2004 Win Share report

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://casdra.com/win_shares/ws_all.php

Added: 71

Jermaine Dye 18, Pods 14, AJ 12, Vizc 3, Herm 9, El Duque 8, Garcia 9

Lost: 68

Lee 29, Val 14, Maggs 7, Olivo 4, Burke 4, E-LO 4, S-ALO 3, Koch 2, MJ 1

 

Garcia is a +9 because that was is win-share with Seattle before the trade. On the surface it looks like KW improved the team, but there is a distinction. Of the 71 wins added only 35 were earned in the AL. Of the 68 wins lost all of them were earned in the AL. If you view the NL as inferior to the AL as I do then AL wins have greater value. With it being so close it's hard to say KW improved the team.

 

Looking at our remaining options:

Polanco 18, Rollins 28, Durham 22, Cora 13, Castillo 19, Soriano 24, Boone 17, & Larkin 14

 

in place of Harris 10

 

Is an improvement. If KW could swing a Rollins trade w/out sacrificing any starters (other than Harris) that would be a major gain. That's a plus 18 win share for a total of +21. Even if you devalue that in 1/2 because of it being NL wins that's still a +10. giving the CWS a 93-69 record. Good enough to win the division. Soriano & Boone represent AL wins so adding them would also push the CWS past the 90 win mark.

Durham has both CWS, Cell, AL, & NL experience so his 22 wins is comparable to Rollins 28. Adding Durham should push the CWS past the 90 win mark as well.

 

Incidentally Crede was a 9, so I don't see much reason in protecting him either.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Divide by three

Edited January 11, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic

[JUGGERNAUT]

Divide by three

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NL is bad but it's not that bad.

[babybearhater]

I wouldnt put much stock in the win share report, especially when we are making a new batting order, changing postitions, and changing leagues. There is lie, ugly lie, blatant lie, and statistics.

[3E8]

If you want to do it that way, fine. We effectively traded Lee for Pod and Viz, then added El Duque and AJ with the extra money from that 'salary dump' (of which we still have money left to spend).

 

In summary,

 

Lee

 

for

 

Podsednik, Vizcaino, Hernandez, Pierzynski

 

29 win shares for 14 + 3 + 8 + 12 win shares.

 

29

[JUGGERNAUT]

To be fair about this we have to consider that some players had more ab's than others. A replacement of Harris by Boone(593), Rollins(657), & Soriano(608) would pretty much take Harris out of the picture.

 

But for the remaining options the best approach is to add their base to

Harris average (40ab/win) to fill out 600 ab's.

 

Harris(409)+Harris(191) 14.

Cora(405)+Harris(195) 17.

Larkin(346)+Harris(254) 20.

Polanco(503)+Harris(97) 20.

Durham(471)+Harris(129) 25.

Castillo(564)+Harris(36) 20.

Rollins(657) 28

Boone(593) 17

Soriano(608) 24

 

So the pecking order is then:

Rollins(3M), Durham(7M), Soriano(7.5M), Larkin(<1M), Castillo(4M), Polanco(5M), Cora(2M), Boone(8M), Harris(<500K)

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I'm no stat guy but wouldn't that 29>37 be wrong? Since you can't start a dozen players, wouldn't you have to subtract the players being replaced (catcher, RP, 5th starter). I realize all those players stunk but they should add up to a few win shares right?

[Gene Honda Civic]

I'm no stat guy but wouldn't that 29>37 be wrong?

You don't need to be a stat guy to realize that.

 

 

As for the rest of your question, you are right, and there is an inherent flaw in WS. They are very good at describing what you did for your team in that year, as they value high leverage situations(close and late AB's W/RISP) , but they are poor at predicting future production, especially when a player changes teams and roles ---

[3E8]

Maybe percentage of entire team's win shares would be better?

[Soxbadger]

Past performance can never predict future success.

 

Also, you are looking at thousands of independent variables and trying to fit them neatly into a formula.

 

Who knows how Dye would have produced in Lee's place?

 

Lee was on a better offensive team, that played a large amount of their games in a better offensive park.

 

But this could be a good way to evaluate a trade after the fact, as in compare Lee's ws to the rest of the gang after the season to see who really did profit.

 

Sb

[Gene Honda Civic]

Maybe percentage of entire team's win shares would be better?

not really, WS are based off of pythagorean record -- a team that doesn't win as much(brewers) probably has fewer people contributing, and thus those few players who actually were contributing would have a greater percentage of teams WS. But that's sorta like being the tallest midget

[CWSGuy406]

Good points, Gene.

 

This team is getting a lot of players who will be in different roles, too. For example, Hermanson will be coming here eclusively as a reliever. Vizcaino will be coming here not as the number one late-reliever (behind Kolb, of course), but here he'll be behind or near Marte and Shingo.

 

Does the Win Shares' statistic take park dimensions into consideration, too? Because, Dye, Pierzynski, and Podsednik will all almost undoubtedly boost their stats, even just a little bit upon last season's numbers.

 

I also believe that Crede and Harris (whoever we get to play 2B) will improve upon last years' numbers, but that should be evened out by a dropoff in production from Rowand and Uribe (again, I say very slight, if at all).

 

One last thing:

 

Is comparing last years team to this years' team a good tool to use, or no?

 

I believe everyone on this board will agree we've upgraded at most positions on our team, or have stayed with equal production, except LF and RF (a healthy Maggs is > Dye, and Lee >>> Podsednik, unless Pods repeats his 2003 season). We've improved our starting rotation. We've improved our bullpen.

 

What did we win, 80-some-odd games this past year? That was with an awful RFer from July on, a bad DH from August on, a bad 3Bman throughout the year, a terrible bullpen (Marte and Shingo discluded), and one hole(s) (at some points in the season, two) in the rotation.

 

If this team is fairly healthy (I'm expecting injuries, El Duque and Thomas being two who I expect to go down, at some point next season), I don't see why our floor shouldn't/isn't 85 games... Our floor.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The best way to look at win share I feel is how much a player contributed to that team. You can argue whether Rollins 28 is equivalent to Lee's 29. I don't feel it is. I simply value AL wins more because it's a tougher game with the DH. Hitters have to produce more & pitchers have to give up less.

 

What is indisputable is that the majority of the CWS wins last year were due to Lee's performance. Because that measure's Lee vs other players on the same team. That means they played under similar conditions.

 

Likewise I think we can all agree that adding Rollins & moving Uribe to 2B

& putting Harris on the bench would greatly enhance the CWS chances of winning the division. Rollins was the 3rd most productive player for the Phillies last year & even if you assumed a decline of his being only the 5th most productive player on the CWS in 2005 that is still a major improvement over Harris.

 

What this all really means is that if KW is done & Harris is the starting 2B

then it's a gut call as to whether he really improved the team.

AJ replaces the production of Olivo+SALO. So that's a +5. But again it's NL production so maybe it's really worth just a +3.

Pods replaces Lee. That's a -15. But maybe -20.

Hernandez replaces ELO. That's +4.

Dye replaces Maggs+Borch+Perez. That's a +7.

Garcia replaces all other starters that were non-factors. That's a +9.

Figure Herm & Vizc are included in the Garcia's +9.

 

If you view NL quality the same as AL quality then KW improved the team

significantly. If you view as less than AL quality then KW improved the team marginally. Can Pods produce a 15+ win share with the CWS?

I don't know. The pitching in the ALC is much better than the NLC.

I'd match up Westbrook, Sabathia, Moroth, Johnson, Santana, & Radke

against the top 2 of every NL team (other than the cubs) any day. Lee had success against these guys. It remains to be seen if Pods will.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Quote: Maggs > Dye, Lee >>> Pods.

You are forgetting three other spots: 2B, SS, & C.

Maggs > Dye, Lee >>> Pods, Val >> Harris, AJ > Burke+SAlo+Olivo

When you look at it that way then Dye & AJ are a wash & they drop out.

You are left with Lee >>> Pods, Val >> Harris.

I'll add El-Duque >> ELO, Garcia+Herm+Vizc >> spot starters+relievers.

 

So there lies the dilemma. Has the improvement in pitching made up for the dropoff from Lee to Pods & Val to Harris?

 

I don't think it has. I'm confident in Garcia+Herm, but not Vizc.

 

If you trully believe there is going to be a dropoff in Rowand & Uribe then

it's hard to say the Sox will be able to overcome the loss of Lee & Val.

Remember that when I refer to Val here I also mean the presence of Uribe vs Harris. Harris had 409ab, Val 450ab's, & Uribe 502. So with Val gone

Uribe & Harris will split those 450 ab's. That will push both Uribe & Harris over 600 ab's unless KW adds someone else.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I was just looking at it & player ranking on the team might be a better way to evaluate the win shares.

 

Lee #1 vs Pods #6

AJ #10 vs Olivo #15, Burke #17, SAlo #22

Dye #7 vs Maggs #14, Perez #20, Borchard #27 (Dye had 532ab)

Val #8 vs Harris #9

 

The expected improvement in production from Dye & AJ should make up for the loss of Lee(04) & Maggs(04). I put the emphasis on Maggs 04.

 

As far as pitching, there is no question that a full year of Garcia, & the additions of El Duque, Hermanson, & Vizc have improved the team. If we can expect Thomas to play more in 05 than he did in 04 then it would be a shock if the 05 team didn't win more games than the 04 did.

 

Still I would feel a lot better with an upgrade over Harris.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Scratch the rankings because the separation is not equal between ranks.

 

CWS-2005-TOTAL 3.09 /25 = .12361

CWS-2004-TOTAL 3.00 /28 = .10714

 

The 3.09 represent the combined % of each player's contribution to the 83 wins. Because many players contribute to many wins it's > 1.00. The 25 represents the 2005 roster including Cotts w a % of 0. Similarly the same applies for 2004.

 

The resulting % represents the avg contribution for any player on the roster. The difference represents the improvement or decline between rosters. Summing it all up as someone said above KW's changes should

result in at least 85 wins. About a 2% improvement over 2004.

 

But of course some CWS fans won't look at it that way. They'll look at is as 2005 is a healthy roster where as 2004 was a decimated one. Therefore we should really look at 2003 for Maggs & Thomas true contribution. On that basis is how we should decide whether KW improved the team. Well I disagree. You can make that argument for Thomas but not Maggs. He was not expected to be there in 2005. Since Thomas was on both 04 & 05 there's no point in comparing his impact. If you want to say a healthier Thomas in 05 will outperform a hurt Thomas in 04 that's reasonable.

 

% of wins player contributed to

Paul Konerko 26 0.31

Aaron Rowand 24 0.29

Juan Uribe 19 0.23

Mark Buehrle 18 0.22

S. Podsednik 14 0.21

Jermaine Dye 18 0.20

Freddy Garcia 0.18

S. Takatsu 15 0.18

Frank Thomas 14 0.17

A. Pierzynski 12 0.13

Willie Harris 10 0.12

Joe Crede 9 0.11

Ross Gload 9 0.11

Damaso Marte 9 0.11

Jon Garland 8 0.10

D. Hermanson 9 0.10

O. Hernandez 8 0.10

Ben Davis 4 0.05

Timo Perez 3 0.04

Carl Everett 3 0.04

Luis Vizcaino 3 0.04

Cliff Politte 2 0.02

Jon Adkins 2 0.02

J. Contreras 1 0.01

 

 

 

cws-Freddy Garcia 4 0.05

 

 

Oakland A's

91

Jermaine Dye 18 0.20

 

Seattle Mariners

63

Freddy Garcia 9 0.14

 

San Francisco Giants

91

A. Pierzynski 12 0.13

D. Hermanson 9 0.10

 

Millwaukee Brewers

67

S. Podsednik 14 0.21

Luis Vizcaino 3 0.04

 

New York Yankees

101

O. Hernandez 8 0.10

[JUGGERNAUT]

I think we can assume a healthy Frank will contribute to at least 30% of the wins & probably rank either #1 or #2 behind Koney.

 

How about Contreras as well? There's no way he's only going to contribute to 1 win in 05. I think we can pencil in at least 10% for Contreras. On par with Garland.

 

2005 prediction

Pauk Konerko 26 0.31

Frank Thomas 25 0.30

Aaron Rowand 24 0.29

Juan Uribe 19 0.23

Mark Buehrle 18 0.22

S. Podsednik 14 0.21

Jermaine Dye 18 0.20

Freddy Garcia 0.18

S. Takatsu 15 0.18

A. Pierzynski 12 0.13

Willie Harris 10 0.12

Joe Crede 9 0.11

Ross Gload 9 0.11

Damaso Marte 9 0.11

Jon Garland 8 0.10

J. Contreras 8 0.10

D. Hermanson 9 0.10

O. Hernandez 8 0.10

Ben Davis 4 0.05

Timo Perez 3 0.04

Carl Everett 3 0.04

Luis Vizcaino 3 0.04

Cliff Politte 2 0.02

Jon Adkins 2 0.02

[CWSGuy406]

Quote: Maggs > Dye, Lee >>> Pods.

You are forgetting three other spots: 2B, SS, & C.

Maggs > Dye, Lee >>> Pods, Val >> Harris, AJ > Burke+SAlo+Olivo

When you look at it that way then Dye & AJ are a wash & they drop out.

You are left with Lee >>> Pods, Val >> Harris.

I'll add El-Duque >> ELO, Garcia+Herm+Vizc >> spot starters+relievers.

 

So there lies the dilemma.  Has the improvement in pitching made up for the dropoff from Lee to Pods & Val to Harris?

 

I don't think it has.  I'm confident in Garcia+Herm, but not Vizc. 

 

If you trully believe there is going to be a dropoff in Rowand & Uribe then

it's hard to say the Sox will be able to overcome the loss of Lee & Val.

Remember that when I refer to Val here I also mean the presence of Uribe vs Harris.  Harris had 409ab, Val 450ab's, & Uribe 502.  So with Val gone

Uribe & Harris will split those 450 ab's.  That will push both Uribe & Harris over 600 ab's unless KW adds someone else.

 

Why are you comparing Harris and Valentin?

 

IMHO, our infield situation as of right now is better than what it was going into last year. Valentin was dropping off heading into last season, and Uribe was an unknown quantity heading into last season -- he actually wasn't the starter, Harris was. So -- based on last year's starters, I'll bet that 2005 Willie Harris + 2005 Juan Uribe will be >> than 2004 Willie Harris + 2004 Jose Valentin.

 

I don't think we're losing much with Valentin not on our roster. We'll lose some power from the left side of the plate, but Harris will also get on a lot more than Valentin would have...

[JUGGERNAUT]

Why are you comparing Harris and Valentin?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because that's the biggest change. You have Val+Uribe's production to compare vs Uribe's+Harris'. There is a big dropoff between those two pairs. Harris had some very bad months.

[CWSGuy406]

Because that's the biggest change.  You have Val+Uribe's production to compare vs Uribe's+Harris'.  There is a big dropoff between those two pairs.  Harris had some very bad months.

 

Ok....?

 

And Valentin had one really bad year...

 

2005 Harris/Secondbaseman brought in >>> 2004 Valentin. Book it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

For a pitcher I guess they are using wins & saves.

For a hitter I think they are using runs & rbi's when the team wins.

 

That's probably not fair because it negates production when the team loses.

Lee 04: Apr 12, May 13, Jun 19, Jul 16, Aug 13, Sep+ 19

Lee either scored at least a R or RBI in 92 games last year.

Pods 04: Apr 18, May 15, Jun 13, Jul 10, Aug 11, Sep+16

Pods either scored at least a R or RBI in 83 games last year.

Pods 03: Apr 6, May 10, Jun 19, Jul 13, Aug 17, Sep+ 16

Pods either scored at least a R or RBI in 71 games that year.

 

03: W67-L94, 04: W68-94

 

That shows you the impact of this guy's 70 SB. He was a factor in 12

more games in 04 despite a decline in BA, OBP, & SLG.

04: .244 .313 .364 .677 +79

03: .314 .379 .443 .822 +64

 

03 Home .302 .356 .448 .804 +54

03 Road .326 .403 .437 .840 +67

 

04 Home .213 .297 .317 .614 +84

04 Road .274 .330 .411 .741 +56

 

Like Harris, he demonstrates more patience when he's struggling.

At least we can say he won't be a bust. Any guy who is a factor in 83 games while hitting 244 is going to have an impact.

[JUGGERNAUT]

What about Dye & AJ?

Dye 04: Apr 17, May 14, Jun 16, Jul 13, Aug 14, Sep+ 9, 15 DNP

83 games. Dye was DNP for 1/2 of Sep. So he likely would have been a factor in 88 games. No wonder Beane liked him so much. He was a consistent run producer. He's a prime example of hit quality over quantity.

 

AJ 04: Apr 8, May 5, Jun 14, Jul 12, Aug 11, Sep+ 8. Tot: 58, 471AB

 

JB 04: Apr 0, May 0, Jun 4, Jul 4, Aug 3, Sep+ 9. Tot: 20, 120AB

Burke is an interesting animal. Project that out to 480AB & you're looking at 80 gm impact. Better than AJ. I hope he stays with the CWS.

 

bd 04: Apr 3, May DNP, Jun DNP, Jul 2, Aug 11, Sep+ 6: Tot: 22, 193AB

Davis high/low lights -

Aug .354O .581S .936OPS .311BA mostly vs CLE, DET, KC

Sep .200O .196S .396OPS .143BA mostly ALW, MIN, KC

 

 

 

Gives you a new appreciation of AJ

[WHarris1]

Please stop.

[kapkomet]

[JUGGERNAUT]

I still have to look at the pitching! R breakdown

 

Garcia 0R 2, 1R 5, 2R 3, 3R 6, 4R 7, 5R 4, 9R 1

Contre 0R 2, 1R 6, 2R 3, 3R 3, 4R 6, 5R 5, 7R 4, 8R 2

 

Contreras is an interesting animal as well. He has shown the ability to

be a top notch starter but he implodes too often. A total of 8 more weaker starts than Garcia. Still you have to be impressed with his potential.

 

HrmSP 0R 0, 1R 4, 2R 4, 3R 2, 4R 3, 5R 3, 6R 2

HrmRP 0R 23, 1R 2, 2R 2, 4R 2

LuisRP 0R 51, 1R 14, 2R 4, 3R 3, 4R 1

 

Compared to both Garland & Contreras Hermanson doesn't look so bad as a starter. That's good insurance to have vs El Duque. As a reliever he's even more impressive. This is one of Kenny's best signings to date.

 

I feel much better about Luis Vizcaino. 51 scoreless appearances is impressive. Looking at his OBP vs, SLG vs, & BA vs would not have led you to think that. He's blessed with mental toughness.