you apparently did not mean what you typed in one post and did mean what you typed in another post is not taking you out of context. I read the post and interpreted in a reasonable fashion, I am not required to study the body of your posts on WSI or even the remainder of your posts in a thread if they do not support but instead conflict or at least confuse what you've written in a different post.

So? That's not ad hominem by definition, since your sentence is not a person. For this reason, your analogies are really bad. Moreover, this is a message board made up of sentences. There's nothing else to attack.

See, this is the crux of the problem. A run-on sentence is not an argument. By hiding your "argument" in a run-on sentence, you've obscured it and made it impossible to divine. That's the fault of the writer, not the reader. Thus, a complaint that the argument is not decipherable goes directly to the argument and is not ad hominem.

When the argument is clear, a response is provided

Who wrote the sentence Maurice?! The condition of obesity and the condition of mental retardation are not people either. Clearly a person produced the sentence, the sentence was seperate from the logic of the issue being discussed and hence it constitutes a personal consideration. What would you classify it as? My sentence structure is clearly not an argument about OBP and "smart ball". Attacking the thought and the content of a sentence is not the same as attacking a sentence structure. If I type "Smart ball does not includ OBP" and you attack the fact that I mispelled "include" would you argue that the message board is nothing but sentences and you're attacking my sentence hence you're attacking my argument? That's beyond ridiculous. You did not attack the content of my argument ie the point I was trying to get across ie the meaning behind my statement. If it was unclear you could have asked me to rephrase it, that would have been fine but instead you scoffed at my attempts to clarify. You disregarded the logic and reasoning of my argument in favor of attacking the sentence structure I personally utilized.

jeremyb1
07-27-2005, 12:16 AM
you've essentially conceded all 4 points. It appears that your only remaining argument is your subjective decision that "rather than" doesn't mean "rather than," and your contention that "ad hominem" is Latin for "to the sentence." I guess I'll just (generously) chalk those up to semantics and move on to other threads.

Huh?! Which four points? "Rather than" means "not because of", that's the way it is set up in the English language that's the way virtually everyone understands that phrase. I can't fathom any circumstance under which it means "in spite of effects to the contrary" as you argue. If you disagree with the dictionary.com definition of "Ad Hominem" find a better source for a definition or write your own dictionary...

fquaye149
07-27-2005, 11:13 AM
you know a conversation is headed in a stupid direction when someone starts defining words he or she used.

Maurice man, what are you doing? Most people here are prone to agree with you. So inevitably you're trying to convince JeremyB he was wrong, something that can't be done.

Hell - the kid still thinks the Garcia trade was bad.

Tragg
07-27-2005, 11:41 AM
I agree with what appears to be the core of Maurice's argument: Sheehan's initial projection of 71 wins for this team (much less his insistence in June that the Sox had improved to merely a 72 win quality team) was patently absurd on its face, so palpably ridiculous, that any attempts at backtracking or explanation lack any credibility/integrity, absent an admission of bias or an inherent defect in the BP model of baseball analysis. Well, BP certainly will admit to neither bias nor that their model has severe flaws - if they did, they'be out of business. So, Sheehan is essentiall offering nothing but bullsh$$ to save face, which will work for most BP affecianados. And that's fine - they enjoy BP, so let them enjoy it. But recognize it for what it is.

If Sheehan had predicted the Sox to be, say, .500, then his explanation of the difference between his forecast and the results might be of interest and might be credible.

maurice
07-27-2005, 01:14 PM
I'm not sure why it takes somebody 3 posts to respond to a single post of mine, but I'm certainly not reading 10,000 words consisting primarily of unintelligible, run-on sentences, and I'm sure that nobody else is going to read them either. Besides, it's a safe bet that they can be summarized as follows:

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

The 3rd of the 3 posts appears to be fairly short, so I suppose I'll take a crack at that.

Huh?! Which four points?

You've got to be kidding me. Oh, wait. You ordered me to number them, and I used letters instead. My bad!

I can't fathom any circumstance under which it means "in spite of effects to the contrary" as you argue.

I'm quite certain that I've never written the quoted phrase in my life, though I suppose you can pick apart various posts of mine, edit out the parts you don't like, tie the rest together, and completely ignore the context to achieve this result.

If you disagree with the dictionary.com definition of "Ad Hominem" find a better source for a definition or write your own dictionary...

The definition is just fine, as is the much simpler literal translation. Both generally convey the actual meaning of the phrase, i.e., an irrelevant attack directed at a person. In no sense, however, does calling a run-on sentence a run-on sentence qualify as an ad hominem attack, because a sentence is not a person, and because a complaint that an argument is unintelligible is a relevant attack on the argument itself. The good news is that you may have a future as Karl Rove's attorney, assuming that your unintelligible, run-on sentences don't get you flunked out of school.

PaulDrake
07-27-2005, 01:38 PM
Is Karl Rove into sabermetrics?

maurice
07-27-2005, 01:47 PM
Is Karl Rove into sabermetrics?

Karl Rove is the Bill James of rhetoric, breaking down soundbyes like the statheads break down DIPS. The guy's a machine.

I've been meaning to pick up one of his 3 bios but want to research 1st to make sure that it's not written by a booster or a hater.

PaulDrake
07-27-2005, 02:14 PM
Karl Rove is the Bill James of rhetoric, breaking down soundbyes like the statheads break down DIPS. The guy's a machine.

I've been meaning to pick up one of his 3 bios but want to research 1st to make sure that it's not written by a booster or a hater. Sounds like a man in search of the truth. For that I salute you. :cheers:

jeremyb1
07-27-2005, 07:22 PM
I'm not sure why it takes somebody 3 posts to respond to a single post of mine, but I'm certainly not reading 10,000 words consisting primarily of unintelligible, run-on sentences, and I'm sure that nobody else is going to read them either. Besides, it's a safe bet that they can be summarized as follows:

Well Maurice when I write a ton and elaborate a great deal on why I feel your arguments are flawed and then you accuse me of not even responding to your arguments, what do you expect me to do, right less? My sentences are not unintelligible, I've rephrased and clarified the same points over and over in numerous different ways, if you want to drop it say so no hard feelings. The "run on sentence" cop out is really tired at this point yet. I've admitted that I do ramble a bit and could write more concise statements on message boards and apolgized but I graduated from a writing intensive, top tier liberal arts school with good grades, you're not going to convince me I'm incapable of formulating intelligible sentences. For the upteenth time you're critisizing everything but my logic to avoid addressing my arguments, call it whatever you want it's not good debate.

The 3rd of the 3 posts appears to be fairly short, so I suppose I'll take a crack at that.

Well it consists of my response to about one eigth of your post and the least substantive section of your post at that but admittedly I'm growing real tired of the discussion myself at this point so go for it.

You've got to be kidding me. Oh, wait. You ordered me to number them, and I used letters instead. My bad!

Perhaps I was confused because you starting writing about four points regarding your "rather than" point in the midst of discussing ad hominem arguments without giving any indication you were shifting topics.

I'm quite certain that I've never written the quoted phrase in my life, though I suppose you can pick apart various posts of mine, edit out the parts you don't like, tie the rest together, and completely ignore the context to achieve this result.

I don't know about your entire life but I'm quite certain you never wrote it in the thread. I was phrasing your interpretation of Sheehan's sentence in a form along the lines of what I believe would have to be written for the sentence to mean what you suggest it means. Quotation marks do not necessarily indicate words were actually spoken or written by a person they can be used to set off a phrase or to indicate how words would hypothetically be written but I suppose you aren't willing to accept rules of grammar from a guy who can't write a coherent sentence to save his life.

The definition is just fine, as is the much simpler literal translation. Both generally convey the actual meaning of the phrase, i.e., an irrelevant attack directed at a person. In no sense, however, does calling a run-on sentence a run-on sentence qualify as an ad hominem attack, because a sentence is not a person, and because a complaint that an argument is unintelligible is a relevant attack on the argument itself. The good news is that you may have a future as Karl Rove's attorney, assuming that your unintelligible, run-on sentences don't get you flunked out of school.

I don't like to bring my personal life onto internet message boards but like I said the high paid, highly regarded professors disagree. I don't understand how attacking the clarity of a sentence is an attack against the logic and reasoning of an argument. I'll repeat the example I used before, if someone argues "Ozzie Guillen should not leave his starters in past 100 pitches because they become tireded and pitch poorly decreasing the team's chances of losing", responding that "tireded" is not a word does not in anyway refute the argument at hand, it refutes the person's grammatical skills. Attacking sentence clarity refutes an individual's ability to write clearly it does not refute the argument being advanced. What does the appropriateness of the word "tirded" have to do with whether or not it is logical and intelligent to leave starters in past 100 pitches? I don't see how you can separate a qualitative attack against something produced by a person from a personal attack. That would mean saying "Your paintings are terrible" is not a personal attack but "You are a terrible painter" is a personal attack when most people discern next to no difference between the two statements. However, even if you insist it is not a personal attack, fine. That still doesn't mean you've in any way furthered a back and forth where logic and reasoning are critiqued and exchanged. Attacking my sentence structure while ignoring my argument skirts the actual issues the same as ignoring an argument because the speaker has a lisp.

maurice
07-28-2005, 11:27 AM
Again, I'm not going to comb through unnecessarily long responses to a few simple points, knowing that a large percentage of the content is unintelligible due to the author's lack of writing ability. I seriously doubt that anybody else is going to read it either. You're either unwilling or unable to understand simple logic, so save your keyboard from the strain of your unread missives. I'll save MY keyboard for the folks who can actually reason and write by becoming the 1,376th WSI'er to put you on IGNORE. Unfortunately, I'll have to track the lack of improvement in Reed's .269 AVE and .383 SLG on my own.

santo=dorf
07-28-2005, 12:24 PM
I have copied all of jeremy's posts into a word document.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3097

...and he still isn't sure if there's a difference between "smart ball" and "small ball."
:rolleyes:

Mr. White Sox
07-28-2005, 01:58 PM
I just thought, because this hasn't been updated by jeremy, that I should do the honors.

Jeremy Reed Watch:
.254/.319/.346
But his defense is so much better than Aaron Rowand's, if the Sox had him in CF they'd be 66-34 or 67-33 instead of 65-35

If he wants to make himself look smart, he should do a "Mike Morse" watch:
.336/.406/.421

maurice
07-28-2005, 02:06 PM
Jeremy Reed Watch:
.254/.319/.346

Holy crap! I expected the AVE and SLG to be down, but a .319 OBP? That's supposed to be his strong point. That .665 OPS is Timo Perez territory but looks great compared to Olivo's .419 OPS.
:o:

Flight #24
07-28-2005, 03:26 PM
Holy crap! I expected the AVE and SLG to be down, but a .319 OBP? That's supposed to be his strong point. That .665 OPS is Timo Perez territory but looks great compared to Olivo's .419 OPS.
:o:

Yes, but they'll both be cheap for a few years yet, and since there is no trade that can really give you anything more than a lottry ticket's chance in the playoffs, that was a boneheaded trade!

Plus, remember - Reed once had an amazing 242ABs in the minors, so regardless of the rest of his minor league career (batting at .306 in his combined 950 other ABs) or his major league career to date, he's still got a great shot at being a superstar!!!

jeremyb1
07-30-2005, 03:45 PM
Again, I'm not going to comb through unnecessarily long responses to a few simple points, knowing that a large percentage of the content is unintelligible due to the author's lack of writing ability. I seriously doubt that anybody else is going to read it either. You're either unwilling or unable to understand simple logic, so save your keyboard from the strain of your unread missives. I'll save MY keyboard for the folks who can actually reason and write by becoming the 1,376th WSI'er to put you on IGNORE. Unfortunately, I'll have to track the lack of improvement in Reed's .269 AVE and .383 SLG on my own.

You acted as though you wanted to carry on a debate with me. If you don't feel like reading and responding to my arguments anymore that's your perogative, it's fine with me. I don't see why you think you need to insult me though. If you didn't want to exchange posts with me there would have been no reason to do it the first six or eight times. If you want to stop because you're bored with the discussion or don't feel you have persausive responses to my arguments at this point that's ok. By making every argument about Jeremy Reed or the length of my sentences you're doing exactly what you railed against me for earlier, ignoring other's arguments. Putting me on ignore for responding to your arguments after you griped I was ignoring them is one of the most unreasonable, illogical acts I've ever seen at WSI and I've ran into insane behavior here more than a few times.

skobabe8
07-30-2005, 04:19 PM
I have copied all of jeremy's posts into a word document.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3097

...and he still isn't sure if there's a difference between "smart ball" and "small ball."
:rolleyes:

So basically, more than I did in 4 1/2 years of college.