PDA

View Full Version : Josh Stats


LITTLE NELL
07-24-2007, 05:10 PM
In 155 at bats he has 7 HRS and 25 RBIs, that equates in 600 ABs to 27 HRs and 95 RBIs. Not too shabby. I think Josh is a keeper. The only problem is what to do with Crede.

santo=dorf
07-24-2007, 05:12 PM
Josh should have been here from the start with Crede being moved when his trade value was at an all time high.

Financially the best move is to try and move Crede in the offseason or non-tender him.

letsgosox1592
07-24-2007, 05:12 PM
In 155 at bats he has 7 HRS and 25 RBIs, that equates in 600 ABs to 27 HRs and 95 RBIs. Not too shabby. I think Josh is a keeper. The only problem is what to do with Crede.

If Crede can come back healthy than he is our 3rd base while we move Josh Fields to the outfield for a year. If Crede gets injured hes back at 3rd for good. I wouldn't mind an outfield for next year being Fields in left, Owens in center, and Sweeney in right

AJ Hellraiser
07-24-2007, 05:12 PM
I think he's got a lot of potential... if people can get past some of the plate appearances where he looks like a typical rookie then they'd see he has considerable talent...

he has one quality you really can't teach and that's the fact that the ball really jumps off his bat

Let's hope Crede comes back healthy and has a fine spring training and we can get decent value in a trade.. it'll be hard saying goodbye to Joe but it really must be done

oeo
07-24-2007, 05:14 PM
Josh should have been here from the start with Crede being moved when his trade value was at an all time high.

Financially the best move is to try and move Crede in the offseason or non-tender him.

He had an awfully slow start in Charlotte this year, so I don't know that starting the year with the big league club would have done any good. It actually may have been worse for him. Then, could you imagine the uproar here?

K O N E R K O
07-24-2007, 05:21 PM
Crede was never good before 06. 06 was obviously a fluke year and he finished it with an AWFUL slump, at one point 0 for his last 27 or something like that. People forget that he was a .300 hitter most of that year but dropped to .283 because of his terrible finish. Fields has already proven more valuable than Crede in his ROOKIE YEAR. Get rid of Crede. We don't need him. He's overrated by many Sox fans and is a career .259 hitter. Fields will clearly surpass him. People also want to talk about Crede's defense. Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.

AJ Hellraiser
07-24-2007, 05:27 PM
Crede was never good before 06. 06 was obviously a fluke year and he finished it with an AWFUL slump, at one point 0 for his last 27 or something like that. People forget that he was a .300 hitter most of that year but dropped to .283 because of his terrible finish. Fields has already proven more valuable than Crede in his ROOKIE YEAR. Get rid of Crede. We don't need him. He's overrated by many Sox fans and is a career .259 hitter. Fields will clearly surpass him. People also want to talk about Crede's defense. Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.

You have much to learn my friend... Crede was young and starting to come into his own... his defense was top notch and pitching and defense win championships as shown in 2005....

People here love Crede, and rightfully so, because of what he did in the 2005 playoffs.. he hit over .500 w/RISP and was arguably the MVP of the entire playoffs

Next time, please think before making yourself sound like a fool

rdivaldi
07-24-2007, 05:27 PM
Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.

:thud:

Okay, #1 Crede's bat does not "stink". He's a mediocre hitter that comes through in the clutch more often than not. #2, if you think 95% of importance goes to hitting and not defense, I'd imagine that you still think that the 2000 White Sox could beat the 2005 White Sox head-to-head. Defense is very important. #3, non-tendering Crede would be insanely boneheaded. He's not going to rake in tons of dough in arbitration, so you sign him and then move him at the first good opportunity.

That said, I am very impressed with Fields. I was ultra-concerned about him becoming another Borchard type hitter watching him in the minors over the past couple of years. But so far, it looks like he has an excellent chance of making it.

Daver
07-24-2007, 05:28 PM
If Crede can come back healthy than he is our 3rd base while we move Josh Fields to the outfield for a year.

He's played outfield for exactly two games, and you want to move him there at the MLB level?

It's a damn good thing you are not making the roster.

K O N E R K O
07-24-2007, 05:33 PM
You have much to learn my friend... Crede was young and starting to come into his own... his defense was top notch and pitching and defense win championships as shown in 2005....

People here love Crede, and rightfully so, because of what he did in the 2005 playoffs.. he hit over .500 w/RISP and was arguably the MVP of the entire playoffs

Next time, please think before making yourself sound like a fool

No, defense doesn't win championships. Pitching and hitting do. Defense is an overrated aspect of the game of baseball, and is not as important as you make it out to be. I already said that his defense was top notch, but he was and still is a bad hitter.

Who cares about the playoffs? Dye was a monster in 05, and is hitting under .230 this year. Anyone can catch fire during a short series, it's what they do during a 162 game season that determines how good they are. Crede has not proven that he is anything but a below average hitter.

munchman33
07-24-2007, 05:34 PM
He's played outfield for exactly two games, and you want to move him there at the MLB level?

It's a damn good thing you are not making the roster.

Well, left field and first base are the positions you're supposed to throw your worst athletes. I can't imagine he'd be any worse than Carlos Lee was when we decided to switch him from third base and just throw him out there.

LITTLE NELL
07-24-2007, 05:40 PM
No, defense doesn't win championships. Pitching and hitting do. Defense is an overrated aspect of the game of baseball, and is not as important as you make it out to be. I already said that his defense was top notch, but he was and still is a bad hitter.

Who cares about the playoffs? Dye was a monster in 05, and is hitting under .230 this year. Anyone can catch fire during a short series, it's what they do during a 162 game season that determines how good they are. Crede has not proven that he is anything but a below average hitter.
Do you know White Sox history? !7 straight winning seasons from 1951 to 1967 were due to pitching and DEFENSE.

TDog
07-24-2007, 05:41 PM
... Crede was young and starting to come into his own... his defense was top notch and pitching and defense win championships as shown in 2005....

Even before Joe Crede came into his own as a hitter, he had won some games with big, sometimes game-ending hits. He has several game-ending home runs against the Tigers alone. But he did it with singles and doubles (see the 2005 ALCS) as well. On the Sunday the White Sox released Royce Clayton, the White Sox tied the Indians in the ninth when Frank Thomas hit a towering two-out, three-run home run. Two walks and a hit batsmen later, David Riske came in and surrendered the game-ending single to Crede.

K O N E R K O
07-24-2007, 05:45 PM
Do you know White Sox history? !7 straight winning seasons from 1951 to 1967 were due to pitching and DEFENSE.

Junior, I've been watching White Sox baseball for 52 years now. I've been around this game longer than anyone here, and I can tell you that defense is not important. Those glory days back in the 50's were due to outstanding starting pitching combined with a damn solid offense. Defense had little to do with it, as it does with every championship team.

Daver
07-24-2007, 05:47 PM
Junior, I've been watching White Sox baseball for 52 years now. I've been around this game longer than anyone here, and I can tell you that defense is not important.

You've been a fool for fifty two years then.

munchman33
07-24-2007, 05:51 PM
Defense had little to do with it, as it does with every championship team.

:bs:

thomas35forever
07-24-2007, 05:55 PM
Crede was never good before 06. 06 was obviously a fluke year and he finished it with an AWFUL slump, at one point 0 for his last 27 or something like that. People forget that he was a .300 hitter most of that year but dropped to .283 because of his terrible finish. Fields has already proven more valuable than Crede in his ROOKIE YEAR. Get rid of Crede. We don't need him. He's overrated by many Sox fans and is a career .259 hitter. Fields will clearly surpass him. People also want to talk about Crede's defense. Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.
Overrated? I'd like some of what you're smoking. '06? Did you miss the '05 postseason? Yeah, I guess those defensive plays he made in Game 1 of the WS were just flukes too. They didn't really factor into how the game played out.
:bong:

LITTLE NELL
07-24-2007, 06:02 PM
Junior, I've been watching White Sox baseball for 52 years now. I've been around this game longer than anyone here, and I can tell you that defense is not important. Those glory days back in the 50's were due to outstanding starting pitching combined with a damn solid offense. Defense had little to do with it, as it does with every championship team.
You are clueless plus Ive been a Sox fan since 1953. I really think you are a Cub fan who got lost.

JB98
07-24-2007, 06:05 PM
Boy, this thread degenerated quickly.

I'm only 31, so I haven't been watching baseball for 50 years or anything. But I'm pretty sure pitching, defense and hitting are all important aspects of the game.

At any rate, I'm really encouraged by what I've seen from Fields at the plate. Hopefully, that continues the rest of the year. If he makes the decision about Crede difficult, the Sox will be better for it.

Risk
07-24-2007, 06:09 PM
Man, the goofballs have really been coming out of the wilderness lately.:o:

"Defense is not important..." That is a statement worthy of mshake10 level absurdity.

Risk

dickallen15
07-24-2007, 06:11 PM
In 155 at bats he has 7 HRS and 25 RBIs, that equates in 600 ABs to 27 HRs and 95 RBIs. Not too shabby. I think Josh is a keeper. The only problem is what to do with Crede.
Its also over 200 strikeouts.

oeo
07-24-2007, 06:15 PM
Junior, I've been watching White Sox baseball for 52 years now. I've been around this game longer than anyone here, and I can tell you that defense is not important. Those glory days back in the 50's were due to outstanding starting pitching combined with a damn solid offense. Defense had little to do with it, as it does with every championship team.

Game 1 of the World Series, 6th inning, we lead 4-3 with 1 out and a man on third. Crede makes two huge plays to keep the runner from scoring and tying the game.

And this is just one example of how his defense was a huge part of our success in the postseason.

Frater Perdurabo
07-24-2007, 06:17 PM
There's a way to accommodate both Crede (assuming he's healthy) and Fields - without having to put Fields in the OF. It also addresses Thome's rather poor production against LHP.

Against LHP, Crede would start at 3B and Fields would DH. This gives Thome frequent days off to rest. This would make him less likely to miss longer stretches of games due to nagging injuries.

Against RHP, Crede and Fields would "platoon" based on both matchups with opposing pitchers and based on who's pitching for the Sox. If it's Buehrle or Garland - ground ball pitchers, then Crede - the superior defender - should start.

As for left field, I think I would be OK with an Ozuna/Mackowiak platoon provided that the Sox can secure a LH leadoff hitter to play CF, RF, 2B or SS.

oeo
07-24-2007, 06:18 PM
There's a way to accommodate both Crede (assuming he's healthy) and Fields - without having to put Fields in the OF. It also addresses Thome's rather poor production against LHP.

Against LHP, Crede would start at 3B and Fields would DH. This gives Thome frequent days off to rest. This would make him less likely to miss longer stretches of games due to nagging injuries.

Against RHP, Crede and Fields would "platoon" based on both matchups with opposing pitchers and based on who's pitching for the Sox. If it's Buehrle or Garland - ground ball pitchers, then Crede - the superior defender - should start.

As for left field, I think I would be OK with an Ozuna/Mackowiak platoon provided that the Sox can secure a LH leadoff hitter to play CF, RF, 2B or SS.

Are we going to trade Konerko, too?

No offense, but this is a bad plan. Not only the Fields at DH, but having our bench players platoon. Ozuna and Mackowiak are valuable to this team, off the bench. We need a starter, not a platoon of a couple of mediocre slap hitters.

paciorek1983
07-24-2007, 06:26 PM
Just aksing, but can Fields play SS?

Daver
07-24-2007, 06:28 PM
Just aksing, but can Fields play SS?

His range at third is limited, but it makes more sense than dumping him in left field and watching him wander around aimlessly.

ilsox7
07-24-2007, 06:30 PM
His range at third is limited, but it makes more sense than dumping him in left field and watching him wander around aimlessly.

How bad would we be up the middle with Fields and Richar manning 2B and SS?

Frater Perdurabo
07-24-2007, 06:30 PM
Are we going to trade Konerko, too?

No offense, but this is a bad plan. Not only the Fields at DH, but having our bench players platoon. Ozuna and Mackowiak are valuable to this team, off the bench. We need a starter, not a platoon of a couple of mediocre slap hitters.

Touché.

So you'd rather Thome continue to generate a .226 average, a .398 SLG and a .726 OPS against lefties, as he has for the past three years? And in putting up those poor numbers, risk further injury? Save Thome for when he's still deadly - 1.167 OPS v. RHP this year!

My point is that there's room on the Sox for both Crede (who due to the back surgery also is going to need to be protected - just like Thome needs to be protected) and Fields, and Fields doesn't have to play outfield.

Of course I'd rather have a better solution in left, but Mackowiak's one of the better hitters on the team, espectially against RHP, and Ozuna is great against LHP. There are much worse options than those two platooning in left.

JB98
07-24-2007, 06:31 PM
His range at third is limited, but it makes more sense than dumping him in left field and watching him wander around aimlessly.

I would never put Fields at SS. If you're trying to hide a guy who is an average defender at best, why would it be better to put him at SS than LF?

Daver
07-24-2007, 06:45 PM
How bad would we be up the middle with Fields and Richar manning 2B and SS?

Richar is a pretty good defensive second baseman. If Crede returns I would be inclined to send Fields back to Charlotte.

thomas35forever
07-24-2007, 06:50 PM
Richar is a pretty good defensive second baseman. If Crede returns I would be inclined to send Fields back to Charlotte.
Why send Fields back down after he's played up here for as long as he has this season? I mean, part of that makes sense, but he belongs at the big-league level. Hawk even said his swing is quicker at this point in his career than Crede's was. That's quite a comparison considering what Crede has done for this team. I say nay to sending re-demoting Fields.

oeo
07-24-2007, 06:51 PM
Touché.

So you'd rather Thome continue to generate a .226 average, a .398 SLG and a .726 OPS against lefties, as he has for the past three years? And in putting up those poor numbers, risk further injury? Save Thome for when he's still deadly - 1.167 OPS v. RHP this year!

My point is that there's room on the Sox for both Crede (who due to the back surgery also is going to need to be protected - just like Thome needs to be protected) and Fields, and Fields doesn't have to play outfield.

Of course I'd rather have a better solution in left, but Mackowiak's one of the better hitters on the team, espectially against RHP, and Ozuna is great against LHP. There are much worse options than those two platooning in left.

Thome may suck against lefties, but just his presence in the lineup can change an inning. Fields cannot offer that presence.

Phil Bradley
07-24-2007, 06:52 PM
Crede was never good before 06. 06 was obviously a fluke year and he finished it with an AWFUL slump, at one point 0 for his last 27 or something like that. People forget that he was a .300 hitter most of that year but dropped to .283 because of his terrible finish. Fields has already proven more valuable than Crede in his ROOKIE YEAR. Get rid of Crede. We don't need him. He's overrated by many Sox fans and is a career .259 hitter. Fields will clearly surpass him. People also want to talk about Crede's defense. Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.

That's a loaded statement, that may or may not require teal. Who cares about offense when you make errors that cost your team the game? (Baltimore comes to mind) I know Fields is a rookie but I'd take Joe's fielding any day of the week.

upperdeckusc
07-24-2007, 06:52 PM
Richar is a pretty good defensive second baseman. If Crede returns I would be inclined to send Fields back to Charlotte.
are you talking at the end of this yr? or for the start of next yr? from what i've heard, richar is a butcher at 2b. hopefully not and hopefully its old reports. have you seen him play or how do you know personally he's that good defensively??

Daver
07-24-2007, 06:56 PM
are you talking at the end of this yr? or for the start of next yr? from what i've heard, richar is a butcher at 2b. hopefully not and hopefully its old reports. have you seen him play or how do you know personally he's that good defensively??

I've seen tape of him in Charlotte, he's not a gold glove player, don't get me wrong, but not a butcher. Think Ray Durham.

upperdeckusc
07-24-2007, 06:58 PM
I've seen tape of him in Charlotte, he's not a gold glove player, don't get me wrong, but not a butcher. Think Ray Durham.

if he can hit anywhere near his charlotte numbers, the sox will GLADLY take that balance between offense and solid D. now the $1,000,000 question: who plays SS next yr for the sox??

Frater Perdurabo
07-24-2007, 06:59 PM
Thome may suck against lefties, but just his presence in the lineup can change an inning. Fields cannot offer that presence.

Give me production over presence.

More importantly, I'd much rather keep Thome rested against LHP so he can play as many games as possible - ideally EVERY game - against RHP, and be ready to pinch hit in games started by LHP.

AJ Hellraiser
07-24-2007, 09:20 PM
No, defense doesn't win championships. Pitching and hitting do. Defense is an overrated aspect of the game of baseball, and is not as important as you make it out to be. I already said that his defense was top notch, but he was and still is a bad hitter.

Who cares about the playoffs? Dye was a monster in 05, and is hitting under .230 this year. Anyone can catch fire during a short series, it's what they do during a 162 game season that determines how good they are. Crede has not proven that he is anything but a below average hitter.

DEFENSE AND PITCHING WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS... please name me 3 teams ever to bash their way to the trophy...

Also, great players raise their game a notch in crunch time and when it's all on the line in the playoffs.. Marino and Bonds will always be remembered for failing in the playoffs (especially Roid Bonds).... Crede became the type of hitter nobody expected and provided a consistent offensive force at the bottom of the lineup that made our 1-9 tough to get through for opposing pitchers

FarWestChicago
07-24-2007, 09:57 PM
I've seen tape of him in Charlotte, he's not a gold glove player, don't get me wrong, but not a butcher. Think Ray Durham.Please tell he has more range than the Fire Hydrant. I don't think I could bear watching another statue. :o:

Huisj
07-24-2007, 10:08 PM
Game 1 of the World Series, 6th inning, we lead 4-3 with 1 out and a man on third. Crede makes two huge plays to keep the runner from scoring and tying the game.

And this is just one example of how his defense was a huge part of our success in the postseason.

And how about some examples from the team the Sox are playing right now? How much did Inge's errors and all the throwing errors by the pitching staff hurt them in the World Series last year? They gave up at least 1 unearned run in every game if I remember right, and two in a few of the games that could have otherwise been victories.

The thing about bad defense is that it seems to rear it's head in high pressure close game situations. Sure, you won't see its impact in those 10-0 blowouts of bad teams during the regular season, but come to a pitchers duel in cold weather in the playoffs, and it can be huge.

FarWestChicago
07-24-2007, 10:21 PM
Crede was never good before 06. 06 was obviously a fluke year and he finished it with an AWFUL slump, at one point 0 for his last 27 or something like that. People forget that he was a .300 hitter most of that year but dropped to .283 because of his terrible finish. Fields has already proven more valuable than Crede in his ROOKIE YEAR. Get rid of Crede. We don't need him. He's overrated by many Sox fans and is a career .259 hitter. Fields will clearly surpass him. People also want to talk about Crede's defense. Who cares about defense when your bat stinks? Judging hitters, 95% of their importance comes from their bat. Fields is much better than Crede.Hey, who let shoota back in? :dunno:

FedEx227
07-25-2007, 12:51 AM
He's played outfield for exactly two games, and you want to move him there at the MLB level?

It's a damn good thing you are not making the roster.

Then you should jump on ondafarm's bandwagon and want to fire Ozzie Guillen and Kenny Williams.

Andy Gonzalez played outfield in exactly 11 games in the minors before coming up to the Sox and primarily playing the corner outfield positions.

Good thing neither of them are making the roster.

jabrch
07-25-2007, 12:59 AM
I'm glad that in this nightmarish season we are seeing some things that look good for the future. Floyd, Owens, Charlie Knuckles, Danks, Javy, Mark, Thome, PK, Wasserman, etc. I am looking forward to seeing more of Gio, Floyd, Sweeney, etc. after the deadline.

letsgosox1592
07-25-2007, 04:19 AM
No, defense doesn't win championships. Pitching and hitting do. Defense is an overrated aspect of the game of baseball, and is not as important as you make it out to be. I already said that his defense was top notch, but he was and still is a bad hitter.

Who cares about the playoffs? Dye was a monster in 05, and is hitting under .230 this year. Anyone can catch fire during a short series, it's what they do during a 162 game season that determines how good they are. Crede has not proven that he is anything but a below average hitter.

First off, without any defense you would be in big trouble. 2nd, if you want to be a championship calliber team, you cant give the other teams more than 3 out an inning.

For defense being overrated, well your just a fool to think that. \\

soxinem1
07-25-2007, 11:03 AM
If Crede can come back healthy than he is our 3rd base while we move Josh Fields to the outfield for a year. If Crede gets injured hes back at 3rd for good. I wouldn't mind an outfield for next year being Fields in left, Owens in center, and Sweeney in right

That will be one lame, K-prone, unproductive OF. I have no problem with Fields in LF for 2008 if Crede is not around, but the White Sox have had overall unproductive OF's from 2005 to the present.

That OF you comprised may not even total 40 HR's, but would have about 350 K's for the season.

balke
07-25-2007, 11:07 AM
I'm just glad someone might make it out of the minors alive this season. He's looking a lot like an MLB player.

I do think Crede's bat stinks, but part of that is probably injury, and a large part of it is made up by his glove and clutch hits. He's one of the few guys that I think could have a breakout in his career and just go nuts with his bat. He's got a good swing, and lines out more than anyone I've ever seen in a sox uni (Besides Frank Thomas).

Sox It To Em
07-25-2007, 12:00 PM
BP did a very interesting take on this, and while they found that the most important factor in playoff success is luck by a wide margin, they discovered that the three most influential controllable factors were the quality of closer, the quality of the defense, and the strikeout rate of the pitching staff. So according to their study the axiom "pitching and defense wins championships" is more true than false.

SBSoxFan
07-25-2007, 12:22 PM
BP did a very interesting take on this, and while they found that the most important factor in playoff success is luck by a wide margin, they discovered that the three most influential controllable factors were the quality of closer, the quality of the defense, and the strikeout rate of the pitching staff. So according to their study the axiom "pitching and defense wins championships" is more true than false.

How did they measure luck? Was it everything else that couldn't be categorized or didn't fit into their model?

Maybe luck is just a stat that hasn't been invented yet. :wink:

Sox It To Em
07-25-2007, 01:03 PM
How did they measure luck? Was it everything else that couldn't be categorized or didn't fit into their model?

Maybe luck is just a stat that hasn't been invented yet. :wink:

Quoting from the book:

That there is a great deal of luck involved in the playoffs is an incontrovertible mathematical fact. While it takes 162 games to sort out who is the better team in the regular season, a playoff series can be decided in as few as 3 games. Moreover, while there is both good and bad teams in the regular season, those teams that reach the playoffs are closely bunched together in ability level.

Makes sense to me. A five- or seven- game series is way too small of a sample size for the better team to always come out on top.

lostfan
07-25-2007, 01:04 PM
Quoting from the book:



Makes sense to me. A five- or seven- game series is way too small of a sample size for the better team to always come out on top.

See: 2006 St. Louis Cardinals vs. Detroit Tigers

SBSoxFan
07-25-2007, 01:09 PM
Quoting from the book:



Makes sense to me. A five- or seven- game series is way too small of a sample size for the better team to always come out on top.


In other words, they didn't.

jabrch
07-25-2007, 01:15 PM
That there is a great deal of luck involved in the playoffs is an incontrovertible mathematical fact.

I think by definition, "LUCK" is not a "MATHEMATICAL FACT"

Probability - that's a mathematical fact.

But LUCK?

Sox It To Em
07-25-2007, 01:39 PM
In other words, they didn't.

They didn't do what? Measure luck? Sorry, I should have been more clear. They did so, but indirectly. I can't repost the entire chapter, but I'll give a summary of what they did. They used a metric called Playoff Success Points, which assigns credit to teams based on how many wins they had during the playoffs. Teams are assigned three points for making the playoffs, three points for winning the LDS, four points for winning the LCS, four points for winning the World Series, and one point for each playoff win, but one point is taken away for each playoff loss. The 2005 White Sox had a PSP rating of 23, which I think is the best of all time.

Next, they measure the correlation between PSP and various statistics. A correlation of -1 mean an inverse relationship, 1 would mean a perfect relationship, and .00 would mean no relationship. This is used to determine what stats correlate most with playoff success. I can't post the whole thing but here's some of what they found:

W-L%: .22
Runs Scored: .00
Runs Allowed: .22
VORP for SPs: .20
Closer WXRL (expected wins over a replacement level pitcher): .22
Fielding Runs Above Average: .16
Opponents BA: .23
Pitcher Strikeout Rate: .13

In summary, they concluded that the quality of the defense, closer, and the K rate of the pitching staff were the statistics that correlated most highly with playoff success. They also said that the majority of the time it's plain old luck that prevails. I agree that "luck" is the wrong word to use here since it has all sorts of negative connotations, including the implication that lesser teams didn't really "deserve" to win. It seems to me that a better word for it would be "variation," as in how players and teams can differ from their regular season performance in the playoffs. The thing is that this "variation" is so random and unpredictable that it may as well be called luck from our perspective.

It's really a fascinating study, and can be found in their book Baseball Between the Numbers. Really a great book, I would recommend it to anyone interested.

RowanDye
07-25-2007, 01:59 PM
Why send Fields back down after he's played up here for as long as he has this season?

:anderson: "Hey, what's going on?"

SBSoxFan
07-25-2007, 02:50 PM
They didn't do what? Measure luck? Sorry, I should have been more clear. They did so, but indirectly. I can't repost the entire chapter, but I'll give a summary of what they did. They used a metric called Playoff Success Points, which assigns credit to teams based on how many wins they had during the playoffs. Teams are assigned three points for making the playoffs, three points for winning the LDS, four points for winning the LCS, four points for winning the World Series, and one point for each playoff win, but one point is taken away for each playoff loss. The 2005 White Sox had a PSP rating of 23, which I think is the best of all time.

Next, they measure the correlation between PSP and various statistics. A correlation of -1 mean an inverse relationship, 1 would mean a perfect relationship, and .00 would mean no relationship. This is used to determine what stats correlate most with playoff success. I can't post the whole thing but here's some of what they found:

I don't want to belabor the point, as there have been many hearty debates here regarding BP, nor harass you, but the fact that they made up a metric and then looked at how some variables correlated with said metric doesn't rightfully allow them to site luck, an unidentified variable, as a major contributor. The following argument might be more convincing, you can tell me if BP said something like "We found x number of variables that account for 98% of the reasons teams win the world series. The remaining 2% we attribute to luck." Otherwise, the term luck is too encompassing.

I agree with jabrach, probability confidence is directly related to sample size and is an incontrovertible mathematical fact, luck is not. Whether the former approach is a reasonable way to assess athletic event outcomes remains an open question.

russ99
07-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Josh should have been here from the start with Crede being moved when his trade value was at an all time high.

Financially the best move is to try and move Crede in the offseason or non-tender him.

Shoulda coulda...

I really don't think the Sox are going to get a decent return on Crede regardless. His back operation this year was just a quick-fix with no promises of the same back problems coming back next year or in future seasons.

Then there's all these shenanigans with Boras, his refusal for surgery last offseason, the spin on his rehab, etc. I can't see a team trading a solid player or prospect for a free agent to be with those two huge question marks hanging over his head.

It might serve the Sox better to non-tender him this offseason, since Fields is really coming into his own with the bat.

If I ran the Sox, I'd track down Robin Ventura and have him work with Josh in the offseason to improve his fielding.

Flight #24
07-25-2007, 03:55 PM
W-L%: .22
Runs Scored: .00
Runs Allowed: .22
VORP for SPs: .20
Closer WXRL (expected wins over a replacement level pitcher): .22
Fielding Runs Above Average: .16
Opponents BA: .23
Pitcher Strikeout Rate: .13

In summary, they concluded that the quality of the defense, closer, and the K rate of the pitching staff were the statistics that correlated most highly with playoff success. They also said that the majority of the time it's plain old luck that prevails. I agree that "luck" is the wrong word to use here since it has all sorts of negative connotations, including the implication that lesser teams didn't really "deserve" to win. It seems to me that a better word for it would be "variation," as in how players and teams can differ from their regular season performance in the playoffs. The thing is that this "variation" is so random and unpredictable that it may as well be called luck from our perspective.


So if W-L% is regular season W-L%, wouldn't that mean that the strongest correlation with playoff success is regular season success? In other words, it's NOT luck, but that success in the regular season is indicative of success in the postseason?:?:

Also, there's huge correlations between some of their "independent variables": Fielding runs allowed, opponents BA, runs allowed would all be correlated unless they've got some kind of controls or multi-factor regressions in there (which introduce their own issues).

oeo
07-25-2007, 04:18 PM
If I ran the Sox, I'd track down Robin Ventura and have him work with Josh in the offseason to improve his fielding.

He's already improving. Crede and from what I've heard, Ventura, were everything short of spectacular on defense when they first came up. Since Fields is already showing improvement from two months ago, I have full faith he can work the kinks out by next year.

Sox It To Em
07-25-2007, 04:30 PM
So if W-L% is regular season W-L%, wouldn't that mean that the strongest correlation with playoff success is regular season success? In other words, it's NOT luck, but that success in the regular season is indicative of success in the postseason?:?:

Also, there's huge correlations between some of their "independent variables": Fielding runs allowed, opponents BA, runs allowed would all be correlated unless they've got some kind of controls or multi-factor regressions in there (which introduce their own issues).

Well, I've reread the chapter, and they introduce regression analysis, and acknowledge that correlation does not prove causation. They pretty much say that it's true that regular season W-L records, opponent's BA, etc. are among the strongest correlations, but are interrelated so they need to find the true driving force. That's where they conclude that the strikeout rate of pitchers and the quality of the bullpen and defense are the three most fundamental correlatives of postseason success. Apparently they concluded this when (quoting)... "After any number of permutations of the 26 variables in our database, we identified three factors that have the most fundamental and direct relationship with Playoff Success Points: Closer WXRL, Pitcher K rate, and FRAA."

Later they mention that these elements only account for about 11 percent of postseason success. I'm not sure how they came up with that number. So take it FWIW. My head is spinning right now, this stuff is too confusing to me.

rdivaldi
07-25-2007, 04:37 PM
He's already improving. Crede and from what I've heard, Ventura, were everything short of spectacular on defense when they first came up. Since Fields is already showing improvement from two months ago, I have full faith he can work the kinks out by next year.

I don't have "full faith", but Fields is a completely different player at 3B than when we drafted him. We used to cringe when the ball was hit towards him, now I expect at least average defense.

soxinem1
07-25-2007, 05:50 PM
How bad would we be up the middle with Fields and Richar manning 2B and SS?

Here's an idea:

http://www.celebopedia.com/tampa-bay-devil-rays/images/tampa-bay-devil-rays.jpg or http://www.flagpro.com/store/media/WashNationals.gif

soxinem1
07-25-2007, 05:53 PM
If Crede can come back healthy than he is our 3rd base while we move Josh Fields to the outfield for a year. If Crede gets injured hes back at 3rd for good. I wouldn't mind an outfield for next year being Fields in left, Owens in center, and Sweeney in right

That OF will guarantee 90+ losses.

FedEx227
07-25-2007, 06:36 PM
That OF will guarantee 90+ losses.

How so? If you don't have a worthless veteran patrolling one of the OF spots you can't be successful?

I'm against Fields in LF, but I wouldn't put that OF down that much. Believe it or not you have to go back a few paces before you can go up. I'd rather take my chances with this lineup, our window has closed for becoming a champion with this group of guys. The Tigers, Indians and Twins are just too solid right now, so why not take our chances with Sweeney/Owens and see what happens.

I'd prefer to square up our infield positions in the offseason if anything, but I wouldn't be opposed to giving Richar the 2B job and just finding a decent SS on the market.

oeo
07-25-2007, 06:42 PM
How so? If you don't have a worthless veteran patrolling one of the OF spots you can't be successful?

I'm against Fields in LF, but I wouldn't put that OF down that much. Believe it or not you have to go back a few paces before you can go up. I'd rather take my chances with this lineup, our window has closed for becoming a champion with this group of guys. The Tigers, Indians and Twins are just too solid right now, so why not take our chances with Sweeney/Owens and see what happens.

I'd prefer to square up our infield positions in the offseason if anything, but I wouldn't be opposed to giving Richar the 2B job and just finding a decent SS on the market.

Unless Gio comes up and dominates right away, and we suddenly get a kick ass bullpen, we're going to need more than that in our outfield if we want to contend.

Right now, I can't believe some of you are ready to hand Owens the leadoff job next year. He's still got a lot (and I mean a lot) of proving to me before he's a starting outfielder next year.

FedEx227
07-25-2007, 06:46 PM
Unless Gio comes up and dominates right away, and we suddenly get a kick ass bullpen, we're going to need more than that in our outfield if we want to contend.

Right now, I can't believe some of you are ready to hand Owens the leadoff job next year. He's still got a lot (and I mean a lot) of proving to me before he's a starting outfielder next year.

I don't think we should think contend for next year.

We need a roster overhaul and unless Kenny/Jerry decide to add $100mill to our budget we can't do that in one season. I know that should be a teams goal every single season but realistically speaking I don't see us contending next year with the Tigers and Indians no matter what we do. Our team got bad in a hurry, and trying to patch it up in a hurry will only make us worse.

Why are we ready to hand Owens the leadoff job? Because he's the only future piece of this team I've seen that would be capable of leading off at this point.

Say we don't make a killing on the FA market, say the market value is way too much for Kenny to stomach so he plays it cool. Who out of the current roster would you rather have lead off next year?

oeo
07-25-2007, 06:52 PM
I don't think we should think contend for next year.

We need a roster overhaul and unless Kenny/Jerry decide to add $100mill to our budget we can't do that in one season. I know that should be a teams goal every single season but realistically speaking I don't see us contending next year with the Tigers and Indians no matter what we do. Our team got bad in a hurry, and trying to patch it up in a hurry will only make us worse.

Why are we ready to hand Owens the leadoff job? Because he's the only future piece of this team I've seen that would be capable of leading off at this point.

Say we don't make a killing on the FA market, say the market value is way too much for Kenny to stomach so he plays it cool. Who out of the current roster would you rather have lead off next year?

I don't want anyone currently inside the organization to lead off next year. That's Kenny's job over the next 5-6 months to find him. If Pods could stay healthy, I'd be all for him staying here. You can dislike the guy all you want, but when he's healthy and playing, we win. We need a new, healthy Scotty Pods and I just don't see that in Owens right now. Until he starts getting some more solid base hits, I won't be sold on the guy.

I feel that our holes can be filled this offseason, without spending a ton of money. You're going to need to spend some money on a couple of guys (an outfielder and a reliever), but other than that, you have to make other things happen through trades. Kenny has already stated that he's not going through a rebuilding process, and good, we don't need to rebuild. We have solid starting pitching, and a good offensive core...it's not like we're the Nationals.

lostfan
07-25-2007, 07:12 PM
Unless Gio comes up and dominates right away, and we suddenly get a kick ass bullpen, we're going to need more than that in our outfield if we want to contend.

Right now, I can't believe some of you are ready to hand Owens the leadoff job next year. He's still got a lot (and I mean a lot) of proving to me before he's a starting outfielder next year.
So let him get to work on proving it and working on his game. It's not like he's hopeless and isn't doing a damn thing. If there is a bona fide leadoff hitter to take his place (or that can be obtained) that isn't going to be out half the time that's one thing, but there's not.

No, he's not ready to be a full-blown everyday leadoff hitter for a contending team yet, but he's shown the potential to be if he keeps playing daily at the MLB level. Pulling the plug for him because of a win-now mentality or to salvage a handful of meaningless wins this year could end up biting us in the ass.

oeo
07-25-2007, 09:34 PM
So let him get to work on proving it and working on his game. It's not like he's hopeless and isn't doing a damn thing. If there is a bona fide leadoff hitter to take his place (or that can be obtained) that isn't going to be out half the time that's one thing, but there's not.

No, he's not ready to be a full-blown everyday leadoff hitter for a contending team yet, but he's shown the potential to be if he keeps playing daily at the MLB level. Pulling the plug for him because of a win-now mentality or to salvage a handful of meaningless wins this year could end up biting us in the ass.

When did I say he shouldn't be given a shot this year?

My argument is, everyone is handing him the starting job right now and he has not proven he deserves it (at least not yet). No one should be putting him in our starting outfield yet...right now it looks like we're in trouble if we do.

RowanDye
07-25-2007, 10:17 PM
I don't want anyone currently inside the organization to lead off next year. That's Kenny's job over the next 5-6 months to find him. If Pods could stay healthy, I'd be all for him staying here. You can dislike the guy all you want, but when he's healthy and playing, we win. We need a new, healthy Scotty Pods and I just don't see that in Owens right now. Until he starts getting some more solid base hits, I won't be sold on the guy.

I feel that our holes can be filled this offseason, without spending a ton of money. You're going to need to spend some money on a couple of guys (an outfielder and a reliever), but other than that, you have to make other things happen through trades. Kenny has already stated that he's not going through a rebuilding process, and good, we don't need to rebuild. We have solid starting pitching, and a good offensive core...it's not like we're the Nationals.

White Sox ~ 45-55

Nationals ~ 42-57

You can argue that we're better than our record, but in the stat that matters we're actually not much better than the Nationals.

I just hope KW and Ozzie are honest and realistic enough about this team to know if it's time to rebuild.

I have a lot of trust in their decisions, but at this time next year I don't want to feel like I've been sold a lemon.

oeo
07-25-2007, 10:22 PM
White Sox ~ 45-55

Nationals ~ 42-57

You can argue that we're better than our record, but in the stat that matters we're actually not much better than the Nationals.

I just hope KW and Ozzie are honest and realistic enough about this team to know if it's time to rebuild.

I have a lot of trust in their decisions, but at this time next year I don't want to feel like I've been sold a lemon.

Thank you for putting those records up. :rolleyes:

It still doesn't change the fact that we have far superior starting pitching, and guys like Paulie, Thome, and AJ...along with Fields. We didn't re-sign Buehrle to re-build...that would just be a waste of money.

RowanDye
07-25-2007, 10:59 PM
Thank you for putting those records up. :rolleyes:

It still doesn't change the fact that we have far superior starting pitching, and guys like Paulie, Thome, and AJ...along with Fields. We didn't re-sign Buehrle to re-build...that would just be a waste of money.

Thank you for reading the rest of my post. :rolleyes:

And thank you for pointing out that we have about 1/2 of a good team right now.

We have 3 or 4 good starters, 1 or 2 relievers, and the position players you mentioned.

My point was simply that when I take an honest look at the team, there are a lot of holes to fill. If KW thinks he can fill them, great! Otherwise he needs to rebuild around the guys you mentioned, because I'm not satisfied with just contending for 2nd or 3rd place. I want a plan in place to win another world series.

Vernam
07-25-2007, 11:15 PM
Unless Gio comes up and dominates right away, and we suddenly get a kick ass bullpen, we're going to need more than that in our outfield if we want to contend.

Right now, I can't believe some of you are ready to hand Owens the leadoff job next year. He's still got a lot (and I mean a lot) of proving to me before he's a starting outfielder next year.

Agreed, but people can't be blamed for supporting Owens due to the "Anyone But Erstad or Pods" theory.

I could live with Fields in LF for six months if it buys Kenny time to deal Crede at something better than a fire sale price. Or better yet, sign Joe at a low price once he proves himself healthy, then find another spot for Fields. That would be a nice problem to have.

Vernam

soxinem1
07-25-2007, 11:45 PM
Owens has not exibited any hitting or defensive skills other than that he catches what is hit to him. His arm is a rag and he has no interest in using his speed by slapping or bunting the ball for hits. He looks a little better since he came back, but I cannot see how this guy gets a shot over a few others, including Anderson.

I think the more important thing is what the team ends up doing: Do they rebuld or retool. If it is retooling, then Owens does not make the grade.

letsgosox1592
07-26-2007, 12:08 AM
Owens has not exibited any hitting or defensive skills other than that he catches what is hit to him. His arm is a rag and he has no interest in using his speed by slapping or bunting the ball for hits. He looks a little better since he came back, but I cannot see how this guy gets a shot over a few others, including Anderson.

I think the more important thing is what the team ends up doing: Do they rebuld or retool. If it is retooling, then Owens does not make the grade.
That Kind of sounds like a Scotty Pods to me

Tragg
07-26-2007, 12:23 AM
If we could get a speedy, lead-off hitting centerfielder who can play defense, then we could put Fields in left, if his 3b D isn't up to spiff. WE haven't had good LF defense in a decade, so it wouldn't be anything new. (SS for Fields is out of the question; you shortchange defense at SS, and you lose).

As it is now, the dink hitter on the Sox usually plays LF and CF is for anyone who can run down balls hit to the OF. (thereby giving us two slappers, which is one too many).

It looks like Fields will be a legit major league hitters - hooray for that.

jabrch
07-26-2007, 12:40 AM
Fields splits against LHP are awesome...

TheVulture
07-26-2007, 02:10 PM
I'm glad that in this nightmarish season we are seeing some things that look good for the future. Floyd....:bundy:bong::tealpolice:<Insert incredibly overused chunks tag>:tealtutor:

chisox77
07-26-2007, 05:16 PM
I usually like to read all or most of the posts of a thread before replying. But I have to mention, if it hasn't been already, that Josh Fields and Robin Ventura have one thing in common:

They both starred at Oklahoma State University.

But Fields was also a star quarterback in a tough football conference. He is a pretty good athlete. Crede's injury, while very unfortunate, gives the Sox a chance to allow him to play third base and get many AB's during a good stretch of time. I think Fields can be a very good player, maybe a great player. We'll see.

:cool:

kjhanson
07-26-2007, 06:19 PM
Fields splits against LHP are awesome...

His OPS is 1.170 and he hits .556 when he puts the ball in play against them. Those numbers are absolutely phenomenal. Just way too many strikeouts. I still have a lot of confidence in him in the future though. Cut down on the number of big swings he takes, and he will be very fun to watch.

oeo
07-26-2007, 06:25 PM
Thank you for reading the rest of my post. :rolleyes:

And thank you for pointing out that we have about 1/2 of a good team right now.

We have 3 or 4 good starters, 1 or 2 relievers, and the position players you mentioned.

My point was simply that when I take an honest look at the team, there are a lot of holes to fill. If KW thinks he can fill them, great! Otherwise he needs to rebuild around the guys you mentioned, because I'm not satisfied with just contending for 2nd or 3rd place. I want a plan in place to win another world series.

I did read the whole post. Seemed to me that you were trying to prove that we needed to rebuild, by comparing our record to the Nationals. Our records may be similar, but we don't have a bunch of holes that cannot be filled quickly (like the Nats do with SP).

Now you say that we should rebuild around those guys. That's not rebuilding; rebuilding would be scrapping all those guys and going completely young. We need to re-tool, but not rebuild...there's a significant difference.

lostfan
07-26-2007, 06:40 PM
His OPS is 1.170 and he hits .556 when he puts the ball in play against them. Those numbers are absolutely phenomenal. Just way too many strikeouts. I still have a lot of confidence in him in the future though. Cut down on the number of big swings he takes, and he will be very fun to watch.
I don't think he'll ever cut down on his strikeouts though. That doesn't mean he won't be a good hitter, you just have to take the good with the bad.

Frater Perdurabo
07-26-2007, 06:42 PM
His OPS is 1.170 and he hits .556 when he puts the ball in play against them. Those numbers are absolutely phenomenal. Just way too many strikeouts. I still have a lot of confidence in him in the future though. Cut down on the number of big swings he takes, and he will be very fun to watch.

That's why if Crede returns, I still think there's room for both Crede and Fields.

Fields can DH against lefties. His splits against lefties are basically as good as Thome's against RHP.

With Crede probably needing regular rest, Fields would get plenty more ABs while starting at third.

lostfan
07-26-2007, 06:43 PM
Would it be ridiculous to suggest Crede can play SS?

Frater Perdurabo
07-26-2007, 07:15 PM
Would it be ridiculous to suggest Crede can play SS?

I think he can play the position, but not at a level that this team needs - especially with ground ball pitchers like Buehrle and Garland.

lostfan
07-26-2007, 07:47 PM
I think he can play the position, but not at a level that this team needs - especially with ground ball pitchers like Buehrle and Garland.
Crede? The best defensive infielder on the team? The only reason that puts doubt in my mind is his injury, otherwise I have no reason to believe he can't do bring what he does at 3rd to short. I'd think he'd be close to what Uribe was before he started to suck, without the maddening offensive lapses/sometimey surges.

Frater Perdurabo
07-26-2007, 08:02 PM
Crede? The best defensive infielder on the team? The only reason that puts doubt in my mind is his injury, otherwise I have no reason to believe he can't do bring what he does at 3rd to short. I'd think he'd be close to what Uribe was before he started to suck, without the maddening offensive lapses/sometimey surges.

Some of the more astute observers and the scouts may disagree, but IMHO Crede and Uribe have slightly different defensive skill sets.

Both have strong arms, but in terms of fielding they are different players. Crede has fantastic "cat-like" instincts. He can pounce on balls within a step or two laterally and is great moving forward to field the slow roller. Uribe - and most of the better defensive shortstops - have a much larger lateral range. At shortstop, you generally have more time to react (because you're farther from home plate), but a much larger territory to cover.

Crede's defensive skills make him a better third baseman, but what he does well doesn't exactly translate to what's needed to be a good-to-great defensive shortstop.

I think if he was asked to play shortstop, Crede would field the ball cleanly. I think he'd do OK on DPs. But he just wouldn't have the range that we've come to expect at short. As a result, I think a lot more ground balls would make their way into the outfield.

Daver
07-26-2007, 08:12 PM
Would it be ridiculous to suggest Crede can play SS?

A cardboard cutout can play SS, the question is can they play it well?

Crede has the instincts to play short, but I would think his range would be limited, not good for a pitching staff anchored by two groundball pitchers.

santo=dorf
07-26-2007, 08:26 PM
His OPS is 1.170 and he hits .556 when he puts the ball in play against them. Those numbers are absolutely phenomenal. Just way too many strikeouts. I still have a lot of confidence in him in the future though. Cut down on the number of big swings he takes, and he will be very fun to watch.
Who cares about strikeouts if the guy is putting up monster numbers?

I'll take Thome, Adam Dunn, and Grady Sizemore over Eckstein, Pierre, and Polanco every day of the week

Polack
07-30-2007, 01:08 PM
Personally, I'm a little concerned about Fields' ability at third. When I've seen him at the park he seems immobile. Groundballs routinely seem to pass him on the left. I think he may benefit from some more minor league play before we annoint him as a startimg third baseman next year.

thechico
07-30-2007, 02:48 PM
Richar is a pretty good defensive second baseman. If Crede returns I would be inclined to send Fields back to Charlotte.

To me, the big ? in this is "Can Richar hit?"
BA had strong D, but weak O.

RockJock07
07-30-2007, 03:02 PM
I really don't want to see Josh in left his defense is so much better then it was when he was first called up and if Kenny gives him the rest of this season, winter ball, and spring training to work on it, the sky's the limit.

His bat is getting better too, yes he K's alot but he's a ROOKIE!!!! He's not as good a prospect as Ryan Braun but he's not very far away from him either.

As far as Crede goes, I think his time has gone, back problems are very touchy and can really stick with a player, it's really a roll of the dice if we see the Crede from last year or is the player he was before 06. Crede is a the same player career wise as Uribe is. If you wanna tender him and try to get something for him, by all means go ahead kenny, but not at the expense at moving Josh, if Crede wants to play here, ask him to move to short.

esbrechtel
07-30-2007, 03:15 PM
I love Crede but I cannot see him playing SS....He's a corner infielder...